To the both of you: My argument with Parkettpolitur from the very start is that you can't write a scientific formula for what constitutes cultural significance. There is no real SCIENCE behind it. Only human perception.
Unfortunately for you, you've said a lot more than that. You declared these determinations to be nothing more than emotional opinions. This is entirely wrong. Your implication that all things which are not subject to mathematical computation are simply matters of emotion and opinion is more than a tad radical.
If you're simply trying to win the Mr Spock award, ease up already -- you've got it. If you're hoping to understand how these determinations are actually arrived at, then you've got quite a bit to learn.
To the both of you: My argument with Parkettpolitur from the very start is that you can't write a scientific formula for what constitutes cultural significance. There is no real SCIENCE behind it. Only human perception.
There might not be a formula, but there certainly are ways to arrive at an objective judgment of specific qualities a work of art might have or not. Look, I'm not going to go into this because I'm about to go to bed and I'm not an art historian, but if what you say were true, not only would Literary studies and Art History not be sciences, we would have no way of even talking about why Joyce's Ulysses might be a more significant work than Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code or why a painting by Giotto might be a more significant work than a painting by Kinkade.
Quote:
No, that's not my argument... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?
-Clive
There is an ontological difference between an original and a copy that was produced with the aid of an apparatus, but I'm sure as hell not going to delve into Benjamin now, sorry
Okay, I'm all for the preservation of 'historic sites and landmarks' and I'm also for the preservation of holy lands and burial sites of native Americans. However, I do think we are taking this a bit too far.
- Was this house a residence of an important figure in this nations history?
- Was this house designed by a famous architect like Frank Lloyd Wright?
- Was this house the scene of an important event in our history?
- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)
If not, then this house needs to be moved by an architectural preservation society with their own funds and in a timely manner or they should take some pictures and HD video provided the OWNER will allow it and then call it a day.
Sorry if this sounds insane but if a property owner wants to remove/demolish/move/etc a building on the property then then should be within their right to do so (with limited exceptions) provided they follow the building and zoning codes of the area. Stopping the property owner from doing some SHOULD require truly extraordinary circumstances and claiming 'not too many of those style buildings still exit' sounds like a very weak argument at best.
Take a look at my first post in this thread, with all the links. The AI article is incomplete.
I agree. soon with the new world order religion, except that of worshipping our mother earth government will be banned and I hope all its practitioners will be put to death. We don't need religion in this planet. Only the government deserves to have the position of God Almighty.
Think of it, one language, one currency, one people, one world. And our lives would not have to have drama because we would have purpose... to serve our God the new world order. No one would be unhappy. And there would be no violence after the purging. There would only be compliance and happy productive people.
This would be a valid point if Steve Jobs weren't a goddamned billionaire. He's just being stubborn and stingy on this one.
And? He owns the lot, wants the lot, but doesn't want the house anymore, why should he pay anything more than demolition cost to have it hauled away? If he can't even give it away, then what value does it really have?
Besides, the architect wasn't that notable, the original owner is no longer notable, and supposedly the most notable features of the house were removed with later additions. It's certainly not a Machu Picchu, not a Wright house. I think I'm siding with the impression that this battle was waged primarily by sentimental value placed on it by the family of one of its previous owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbsmd
Steve,
Just build a house somewhere else. No big deal.
Save Our Heritage
-- Sent from my iPhone
Why can't you pool with other people to buy the house from him? If you're going to use government authority to block it, then you should be willing to compensate him for the lost property rights. Telling him he can't tear down the house and telling him to pay for all of the house's relocation so he can use the land it's on is a bit much. The word is that the house is for the taking and you won't take it? Why would you turn down that deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
Yes, because SJ is an exemplary philanthropist. Oh wait...
It's unfortunate, but it also doesn't have anything to do with this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv
People are talking about morality. Somebody said that it is not moral. I am saying that owning slaves is moral because it says so in the Bible.
That's bordering on trolling, religious comments don't belong on this forum.
Besides, the architect wasn't that notable, the original owner is no longer notable, and supposedly the most notable features of the house were removed with later additions. It's certainly not a Machu Picchu, not a Wright house. I think I'm siding with the impression that this battle was waged primarily by sentimental value placed on it by the family of one of its previous owners.
Your statements are: not true, not true, not true, not relevant, not relevant, and not true. In that order.
So according to you we could just burn the Mona Lisa, since we have high-quality posters of the painting? Christ, you can't be serious.
First of all... YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! ...
If you are trying to compare that structure on Steve's property to the Mina Lisa it's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say?
Now on to your question (as silly as it sounds). YES! YES! YES! If the OWNER (who legally paid for an item of art) - no matter WHAT it was, is allowed to do whatever they wish with it. He/She could use it as a bath mat or as a drip pan in the garage.... In this world we still have personal freedoms and doing foolish things with money happens to be just one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
No, that's not my argument... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?
'mapped it, unmapped' it doesn't matter... as I said above the owner can do as they please with something they own. I could buy up all of the Fabergé eggs in the world and play tennis with them... or see how far I can drop them without breaking them...
Atrocious acts you say? Maybe so... but whats the difference between me crushing them and some rich old fool who buys them and keeps them for himself? Either way the pubic isn't benefiting from them...
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv
If Steve owned it he could destroy it.
Finally, someone I can fully agree with.
Remember this is all about what you can and can't do with something you own... and to the person who trying to use The Mona Lisa as some kind of argument to defend the saving of that house....
Okay, I'm all for the preservation of 'historic sites and landmarks' and I'm also for the preservation of holy lands and burial sites of native Americans. However, I do think we are taking this a bit too far.
- Was this house a residence of an important figure in this nations history?
- Was this house designed by a famous architect like Frank Lloyd Wright?
- Was this house the scene of an important event in our history?
- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)
If not, then this house needs to be moved by an architectural preservation society with their own funds and in a timely manner or they should take some pictures and HD video provided the OWNER will allow it and then call it a day.
Sorry if this sounds insane but if a property owner wants to remove/demolish/move/etc a building on the property then then should be within their right to do so (with limited exceptions) provided they follow the building and zoning codes of the area. Stopping the property owner from doing some SHOULD require truly extraordinary circumstances and claiming 'not too many of those style buildings still exit' sounds like a very weak argument at best.
According to this Wikipedia page the architect was fairly popular and I'd claim that most of Santa Barbara's charm might be due to its influence. You do whatever you want to do, perhaps not of the stature of Frank Lloyd Wright but a famous architect nonetheless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...ith_(architect)
I'd say worth saving. In particular if it is one of the few or only examples of his architecture in the Bay Area
If you are trying to compare that structure on Steve's property to the Mina Lisa it's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say?
Now on to your question (as silly as it sounds). YES! YES! YES! If the OWNER (who legally paid for an item of art) - no matter WHAT it was, is allowed to do whatever they wish with it. He/She could use it as a bath mat or as a drip pan in the garage.... In this world we still have personal freedoms and doing foolish things with money happens to be just one of them.
'mapped it, unmapped' it doesn't matter... as I said above the owner can do as they please with something they own. I could buy up all of the Fabergé eggs in the world and play tennis with them... or see how far I can drop them without breaking them...
Atrocious acts you say? Maybe so... but whats the difference between me crushing them and some rich old fool who buys them and keeps them for himself? Either way the pubic isn't benefiting from them...
Finally, someone I can fully agree with.
Remember this is all about what you can and can't do with something you own... and to the person who trying to use The Mona Lisa as some kind of argument to defend the saving of that house....
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question that if a Chinese company were able to buy the statue of liberty and decided to destroy to build the headquarters of Panda Express (or anything else they wanted to build there) would that be alright, as they own the place? Would you oppose it? If a Russian Oil company were to buy Mount Rushmore, would it be alright for them to change the faces on the mountain and put Putin, Medvedev, and a few other cronies in place of the US presidents? Would someone in this country have anything to say, or should we all cheer and say that this is proof of how the US protects the private property laws? I hope the tongue in cheek angle comes across. However, what is serious is that there are limits to what one can do with private property when it interferes with public good.
Just Google images for "George Washington Smith houses" and see how nice and rather expensive they are. Goes to show others appreciate that relaxing style of architecture and willing to pay big to get it.
Steve could restore the Jackling House with his billions easy and even make it a museum if no one would buy it, but somebody would being perched on top of the exclusive hilltop and all that land around.
That sounds nice if it was something Steve actually wanted to do... The 'expense' is not the issue nor is how much lots of other people pay for them.. Steve doesn't LIKE that home he clearly likes the property and thats why he purchased it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo!
When you have as much money as Steve or Bill Gates, you have the opportunity to do certain things nobody else can to do to preserve history for later generations to appreciate.
Since you've linked a number of other examples of this mans work AND how much money the buyers paid for them it seems we have plenty of examples and its not like this is the last home standing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo!
What it sounds like it is that Steve doesn't appreciate those who appreciate other artists works. You must like what HE likes, and he likes glass and metal.
Imagine that someone who wants to live in a home that appeals to HIM... The lunatic! Let me ask you... who ordered you to buy and live in the home you're in, and be happy about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo!
Steve should just leave the Jackling House alone, sell it to someone who would restore it and take a tiny loss next to his billions before he builds a giant glass and metal behemoth on top of that hill and be the eyesore of the neighborhood.
Yea but again Steve is a big boy and already knows that he can do what he wants provided no laws or variances are being broken. I think it was is personal legal team that clued him in.
You are trying to turn this around into something that it's not.. if this home was such a rare gem of the earth then why wouldn't the George Washington Smith Society jump on it as soon as it was put up for sale... Or better still buy if from whoever was the pervious owner before it ever made it to market.
You are talking about what would be the 'really nice' thing to do (with someone else money mind you) and I am talking about what any citizen of the earth should allowed to do.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question that if a Chinese company were able to buy the statue of liberty and decided to destroy to build the headquarters of Panda Express (or anything else they wanted to build there) would that be alright, as they own the place? Would you oppose it?
Would I oppose it? Thats a silly question since first of all I'm a 2nd generation citizen of this country and can still remember my grandfather telling me of his voyage from Sicily to NY and his time spent on Ellis Island. More importantly its a silly question because the Liberty Island (and the Statue) is a national landmark and also on the National Register of Historic Places. Finally, it's been owned by the federal government since 1800. So there is little point in asking the question... You see there are avenues established by the federal government and LIKELY each and every STATE government to protect important sites/places/monuments/etc.
But if it wasn't deemed WORTH of such protections or specifically denied from such protections then YES the owner could do whatever they wanted. However I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huracan
If a Russian Oil company were to buy Mount Rushmore, would it be alright for them to change the faces on the mountain and put Putin, Medvedev, and a few other cronies in place of the US presidents? Would someone in this country have anything to say, or should we all cheer and say that this is proof of how the US protects the private property laws? I hope the tongue in cheek angle comes across. However, what is serious is that there are limits to what one can do with private property when it interferes with public good.
Yea... I don't need to repeat my point above do I?!?
Google national landmark protections and the National Register of Historic Places and while your at it the National Park Service. Theres are all used to protect both of the wonderfully vivid examples you gave.
Look people can argue till their blue in the face... but it comes down to this. If the federal, state and local governments gave someone the okay to demolish a building then that should be the end of it. If you feel that strongly lobby the proper groups who have the powers to stop it.
Look Steve purchased this property back in 1984 and had made his intentions known for quite some time... If, in all this time 15+ YEARS easy, Superman hasn't come to rescue this landmark then guess what folks he's probably not gonna come now.
But hey, never say die... those or really want to save this house and not just stick it to Steve go for it get in touch with the groups trying to save the home and donate time, money, or whatever you can. You never know it might actually work... Oh and what the heck even those who want to stick it to Steve, go with em what do I care. And if you DO happen to get this site protected then I'd certainly side with you. However, I don't have a personal interest in this and frankly don't feel the home is really worth of being put on the protected lists. If it was, it would have happened A LONG LONG LONG time ago.
Now you might think that I'm a Steve or Apple fan boy but nothing could be furhter from the truth. I do like most of their products but when I hate the stunts they pull, and as of late I think they've been pulling A LOT of em! I'm the first to say so... and often argue for pages with one of the forum admins who will go nameless and or other defenders of the faith.
Nothing I like better than trying to defend my point of view... /ah
According to this Wikipedia page the architect was fairly popular and I'd claim that most of Santa Barbara's charm might be due to its influence.
Popularity wasn't the issue. In fact he designed a relatively small number of buildings since he began his design career late and died quite young. In that time he became one of the most influential architects in California history.
Since you've linked a number of other examples of this mans work AND how much money the buyers paid for them it seems we have plenty of examples and its not like this is the last home standing.
The house is significant because it was designed by Smith. How many other examples of his work remain is not relevant.
Quote:
IYou are trying to turn this around into something that it's not.. if this home was such a rare gem of the earth then why wouldn't the George Washington Smith Society jump on it as soon as it was put up for sale... Or better still buy if from whoever was the pervious owner before it ever made it to market.
Again, not even remotely relevant. Because the house is historically significant, by the accepted definitions of significance, and as determined by a person qualified to make the judgment, the city was compelled to comply with California environmental laws before allowing it to be demolished.
Quote:
You are talking about what would be the 'really nice' thing to do (with someone else money mind you) and I am talking about what any citizen of the earth should allowed to do.
Comments
To the both of you: My argument with Parkettpolitur from the very start is that you can't write a scientific formula for what constitutes cultural significance. There is no real SCIENCE behind it. Only human perception.
Unfortunately for you, you've said a lot more than that. You declared these determinations to be nothing more than emotional opinions. This is entirely wrong. Your implication that all things which are not subject to mathematical computation are simply matters of emotion and opinion is more than a tad radical.
If you're simply trying to win the Mr Spock award, ease up already -- you've got it. If you're hoping to understand how these determinations are actually arrived at, then you've got quite a bit to learn.
To the both of you: My argument with Parkettpolitur from the very start is that you can't write a scientific formula for what constitutes cultural significance. There is no real SCIENCE behind it. Only human perception.
There might not be a formula, but there certainly are ways to arrive at an objective judgment of specific qualities a work of art might have or not. Look, I'm not going to go into this because I'm about to go to bed and I'm not an art historian, but if what you say were true, not only would Literary studies and Art History not be sciences, we would have no way of even talking about why Joyce's Ulysses might be a more significant work than Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code or why a painting by Giotto might be a more significant work than a painting by Kinkade.
No, that's not my argument... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?
-Clive
There is an ontological difference between an original and a copy that was produced with the aid of an apparatus, but I'm sure as hell not going to delve into Benjamin now, sorry
That old house looks like a cheap motel.
Yup, "Worst Western."
Or "La Choza!"
Okay, I'm all for the preservation of 'historic sites and landmarks' and I'm also for the preservation of holy lands and burial sites of native Americans. However, I do think we are taking this a bit too far.
- Was this house a residence of an important figure in this nations history?
- Was this house designed by a famous architect like Frank Lloyd Wright?
- Was this house the scene of an important event in our history?
- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)
If not, then this house needs to be moved by an architectural preservation society with their own funds and in a timely manner or they should take some pictures and HD video provided the OWNER will allow it and then call it a day.
Sorry if this sounds insane but if a property owner wants to remove/demolish/move/etc a building on the property then then should be within their right to do so (with limited exceptions) provided they follow the building and zoning codes of the area. Stopping the property owner from doing some SHOULD require truly extraordinary circumstances and claiming 'not too many of those style buildings still exit' sounds like a very weak argument at best.
Take a look at my first post in this thread, with all the links. The AI article is incomplete.
This link should work
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...3&postcount=28
I agree. soon with the new world order religion, except that of worshipping our mother earth government will be banned and I hope all its practitioners will be put to death. We don't need religion in this planet. Only the government deserves to have the position of God Almighty.
Think of it, one language, one currency, one people, one world. And our lives would not have to have drama because we would have purpose... to serve our God the new world order. No one would be unhappy. And there would be no violence after the purging. There would only be compliance and happy productive people.
Troll much?
Take a look at my first post in this thread, with all the links. The AI article is incomplete.
It's wrong, actually.
But good luck with that. I've said the same thing at least three times to no apparent effect.
Seconded
Burn mother f*cker, burn...
This would be a valid point if Steve Jobs weren't a goddamned billionaire. He's just being stubborn and stingy on this one.
And? He owns the lot, wants the lot, but doesn't want the house anymore, why should he pay anything more than demolition cost to have it hauled away? If he can't even give it away, then what value does it really have?
Besides, the architect wasn't that notable, the original owner is no longer notable, and supposedly the most notable features of the house were removed with later additions. It's certainly not a Machu Picchu, not a Wright house. I think I'm siding with the impression that this battle was waged primarily by sentimental value placed on it by the family of one of its previous owners.
Steve,
Just build a house somewhere else. No big deal.
Save Our Heritage
-- Sent from my iPhone
Why can't you pool with other people to buy the house from him? If you're going to use government authority to block it, then you should be willing to compensate him for the lost property rights. Telling him he can't tear down the house and telling him to pay for all of the house's relocation so he can use the land it's on is a bit much. The word is that the house is for the taking and you won't take it? Why would you turn down that deal?
Yes, because SJ is an exemplary philanthropist. Oh wait...
It's unfortunate, but it also doesn't have anything to do with this situation.
People are talking about morality. Somebody said that it is not moral. I am saying that owning slaves is moral because it says so in the Bible.
That's bordering on trolling, religious comments don't belong on this forum.
Besides, the architect wasn't that notable, the original owner is no longer notable, and supposedly the most notable features of the house were removed with later additions. It's certainly not a Machu Picchu, not a Wright house. I think I'm siding with the impression that this battle was waged primarily by sentimental value placed on it by the family of one of its previous owners.
Your statements are: not true, not true, not true, not relevant, not relevant, and not true. In that order.
http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org/
So according to you we could just burn the Mona Lisa, since we have high-quality posters of the painting? Christ, you can't be serious.
First of all... YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! ...
If you are trying to compare that structure on Steve's property to the Mina Lisa it's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say?
Now on to your question (as silly as it sounds). YES! YES! YES! If the OWNER (who legally paid for an item of art) - no matter WHAT it was, is allowed to do whatever they wish with it. He/She could use it as a bath mat or as a drip pan in the garage.... In this world we still have personal freedoms and doing foolish things with money happens to be just one of them.
No, that's not my argument... but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If we had mapped out every single brush stroke, and every single color, and could reproduce Mona Lisa perfectly, why not destroy the original?
'mapped it, unmapped' it doesn't matter... as I said above the owner can do as they please with something they own. I could buy up all of the Fabergé eggs in the world and play tennis with them... or see how far I can drop them without breaking them...
Atrocious acts you say? Maybe so... but whats the difference between me crushing them and some rich old fool who buys them and keeps them for himself? Either way the pubic isn't benefiting from them...
If Steve owned it he could destroy it.
Finally, someone I can fully agree with.
Remember this is all about what you can and can't do with something you own... and to the person who trying to use The Mona Lisa as some kind of argument to defend the saving of that house....
Okay, I'm all for the preservation of 'historic sites and landmarks' and I'm also for the preservation of holy lands and burial sites of native Americans. However, I do think we are taking this a bit too far.
- Was this house a residence of an important figure in this nations history?
- Was this house designed by a famous architect like Frank Lloyd Wright?
- Was this house the scene of an important event in our history?
- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)
If not, then this house needs to be moved by an architectural preservation society with their own funds and in a timely manner or they should take some pictures and HD video provided the OWNER will allow it and then call it a day.
Sorry if this sounds insane but if a property owner wants to remove/demolish/move/etc a building on the property then then should be within their right to do so (with limited exceptions) provided they follow the building and zoning codes of the area. Stopping the property owner from doing some SHOULD require truly extraordinary circumstances and claiming 'not too many of those style buildings still exit' sounds like a very weak argument at best.
According to this Wikipedia page the architect was fairly popular and I'd claim that most of Santa Barbara's charm might be due to its influence. You do whatever you want to do, perhaps not of the stature of Frank Lloyd Wright but a famous architect nonetheless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...ith_(architect)
I'd say worth saving. In particular if it is one of the few or only examples of his architecture in the Bay Area
First of all... YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! ...
If you are trying to compare that structure on Steve's property to the Mina Lisa it's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say?
Now on to your question (as silly as it sounds). YES! YES! YES! If the OWNER (who legally paid for an item of art) - no matter WHAT it was, is allowed to do whatever they wish with it. He/She could use it as a bath mat or as a drip pan in the garage.... In this world we still have personal freedoms and doing foolish things with money happens to be just one of them.
'mapped it, unmapped' it doesn't matter... as I said above the owner can do as they please with something they own. I could buy up all of the Fabergé eggs in the world and play tennis with them... or see how far I can drop them without breaking them...
Atrocious acts you say? Maybe so... but whats the difference between me crushing them and some rich old fool who buys them and keeps them for himself? Either way the pubic isn't benefiting from them...
Finally, someone I can fully agree with.
Remember this is all about what you can and can't do with something you own... and to the person who trying to use The Mona Lisa as some kind of argument to defend the saving of that house....
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question that if a Chinese company were able to buy the statue of liberty and decided to destroy to build the headquarters of Panda Express (or anything else they wanted to build there) would that be alright, as they own the place? Would you oppose it? If a Russian Oil company were to buy Mount Rushmore, would it be alright for them to change the faces on the mountain and put Putin, Medvedev, and a few other cronies in place of the US presidents? Would someone in this country have anything to say, or should we all cheer and say that this is proof of how the US protects the private property laws?
Just Google images for "George Washington Smith houses" and see how nice and rather expensive they are. Goes to show others appreciate that relaxing style of architecture and willing to pay big to get it.
Steve could restore the Jackling House with his billions easy and even make it a museum if no one would buy it, but somebody would being perched on top of the exclusive hilltop and all that land around.
That sounds nice if it was something Steve actually wanted to do... The 'expense' is not the issue nor is how much lots of other people pay for them.. Steve doesn't LIKE that home he clearly likes the property and thats why he purchased it.
When you have as much money as Steve or Bill Gates, you have the opportunity to do certain things nobody else can to do to preserve history for later generations to appreciate.
Since you've linked a number of other examples of this mans work AND how much money the buyers paid for them it seems we have plenty of examples and its not like this is the last home standing.
What it sounds like it is that Steve doesn't appreciate those who appreciate other artists works. You must like what HE likes, and he likes glass and metal.
Imagine that someone who wants to live in a home that appeals to HIM... The lunatic! Let me ask you... who ordered you to buy and live in the home you're in, and be happy about it?
Steve should just leave the Jackling House alone, sell it to someone who would restore it and take a tiny loss next to his billions before he builds a giant glass and metal behemoth on top of that hill and be the eyesore of the neighborhood.
Yea but again Steve is a big boy and already knows that he can do what he wants provided no laws or variances are being broken. I think it was is personal legal team that clued him in.
You are trying to turn this around into something that it's not.. if this home was such a rare gem of the earth then why wouldn't the George Washington Smith Society jump on it as soon as it was put up for sale... Or better still buy if from whoever was the pervious owner before it ever made it to market.
You are talking about what would be the 'really nice' thing to do (with someone else money mind you) and I am talking about what any citizen of the earth should allowed to do.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question that if a Chinese company were able to buy the statue of liberty and decided to destroy to build the headquarters of Panda Express (or anything else they wanted to build there) would that be alright, as they own the place? Would you oppose it?
Would I oppose it? Thats a silly question since first of all I'm a 2nd generation citizen of this country and can still remember my grandfather telling me of his voyage from Sicily to NY and his time spent on Ellis Island. More importantly its a silly question because the Liberty Island (and the Statue) is a national landmark and also on the National Register of Historic Places. Finally, it's been owned by the federal government since 1800. So there is little point in asking the question... You see there are avenues established by the federal government and LIKELY each and every STATE government to protect important sites/places/monuments/etc.
But if it wasn't deemed WORTH of such protections or specifically denied from such protections then YES the owner could do whatever they wanted. However I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.
If a Russian Oil company were to buy Mount Rushmore, would it be alright for them to change the faces on the mountain and put Putin, Medvedev, and a few other cronies in place of the US presidents? Would someone in this country have anything to say, or should we all cheer and say that this is proof of how the US protects the private property laws?
Yea... I don't need to repeat my point above do I?!?
Google national landmark protections and the National Register of Historic Places and while your at it the National Park Service. Theres are all used to protect both of the wonderfully vivid examples you gave.
Look Steve purchased this property back in 1984 and had made his intentions known for quite some time... If, in all this time 15+ YEARS easy, Superman hasn't come to rescue this landmark then guess what folks he's probably not gonna come now.
But hey, never say die... those or really want to save this house and not just stick it to Steve go for it get in touch with the groups trying to save the home and donate time, money, or whatever you can. You never know it might actually work... Oh and what the heck even those who want to stick it to Steve, go with em what do I care. And if you DO happen to get this site protected then I'd certainly side with you. However, I don't have a personal interest in this and frankly don't feel the home is really worth of being put on the protected lists. If it was, it would have happened A LONG LONG LONG time ago.
Now you might think that I'm a Steve or Apple fan boy but nothing could be furhter from the truth. I do like most of their products but when I hate the stunts they pull, and as of late I think they've been pulling A LOT of em! I'm the first to say so... and often argue for pages with one of the forum admins who will go nameless and or other defenders of the faith.
Nothing I like better than trying to defend my point of view... /ah
According to this Wikipedia page the architect was fairly popular and I'd claim that most of Santa Barbara's charm might be due to its influence.
Popularity wasn't the issue. In fact he designed a relatively small number of buildings since he began his design career late and died quite young. In that time he became one of the most influential architects in California history.
Since you've linked a number of other examples of this mans work AND how much money the buyers paid for them it seems we have plenty of examples and its not like this is the last home standing.
The house is significant because it was designed by Smith. How many other examples of his work remain is not relevant.
IYou are trying to turn this around into something that it's not.. if this home was such a rare gem of the earth then why wouldn't the George Washington Smith Society jump on it as soon as it was put up for sale... Or better still buy if from whoever was the pervious owner before it ever made it to market.
Again, not even remotely relevant. Because the house is historically significant, by the accepted definitions of significance, and as determined by a person qualified to make the judgment, the city was compelled to comply with California environmental laws before allowing it to be demolished.
You are talking about what would be the 'really nice' thing to do (with someone else money mind you) and I am talking about what any citizen of the earth should allowed to do.
You mean, violate the law?
It will be a magical home built at an unbelievable price, and it will be called the iStevePad...
Drop the i. It will be the StevePad Pro.