Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Steve Jobs' decade-long efforts to tear down an aging 17,250-square-foot mansion in Woodside, California, may be nearing an end, with a judge granting the Apple co-founder approval to demolish the home.



Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner last week upheld a demolition permit first approved in May 2009. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the judge ruled that Jobs presented evidence proving it would cost millions of dollars more to renovate the mansion than to build his proposed new home. The Apple CEO also reportedly tried for four years to find someone who would relocate and restore the mansion.



The sprawling mansion has 30 rooms, 14 bedrooms and 13-and-a-half bathrooms. Last year, AppleInsider posted an extensive photo gallery of the home, which was discovered by a photographer with its gates, windows and doors wide open.



In 2008, Jobs attempted to prove that it would cost $5 million more to restore the mansion than build his new home. The home was built in 1929 for coper mining mogul Daniel Jackling. Jobs bought the home in 1984 and lived in it for 10 years before renting it out. It has remained vacant since 2000.



Demolition of the building has been blocked for years by a group called Save Our Heritage. The preservation society considers Jackling House too important to destroy as it reflects a Spanish Colonial Revival style that has few remaining examples left. Previously, COH accused Jobs of letting the building fall apart to make a new building easier to justify than maintaining an old building which he has openly disdained as an eyesore.







Save Our Heritage hopes that Jobs will agree to a new offer to dismantle the home and rebuild it on a 5-acre property two miles away. Jobs is said to be in negotiations over the matter, though his lawyers would not provide comment.



A lawyer for Save Our Heritage reportedly said that the organization could appeal the latest ruling, but it is hopeful that Jobs will accept the offer to relocate the home.



Jobs originally filed for a permit to demolish the building in 2001. He was granted approval in 2004, only to have it contested and rejected three years later.
«13456711

Comments

  • manraymanray Posts: 9member
    It is his property, let him do with it as he pleases. If Save Our Heritage wants to to keep the mansion than they should pay for the relocation.
  • citycity Posts: 521member
    I can't wait to see what Jobs builds. A glass cube?
  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,375member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by manray View Post


    It is his property, let him do with it as he pleases. If Save Our Heritage wants to to keep the mansion than they should pay for the relocation.



    Seconded
  • manraymanray Posts: 9member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by city View Post


    I can't wait to see what Jobs builds. A glass cube?



    An iHouse, with no Windows..
  • gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    S... Save Our Heritage hopes that Jobs will agree to a new offer to dismantle the home and rebuild it on a 5-acre property two miles away. Jobs is said to be in negotiations over the matter, though his lawyers would not provide comment.



    A lawyer for Save Our Heritage reportedly said that the organization could appeal the latest ruling, but it is hopeful that Jobs will accept the offer to relocate the home. ...



    As far as I know, this is inaccurate. Jobs has been approached several times to relocate the building, but they wanted him to pay all the costs of doing so. At one point, I believe he found a buyer willing to pay to have it moved, but that fell apart.



    This story makes it sound like it's something Jobs has previously been "against" or refused to do when in fact he's been okay with that from the start. The trouble is that despite how valuable SOH thinks the property is, no one has actually cared about the building enough to pay for it to be moved or saved. If this "new offer" from SOH means they will pay to have it moved, then it will probably happen, if they still want Jobs to pay for it, then probably not is my guess.
  • macintekmacintek Posts: 24member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by manray View Post


    It is his property, let him do with it as he pleases. If Save Our Heritage wants to to keep the mansion than they should pay for the relocation.



    Thirded. I've said it before... I've been in that house many times... its NOT historical, just a big old house with a pipe organ in the ballroom. And?
  • doctorbenwaydoctorbenway Posts: 205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacinTek View Post


    Thirded. I've said it before... I've been in that house many times... its NOT historical, just a big old house with a pipe organ in the ballroom. And?



    I'd heard on a Flickr photostream of the inside of the house that the organ had been sold off.



    Also heard rumors of a model of the house Jobs wanted to put there. Anyone know anything on that? I'm not even sure he's ever going to leave Palo Alto since his wife has in-town businesses. Perhaps he'll put the land into a conservatory trust.



    The article notes it's also 160 feet from a branch of the freakin' San Andreas Fault. Cozy.
  • sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    When Jobs builds his iHome the SOH will have a new style of rare architecture to preserve.
  • rbonnerrbonner Posts: 598member
    How is this news?
  • adamiigsadamiigs Posts: 355member
    The yard is perfect though eh?
  • bytorbytor Posts: 20member
    As I remember the local governing agency required that Jobs not demolish the building until sufficient time had passed to try and locate someone who would want it for "historical" purposes. The problem is that all of the public agencies and historic preservation groups never seem to consider economics when calling something "historic". As a real estate appraiser, I have seen more instances where this classification has done more harm than good. Many properties that are deemed "historic" are typically old buildings that no one has the funds or interest in restoring. Most of these should be demolished and allowed to develop into higher and better uses. The "historic" designation more often than not is a detriment to a property as opposed to a benefit. I think this has been a prime example of this abuse...kuddo's to Mr. Jobs, demolish and build what you desire. May freedom and private property rights flourish!!
  • dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    As far as I know, this is inaccurate. Jobs has been approached several times to relocate the building, but they wanted him to pay all the costs of doing so. At one point, I believe he found a buyer willing to pay to have it moved, but that fell apart.



    This story makes it sound like it's something Jobs has previously been "against" or refused to do when in fact he's been okay with that from the start. The trouble is that despite how valuable SOH thinks the property is, no one has actually cared about the building enough to pay for it to be moved or saved. If this "new offer" from SOH means they will pay to have it moved, then it will probably happen, if they still want Jobs to pay for it, then probably not is my guess.



    Not accurate. The significance of a historic property is not dependent on whether someone is able to move it, not even slightly.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacinTek View Post


    Thirded. I've said it before... I've been in that house many times... its NOT historical, just a big old house with a pipe organ in the ballroom. And?



    Not accurate. The historical significance of the house was never actually in dispute.



    In addition, the article has the significance of the home misstated. It was never seen as being significant "as it reflects a Spanish Colonial Revival style that has few remaining examples left." This is wrong. The house was considered significant due to its owner and architect.



    Again, the dispute was never over the property's significance. The dispute was entirely over whether the city had met its statutory requirements under California's environmental laws to consider adverse impacts and alternatives which could avoid or reduce them.



    Not as emotionally satisfying for some I'm sure, but true.
  • rainrain Posts: 538member
    Spanish Colonial Revival Style - we just aren't that into you.
  • soybeangumdropsoybeangumdrop Posts: 3member
    It will be a magical home built at an unbelievable price, and it will be called the iStevePad...
  • gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Not accurate. The significance of a historic property is not dependent on whether someone is able to move it, not even slightly.

    ...



    I don't think I actually said it was.



    I just said that the article implied Jobs was somehow an obstacle to having the building moved so it could be saved, when he is not. Other than refusing to volunteer to pay for the move himself (which is likely what the people who want him to save it would like to see), there is no obstacle to anyone wanting to save this historic building.



    What's happened though is that no one wants to save it enough to have come up with the money to pay for it.
  • magic_almagic_al Posts: 325member
    Spanish Colonial REVIVAL? Not actually Spanish Colonial? That doesn't sound very preservation-worthy. Can't anyone revive Spanish Colonial anytime they want? "Build me something that looks Spanish Colonial!" Ta-da!
  • rainrain Posts: 538member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post


    Spanish Colonial REVIVAL? Not actually Spanish Colonial? That doesn't sound very preservation-worthy. Can't anyone revive Spanish Colonial anytime they want? "Build me something that looks Spanish Colonial!" Ta-da!



    Exactly. Unless reviving Spanish Colonial homes has become so popular it's generated it's own 'style' to be celebrated throughout history
  • jupiteronejupiterone Posts: 1,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post


    Spanish Colonial REVIVAL? Not actually Spanish Colonial? That doesn't sound very preservation-worthy. Can't anyone revive Spanish Colonial anytime they want? "Build me something that looks Spanish Colonial!" Ta-da!



    "Nowadays you get your clothes back from the dry cleaner and it's a revival."



  • earthshipearthship Posts: 1member
    Steve should show the world how to live green and integrated with the products he has created. He should build an earthship...



    An Earthship is a radically sustainable home made of recycled materials.



    Electricity is from the sun with solar panels and wind with wind modules.

    Water is caught on the roof from rain and snow melt.

    Sewage is treated on site in interior and external botanical planters.

    Heating and Cooling is from the sun and the earth.

    Food is grown inside and outside.
  • solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    How is this news?



    How is it not news? This has been a long standing issue for Jobs that he's finally won. You may not be interested in it, but it's news just the same.
Sign In or Register to comment.