Actually, I think I showed up here many years before you did. But be that as it may I did do a search and found that we both expressed ourselves similarly over a year ago here.
I take you at your word on credentials and bow to your superior expertise. I accept that the place has been deemed significant by someone who should know based on whatever criteria obtain here.
However, that doesn't stop me from having a personal opinion. There is no question that Smith is a significant architect. But I think there are far better examples of G.W.'s work elsewhere in California. My cousin owned one for a time in Santa Barbara. Based solely on the photos I saw I of this place, it was not very compelling. Not that that matters to anyone but me. Thanks for taking the time to fill me and others in.
The thing is, it's not a contest. If a building is designed by a "master architect" (which Smith certainly was) just about anything he designed is going to be significant on that basis. In Smith's case in particular, he practiced for a relatively short time but his influence was very great, so it's hard to argue against the significance of any remaining examples of his work, unless they are heavily altered.
Steve, in what I'd call one of his worst public moments ever, said near the beginning of this controversy that Smith could not be important because he'd never heard of him. That's a bit like claiming that Mars can't possibly exist because you've never been there. Not a very sound argument coming from such an otherwise smart guy.
Yeah, I see you've been around here longer than I realized.
I understand what you are saying, Doc. I really do. But just to put things in perspective, think of where the San Francisco Bay Area would be if BART had not been built at all? If every time they started digging in the Market Street area, someone stood up and said "Wait! That sidewalk storefront is historic! There's no way they can tear that down an make it new!"
As it was, it only took what, over 20 something years to get the damn thing to run all the way the SF Airport? Different issue, I understand. But I think you know what I am getting at here.
Perhaps we need to take a lesson from Europe - where somehow they always manage to work it all out.
Europe actually has very strong historical preservation laws as well as very strong zoning laws that GREATLY restrict what people can do with private property. And as a result, most city cores in Europe are still quite beautiful and lack the chain stores, garish primary-colored plastic signs, and cheap awful modern architecture. Have you been to Paris? With very few exceptions, you cannot tear down anything in Paris proper, especially buildings constructed during the Haussmann period (1852-1870) or before, which is almost every building.
Most of America now looks like New Jersey - filled with strip malls, big box stores and gas stations. You know that store that Apple just opened in Covent Gardens in London? Well...they had to preserve the original architecture. I realize in this case we're talking about a private home, but Europe also has very restrictive laws in this regard. You cannot tear down an historic house and put up some McMansion just because you feel like it.
The reason why it happens in the U.S. is because we've become so dumbed down, we know nothing about history and architecture. Because we know nothing about it, we don't care about it. We only care about money and we think having money gives someone the right to do whatever they want. I completely disagree with the notion that those with the most money get to decide how the entire country is going to look, because their decisions are based only on how much return they can get on their investment dollar or on their incredibly poor uneducated taste.
The article doesn't state how much the couple was willing to pay towards moving the house to another location, but if it was anything reasonable, Jobs should have worked with them. For someone who is supposedly so attuned to design, if there is any merit to the architecture of that house, Jobs should have done everything he can to support such a move. It's not like he can't afford it. I don't know why he bothered to buy the house in the first place if he wanted to tear it down. Is the location that great?
Check out the last entry on this forum. Is that for real, or a joke based on the fact that a copy of that video appears among the detritis shown in the unofficial photos that were posted? I'm guessing joke. Probably posted by someone inspired by the current news about it.
No one really cares about this house except a few people who have too much time on their hands ... it's Jobs private property. Yes, we still have private property rights. Take a bunch of pictures and preserve those.
It did not take 26 years. That's only how long he owned the property; it was only a few years ago that he declared his intention to demolish it. And yes, the property was historic, as determined by a professional architectural historian. This fact was never in question. It was not in dispute. The entire business was a procedural matter based on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
You are both incorrect. The significance of the house was never in dispute.
While this is only my opinion, here's how I see it:
Dr. Millmoss, you said ... "And yes, the property was historic, as determined by a professional architectural historian". ( bold emphasis mine) ..... I can probably find you a professional medical doctor who is willing to state that smoking does not cause cancer. These are just opinions of so-called professional people and in all probability there are just as many people of the same or equal qualifications who would state the exact opposite.
So I think the significance of the house was always, and probably still is, "in dispute"...... just sayin'
These are probably the same people who try to stop cell towers from being erected in SF too. So they are the ones responsible for poor reception in the valley.
I am not a professional architectural historian, but I do have some credentials in this area. I wrote the definitive history of the Merced Theatre of Los Angeles (built 1870) by architect Ezra Kysor. I am disputing the historical significance of this house based on what I have seen. I went over the photos of the interior that were published a year or so ago, and it is a terrible mish-mosh of styles. The question is: of what significance is it? I would say, not much.
Robin is correct.
I saw those same pictures and the Jackling House is indeed rather ugly. It has been carelessly renovated many times during its history and most of the distinguished features of the original design have been altered to the point where there is very little of historical significance. It's even arguable whether or not this architectural style was all that great to begin with.
That said, the demolition permit already calls for preservation of the historically significant pieces as determined by an architectural historian; Michael R. Corbett is doing the inventory right now. The town of Woodside gets first dibs on these items.
While this is only my opinion, here's how I see it:
Dr. Millmoss, you said ... "And yes, the property was historic, as determined by a professional architectural historian". ( bold emphasis mine) ..... I can probably find you a professional medical doctor who is willing to state that smoking does not cause cancer. These are just opinions of so-called professional people and in all probability there are just as many people of the same or equal qualifications who would state the exact opposite.
So I think the significance of the house was always, and probably still is, "in dispute"...... just sayin'
Just saying is right. The reality that you can always find a nut to say something nutty does not render facts disputable. The person who wrote this report is not a nut and the conclusions were not nutty, they were fact-based, which is why they were not challenged. I assume Steve hired him, since that's the way it normally works.
I saw those same pictures and the Jackling House is indeed rather ugly. It has been carelessly renovated many times during its history and most of the distinguished features of the original design have been altered to the point where there is very little of historical significance. It's even arguable whether or not this architectural style was all that great to begin with.
That said, the demolition permit already calls for preservation of the historically significant pieces (as determined by an architectural historian who is doing the inventory right now) with the town of Woodside getting first dibs on these items.
Well then, I suggest you file an injunction against the City of Woodside arguing that the house is of significant historical value where it should not be demolished and that the demolition permit of 2009 should be revoked.
Again, a professional architectural historian is currently doing the inventory of the parts that are to be removed before the demolition.
Disclaimer: I am not an architectural historian. I do find the house to be rather ugly. For me, the demolition permit with the proposed preservation of select artifacts is sufficient, but then again, I don't live in Woodside.
Your passionate defense of the building is refreshing in this forum though.
Well then, I suggest you file an injunction against the City of Woodside arguing that the house is of significant historical value where it should not be demolished and that the demolition permit of 2009 should be revoked.
Again, a professional architectural historian is currently doing the inventory of the parts that are to be removed before the demolition.
Disclaimer: I am not an architectural historian. I do find the house to be rather ugly. For me, the demolition permit with the proposed preservation of select artifacts is sufficient, but then again, I don't live in Woodside.
Your passionate defense of the building is refreshing in this forum though.
I am not "defending" the building, passionately or otherwise. If you think that, then you haven't read anything I've written, or perhaps just not understood it. I am only attempting to explain the facts as they have already been established, and something about the process. Anyone who states that the house is "not historic," is simply wrong on the facts.
I am not "defending" the building, passionately or otherwise. If you think that, then you haven't read anything I've written, or perhaps just not understood it. I am only attempting to explain the facts as they have already been established, and something about the process. Anyone who states that the house is "not historic," is simply wrong on the facts.
I am not "defending" the building, passionately or otherwise. If you think that, then you haven't read anything I've written, or perhaps just not understood it. I am only attempting to explain the facts as they have already been established, and something about the process. Anyone who states that the house is "not historic," is simply wrong on the facts.
Well, perhaps I don't understand your point.
The Jackling House -- at least in its current state -- has been decided to not be of enough historical significance to protect as a whole. It will be torn down after certain elements (as determined by a professional architectural historian) are removed. That's the fact per the demolition permit issued by the City of Woodside in 2009.
- when Steve Jobs bought it the house was not on any historic registry.
If it wasn't owned by Jobs no one apparently gave a rats azz about it. Because it wasn't on any registry when Jobs bought it he thought rightly he could demolish it. Instead he was embroiled in a legal tussle with 'preservationists' who went crazy doubtlessly because it was Steve Jobs house. Unknown groups, 'historians' , 'conservationists' got famous challenging steve (doubtlessly it helped in fund raising campaigns etc). . One group drove all the way from Florida to protest. Reminds me of Greenpeace always picking on Apple instead of a cheap PC makers in spite of Apple stuff being mostly recyclable aluminum and glass and PC guys stuff is plastic, you get headlines if you pick on Apple. AFTER Jobs bought it the 'conservationists' said it should be on a registry, weird they didn't bother to do it for years before that...
- Steve offered the house to anyone for nothing (for $1) if they would move it. There weren't any takers except I think a family who wanted to live it, wanted it for nothing and wanted Steve Jobs to PAY for the move. No other serious offers. If it was so historically significant why doesn't anyone want it and are willing to pay for the move? i.e the movers time and effort is valued higher than this supposedly significant historic site.
Europe actually has very strong historical preservation laws as well as very strong zoning laws that GREATLY restrict what people can do with private property. And as a result, most city cores in Europe are still quite beautiful and lack the chain stores, garish primary-colored plastic signs, and cheap awful modern architecture. Have you been to Paris? With very few exceptions, you cannot tear down anything in Paris proper, especially buildings constructed during the Haussmann period (1852-1870) or before, which is almost every building.
Most of America now looks like New Jersey - filled with strip malls, big box stores and gas stations. You know that store that Apple just opened in Covent Gardens in London? Well...they had to preserve the original architecture. I realize in this case we're talking about a private home, but Europe also has very restrictive laws in this regard. You cannot tear down an historic house and put up some McMansion just because you feel like it.
The reason why it happens in the U.S. is because we've become so dumbed down, we know nothing about history and architecture. Because we know nothing about it, we don't care about it. We only care about money and we think having money gives someone the right to do whatever they want. I completely disagree with the notion that those with the most money get to decide how the entire country is going to look, because their decisions are based only on how much return they can get on their investment dollar or on their incredibly poor uneducated taste.
The article doesn't state how much the couple was willing to pay towards moving the house to another location, but if it was anything reasonable, Jobs should have worked with them. For someone who is supposedly so attuned to design, if there is any merit to the architecture of that house, Jobs should have done everything he can to support such a move. It's not like he can't afford it. I don't know why he bothered to buy the house in the first place if he wanted to tear it down. Is the location that great?
Just so there is no misunderstanding. I am in no way a fan of strip malling of America, or anywhere else. I have watched with much dismay while older neighborhoods were bulldozed to be replaced by some of the ugliest faux whatever you can imagine. I do like to find balance in my life, though. I can agree on some points with those that cling to property rights, but find the fact that people actually believe they own a piece of the earth, stream or tree to be mildly amusing. It reminds me of the old Samuel Clemens quote: "Buy land. They're not making it anymore!"
My point about BART was that much of what they faced in building it had to do with people who didn't want BART doing everything they could to stop it. The funny thing is, I would bet that many of those same folks and their extended families wouldn't know what to do without it now.
I also had the misfortune of having dealt with those that feel that it is OK to kill dozens of trees, that don't even sit on their property, by topping them off - just so their view of Lake Tahoe was "cleaner". When confronted, he just started writing checks until those that challenged him went away. No one took him to court - he was only fined. I will suggest that the trees he killed were far older than he was and would take just as long, or longer, to grow back.
But I have also seen how Mission Delores has become a wreck now, I assume due to lack of funding, when it once inspired people of all ages to the rich history of California. Conversely, I have often wondered, while traveling, what this town or that hamlet must have looked like before being completed destroyed during WWII, then rebuilt. And to whose standards or designs?
The travesty here, to me at least, is that the Jackling house has become a weird lightening rod for some very bizarre opinions, mine included. But there are plenty of people around who would love it to this day if they could tear down the Coliseum in Rome and build a new hotel, complete with a "Coliseum Adventure" ride, Day Spa and Casino.
It's what we as individuals, a people, a culture or a nation do about the issues that divide us that will determine who, and what, we are. The way things are now, it is often those that shout the loudest, or grab the spotlight, that get their way.
The Jackling House -- at least in its current state -- has been decided to not be of enough historical significance to protect as a whole. It will be torn down after certain elements (as determined by a professional architectural historian) are removed. That's the fact per the demolition permit issued by the City of Woodside in 2009.
Fact.
No, you don't understand. Historic buildings are torn down all the time. They are torn down not because they fail to be historic, but because very few historic buildings are actually protected from demolition. This one never was, and that was never what the hubbub was about. Anyhow, once they are gone, they are no longer historic, because they no longer exist. So I suppose you are right that far.
No, you don't understand. Historic buildings are torn down all the time. They are torn down not because they fail to be historic, but because very few historic buildings are actually protected from demolition. This one never was, and that was never what the hubbub was about. Anyhow, once they are gone, they are no longer historic, because they no longer exist. So I suppose you are right that far.
I think his point was that is wasn't of sufficient historical significance to warrant protection. Whatever that magic threshold is, it was not passed.
For you, all such buildings are historic. For the rest of us layfolks, only those of protected status appear to be truly "historic" in nature.
It should be interesting to see what Jobs builds there if anything. I expect something far more aesthetic than what Bill Gates built...
Comments
Mr. Jobs, PLEASE donate the organ and pipes to a church! Real pipe organs are a rare and fabulous instrument!
Agreed that the organ should be saved.
More on the Jackling house:
http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org/
http://www.terrastories.com/bearings...house-showdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackling_House
The Jackling House Organ?Should be saved, moved and restored.
http://scotthaefner.com/photos/place...ng+House/2136/
Living in LA is was sad to see the old Atlantic Richfield go--long time Angelinos might remember the black and gold Art Deco building @
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richfield_Tower
http://www.publicartinla.com/Downtow...eld_doors.html
Actually, I think I showed up here many years before you did. But be that as it may I did do a search and found that we both expressed ourselves similarly over a year ago here.
I take you at your word on credentials and bow to your superior expertise. I accept that the place has been deemed significant by someone who should know based on whatever criteria obtain here.
However, that doesn't stop me from having a personal opinion. There is no question that Smith is a significant architect. But I think there are far better examples of G.W.'s work elsewhere in California. My cousin owned one for a time in Santa Barbara. Based solely on the photos I saw I of this place, it was not very compelling. Not that that matters to anyone but me. Thanks for taking the time to fill me and others in.
The thing is, it's not a contest. If a building is designed by a "master architect" (which Smith certainly was) just about anything he designed is going to be significant on that basis. In Smith's case in particular, he practiced for a relatively short time but his influence was very great, so it's hard to argue against the significance of any remaining examples of his work, unless they are heavily altered.
Steve, in what I'd call one of his worst public moments ever, said near the beginning of this controversy that Smith could not be important because he'd never heard of him. That's a bit like claiming that Mars can't possibly exist because you've never been there. Not a very sound argument coming from such an otherwise smart guy.
Yeah, I see you've been around here longer than I realized.
I understand what you are saying, Doc. I really do. But just to put things in perspective, think of where the San Francisco Bay Area would be if BART had not been built at all? If every time they started digging in the Market Street area, someone stood up and said "Wait! That sidewalk storefront is historic! There's no way they can tear that down an make it new!"
As it was, it only took what, over 20 something years to get the damn thing to run all the way the SF Airport? Different issue, I understand. But I think you know what I am getting at here.
Perhaps we need to take a lesson from Europe - where somehow they always manage to work it all out.
Europe actually has very strong historical preservation laws as well as very strong zoning laws that GREATLY restrict what people can do with private property. And as a result, most city cores in Europe are still quite beautiful and lack the chain stores, garish primary-colored plastic signs, and cheap awful modern architecture. Have you been to Paris? With very few exceptions, you cannot tear down anything in Paris proper, especially buildings constructed during the Haussmann period (1852-1870) or before, which is almost every building.
Most of America now looks like New Jersey - filled with strip malls, big box stores and gas stations. You know that store that Apple just opened in Covent Gardens in London? Well...they had to preserve the original architecture. I realize in this case we're talking about a private home, but Europe also has very restrictive laws in this regard. You cannot tear down an historic house and put up some McMansion just because you feel like it.
The reason why it happens in the U.S. is because we've become so dumbed down, we know nothing about history and architecture. Because we know nothing about it, we don't care about it. We only care about money and we think having money gives someone the right to do whatever they want. I completely disagree with the notion that those with the most money get to decide how the entire country is going to look, because their decisions are based only on how much return they can get on their investment dollar or on their incredibly poor uneducated taste.
The article doesn't state how much the couple was willing to pay towards moving the house to another location, but if it was anything reasonable, Jobs should have worked with them. For someone who is supposedly so attuned to design, if there is any merit to the architecture of that house, Jobs should have done everything he can to support such a move. It's not like he can't afford it. I don't know why he bothered to buy the house in the first place if he wanted to tear it down. Is the location that great?
http://www.terrastories.com/bearings...comment-123432
It did not take 26 years. That's only how long he owned the property; it was only a few years ago that he declared his intention to demolish it. And yes, the property was historic, as determined by a professional architectural historian. This fact was never in question. It was not in dispute. The entire business was a procedural matter based on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
You are both incorrect. The significance of the house was never in dispute.
While this is only my opinion, here's how I see it:
Dr. Millmoss, you said ... "And yes, the property was historic, as determined by a professional architectural historian". ( bold emphasis mine) ..... I can probably find you a professional medical doctor who is willing to state that smoking does not cause cancer. These are just opinions of so-called professional people and in all probability there are just as many people of the same or equal qualifications who would state the exact opposite.
So I think the significance of the house was always, and probably still is, "in dispute"...... just sayin'
These are probably the same people who try to stop cell towers from being erected in SF too. So they are the ones responsible for poor reception in the valley.
Damn right you are! They're called hippies.
I am not a professional architectural historian, but I do have some credentials in this area. I wrote the definitive history of the Merced Theatre of Los Angeles (built 1870) by architect Ezra Kysor. I am disputing the historical significance of this house based on what I have seen. I went over the photos of the interior that were published a year or so ago, and it is a terrible mish-mosh of styles. The question is: of what significance is it? I would say, not much.
Robin is correct.
I saw those same pictures and the Jackling House is indeed rather ugly. It has been carelessly renovated many times during its history and most of the distinguished features of the original design have been altered to the point where there is very little of historical significance. It's even arguable whether or not this architectural style was all that great to begin with.
That said, the demolition permit already calls for preservation of the historically significant pieces as determined by an architectural historian; Michael R. Corbett is doing the inventory right now. The town of Woodside gets first dibs on these items.
While this is only my opinion, here's how I see it:
Dr. Millmoss, you said ... "And yes, the property was historic, as determined by a professional architectural historian". ( bold emphasis mine) ..... I can probably find you a professional medical doctor who is willing to state that smoking does not cause cancer. These are just opinions of so-called professional people and in all probability there are just as many people of the same or equal qualifications who would state the exact opposite.
So I think the significance of the house was always, and probably still is, "in dispute"...... just sayin'
Just saying is right. The reality that you can always find a nut to say something nutty does not render facts disputable. The person who wrote this report is not a nut and the conclusions were not nutty, they were fact-based, which is why they were not challenged. I assume Steve hired him, since that's the way it normally works.
Robin is correct.
I saw those same pictures and the Jackling House is indeed rather ugly. It has been carelessly renovated many times during its history and most of the distinguished features of the original design have been altered to the point where there is very little of historical significance. It's even arguable whether or not this architectural style was all that great to begin with.
That said, the demolition permit already calls for preservation of the historically significant pieces (as determined by an architectural historian who is doing the inventory right now) with the town of Woodside getting first dibs on these items.
Robin is not correct.
Again, a professional architectural historian is currently doing the inventory of the parts that are to be removed before the demolition.
Disclaimer: I am not an architectural historian. I do find the house to be rather ugly. For me, the demolition permit with the proposed preservation of select artifacts is sufficient, but then again, I don't live in Woodside.
Your passionate defense of the building is refreshing in this forum though.
Well then, I suggest you file an injunction against the City of Woodside arguing that the house is of significant historical value where it should not be demolished and that the demolition permit of 2009 should be revoked.
Again, a professional architectural historian is currently doing the inventory of the parts that are to be removed before the demolition.
Disclaimer: I am not an architectural historian. I do find the house to be rather ugly. For me, the demolition permit with the proposed preservation of select artifacts is sufficient, but then again, I don't live in Woodside.
Your passionate defense of the building is refreshing in this forum though.
I am not "defending" the building, passionately or otherwise. If you think that, then you haven't read anything I've written, or perhaps just not understood it. I am only attempting to explain the facts as they have already been established, and something about the process. Anyone who states that the house is "not historic," is simply wrong on the facts.
I am not "defending" the building, passionately or otherwise. If you think that, then you haven't read anything I've written, or perhaps just not understood it. I am only attempting to explain the facts as they have already been established, and something about the process. Anyone who states that the house is "not historic," is simply wrong on the facts.
Your explanation of the facts is appreciated.
I am not "defending" the building, passionately or otherwise. If you think that, then you haven't read anything I've written, or perhaps just not understood it. I am only attempting to explain the facts as they have already been established, and something about the process. Anyone who states that the house is "not historic," is simply wrong on the facts.
Well, perhaps I don't understand your point.
The Jackling House -- at least in its current state -- has been decided to not be of enough historical significance to protect as a whole. It will be torn down after certain elements (as determined by a professional architectural historian) are removed. That's the fact per the demolition permit issued by the City of Woodside in 2009.
Fact.
- when Steve Jobs bought it the house was not on any historic registry.
If it wasn't owned by Jobs no one apparently gave a rats azz about it. Because it wasn't on any registry when Jobs bought it he thought rightly he could demolish it. Instead he was embroiled in a legal tussle with 'preservationists' who went crazy doubtlessly because it was Steve Jobs house. Unknown groups, 'historians' , 'conservationists' got famous challenging steve (doubtlessly it helped in fund raising campaigns etc). . One group drove all the way from Florida to protest. Reminds me of Greenpeace always picking on Apple instead of a cheap PC makers in spite of Apple stuff being mostly recyclable aluminum and glass and PC guys stuff is plastic, you get headlines if you pick on Apple. AFTER Jobs bought it the 'conservationists' said it should be on a registry, weird they didn't bother to do it for years before that...
- Steve offered the house to anyone for nothing (for $1) if they would move it. There weren't any takers except I think a family who wanted to live it, wanted it for nothing and wanted Steve Jobs to PAY for the move. No other serious offers. If it was so historically significant why doesn't anyone want it and are willing to pay for the move? i.e the movers time and effort is valued higher than this supposedly significant historic site.
Europe actually has very strong historical preservation laws as well as very strong zoning laws that GREATLY restrict what people can do with private property. And as a result, most city cores in Europe are still quite beautiful and lack the chain stores, garish primary-colored plastic signs, and cheap awful modern architecture. Have you been to Paris? With very few exceptions, you cannot tear down anything in Paris proper, especially buildings constructed during the Haussmann period (1852-1870) or before, which is almost every building.
Most of America now looks like New Jersey - filled with strip malls, big box stores and gas stations. You know that store that Apple just opened in Covent Gardens in London? Well...they had to preserve the original architecture. I realize in this case we're talking about a private home, but Europe also has very restrictive laws in this regard. You cannot tear down an historic house and put up some McMansion just because you feel like it.
The reason why it happens in the U.S. is because we've become so dumbed down, we know nothing about history and architecture. Because we know nothing about it, we don't care about it. We only care about money and we think having money gives someone the right to do whatever they want. I completely disagree with the notion that those with the most money get to decide how the entire country is going to look, because their decisions are based only on how much return they can get on their investment dollar or on their incredibly poor uneducated taste.
The article doesn't state how much the couple was willing to pay towards moving the house to another location, but if it was anything reasonable, Jobs should have worked with them. For someone who is supposedly so attuned to design, if there is any merit to the architecture of that house, Jobs should have done everything he can to support such a move. It's not like he can't afford it. I don't know why he bothered to buy the house in the first place if he wanted to tear it down. Is the location that great?
Just so there is no misunderstanding. I am in no way a fan of strip malling of America, or anywhere else. I have watched with much dismay while older neighborhoods were bulldozed to be replaced by some of the ugliest faux whatever you can imagine. I do like to find balance in my life, though. I can agree on some points with those that cling to property rights, but find the fact that people actually believe they own a piece of the earth, stream or tree to be mildly amusing. It reminds me of the old Samuel Clemens quote: "Buy land. They're not making it anymore!"
My point about BART was that much of what they faced in building it had to do with people who didn't want BART doing everything they could to stop it. The funny thing is, I would bet that many of those same folks and their extended families wouldn't know what to do without it now.
I also had the misfortune of having dealt with those that feel that it is OK to kill dozens of trees, that don't even sit on their property, by topping them off - just so their view of Lake Tahoe was "cleaner". When confronted, he just started writing checks until those that challenged him went away. No one took him to court - he was only fined. I will suggest that the trees he killed were far older than he was and would take just as long, or longer, to grow back.
But I have also seen how Mission Delores has become a wreck now, I assume due to lack of funding, when it once inspired people of all ages to the rich history of California. Conversely, I have often wondered, while traveling, what this town or that hamlet must have looked like before being completed destroyed during WWII, then rebuilt. And to whose standards or designs?
The travesty here, to me at least, is that the Jackling house has become a weird lightening rod for some very bizarre opinions, mine included. But there are plenty of people around who would love it to this day if they could tear down the Coliseum in Rome and build a new hotel, complete with a "Coliseum Adventure" ride, Day Spa and Casino.
It's what we as individuals, a people, a culture or a nation do about the issues that divide us that will determine who, and what, we are. The way things are now, it is often those that shout the loudest, or grab the spotlight, that get their way.
Mr. Jobs, PLEASE donate the organ and pipes to a church! Real pipe organs are a rare and fabulous instrument!
Yes that pipe organ may be of interest to some oldie collection group.
Jobs should have offered 10,000 MacPluses to those who a stuck in the past.
Historic house; so what it doesn't fit todays lifestyle and I'm sure it is much more expensive to cool than a modern much smaller house.
BTW IMO it's UGLY !
Well, perhaps I don't understand your point.
The Jackling House -- at least in its current state -- has been decided to not be of enough historical significance to protect as a whole. It will be torn down after certain elements (as determined by a professional architectural historian) are removed. That's the fact per the demolition permit issued by the City of Woodside in 2009.
Fact.
No, you don't understand. Historic buildings are torn down all the time. They are torn down not because they fail to be historic, but because very few historic buildings are actually protected from demolition. This one never was, and that was never what the hubbub was about. Anyhow, once they are gone, they are no longer historic, because they no longer exist. So I suppose you are right that far.
No, you don't understand. Historic buildings are torn down all the time. They are torn down not because they fail to be historic, but because very few historic buildings are actually protected from demolition. This one never was, and that was never what the hubbub was about. Anyhow, once they are gone, they are no longer historic, because they no longer exist. So I suppose you are right that far.
I think his point was that is wasn't of sufficient historical significance to warrant protection. Whatever that magic threshold is, it was not passed.
For you, all such buildings are historic. For the rest of us layfolks, only those of protected status appear to be truly "historic" in nature.
It should be interesting to see what Jobs builds there if anything. I expect something far more aesthetic than what Bill Gates built...