Steve Jobs' Jackling mansion nightmare still not over

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 114
    simon8simon8 Posts: 4member
    What an interesting read this thread is. So... non of us are supposed to know who this architect is? I didn't, but I'm no expert. Looked him up, showed up on wikipedia, didn't sound so impressive to me. Then don't really know much about American architecture since I guess its still quite a young country compared to lots of others.



    So looked again for 'American architects' and found this...



    http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fna.../architec.html



    which doesn't even include his name.



    I don't get what the doc is saying about this whole thing not being about the significance of the building? Are you saying that its significant because of the architect? That's the impression I'm getting. Loads of things could be significant given time. Some things go out of fashion and then come back in. Yeah this building might be worth something to someone, but I bet lots more people would visit it in a hundred years if it was the house that Steve built. ( I find the current building really ugly)



    Are there not houses like that in Miami? Sort of Spanish revival revival?



    Haha I'm such a philistine, but doc, you're really not helping by not explaining what the deal is with this house or architect. Wikipedia says he's a no one and not remembered until the issues with this house was brought up... maybe you should update it?
  • Reply 102 of 114
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    The significance of the architect been explained multiple times in the multiple threads on this topic. The short answer is that Smith is credited with being one of the originators of the California regional architectural style known as Spanish Revival (or Spanish Colonial Revival). He is also regarded as one of the masters of the style. The "I haven't heard of him so he could not be important" argument is sadly the one Steve used a few years ago. Like some in these threads, he was professing the idea that his ignorance on the topic made him an expert on the topic. You hate to see people whom you otherwise regard as intelligent making this sort of argument, but I guess it happens. I just hope he doesn't run Apple that way.



    As I have also explained many, many times in these threads, the important fact to understand is that the significance of the property is not in dispute. This was established in a technical report prepared by an architectural historian. If the significance had not been professionally established, and accepted as true and correct, none of the events which followed would have occurred, because the question of the property's historical significance would have been settled in the negative. It was only because the question was settled in the positive that California's environmental laws were called into play. The lawsuits were a spin-off from that.
  • Reply 103 of 114
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Of course academics in specialist fields tend to divide and subdivide their field in to categories ad-naseum. What if tomorrow some academic decides there are in fact *two* important sub-categories of Spanish Colonial Revival, therefore properties on both sides of the divide must be preserved - how many more people instantly lose their property rights?



    Spanish Colonial Revival does not seem like a serious architectural category to me, such as Victorian architecture. It is more like a fad from what was a very faddish age. Advocating for it only makes architectural history look like an unserious profession.
  • Reply 104 of 114
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Jobs bought this house, now he's being told by someone else what he can and can't do with it. People buy iPhones and iPod Touches, but Apple decides what they can and can't do with them.



    Anyone see the parallelism here? What goes around comes around Jobs, you prick.





    Anyways, common sense says tear it down. Common sense also says let people do what they want with the phones they paid money for. Can't have common sense when you are working with mass amounts of money I suppose. I think the place has been documented, photos have been taken, video has been made, and whatever important significance this house had has been been duly noted. It's time to bring it down.



    If they can destroy Smurf mountain at my beloved King's Dominion, then they can definitely destroy this crummy house nobody wants.
  • Reply 105 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    The significance of the architect been explained multiple times in the multiple threads on this topic. The short answer is that Smith is credited with being one of the originators of the California regional architectural style known as Spanish Revival (or Spanish Colonial Revival). He is also regarded as one of the masters of the style. The "I haven't heard of him so he could not be important" argument is sadly the one Steve used a few years ago. Like some in these threads, he was professing the idea that his ignorance on the topic made him an expert on the topic. You hate to see people whom you otherwise regard as intelligent making this sort of argument, but I guess it happens. I just hope he doesn't run Apple that way.



    As I have also explained many, many times in these threads, the important fact to understand is that the significance of the property is not in dispute. This was established in a technical report prepared by an architectural historian. If the significance had not been professionally established, and accepted as true and correct, none of the events which followed would have occurred, because the question of the property's historical significance would have been settled in the negative. It was only because the question was settled in the positive that California's environmental laws were called into play. The lawsuits were a spin-off from that.



    It's a bit self serving to say that "the significance of the property is not in dispute" it most certainly is in dispute or Jobs would not still be trying to tear it down. It may have some small historical value because a hack copy cat architect built it based on reference designs from the past number of hundred years, but that does not mean that those views are correct. You already mocked me for saying that GWS was a hack compared to FLW, which already means you're putting him up there with a legend in architecture who came up with new ideas and concepts in architecture that had never been done in the history of architecture in all of human history. Anyone can copy old ideas and styles, that's not genius. Perhaps GWS did it very well, good for him.



    Saying that he did a good job of copying the past and making interesting designs with it, does not mean this particular house needs to be saved. It's poorly designed for the modern lifestyle and it happens to be sitting on extremely valuable land.



    Now you say that because it has historical significance that trumps the fact that it stands on irreplaceable land. Ok, that's a fine viewpoint but it's not the only way to see this issue, and because you have studied this subject for 30 years you are incapable of seeing these matters from any more than 1 viewpoint, you've got blinders on.



    Worse, and possibly this is because you're tired of seeing this issue pop up on AI over and over, you are cranky and you come across as very arrogant and short tempered. You could make your case much better if you considered the tone of your posts.



    I know people appreciate GWS architecture, and I actually do understand why people would want to preserve it. But this building is not accessible to the public in any way, and there are plenty of photos of it, which is the only way people have to access the property even if Jobs does not tear it down. At this point the matter is just about power between a group of historical architecture enthusiasts and a rich man. It's about a group of people being petty and mean spirited because they can.



    Even you have to be able to see this.
  • Reply 106 of 114
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Of course academics in specialist fields tend to divide and subdivide their field in to categories ad-naseum. What if tomorrow some academic decides there are in fact *two* important sub-categories of Spanish Colonial Revival, therefore properties on both sides of the divide must be preserved - how many more people instantly lose their property rights?



    Spanish Colonial Revival does not seem like a serious architectural category to me, such as Victorian architecture. It is more like a fad from what was a very faddish age. Advocating for it only makes architectural history look like an unserious profession.



    And you state this based on your knowledge of the subject, of course.
  • Reply 107 of 114
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    The huge irony is that if he hadn't deliberately allowed the house to fall into ruin, it would be worth far, far more than $2.5 million to a whole lot of people. Even in its current state it would be. Houses by George Washington Smith are rare and desirable. They sell for premiums. It was never an issue of whether anyone else would have wanted the property. Jobs never offered it for sale.



    Actually, he offered the house free to anyone willing to pay to move it off the property. There were no takers.



    What's there is not the original Jackling House. The original was smaller (though hardly small) and much prettier. There was a renovation that obscured much of the original face of the house and threw it out of proportion with additions and decorations that did not respect the original Smith design. That is what's currently sitting there. Unsurprisingly, it's a house that some people don't want to go away (for a reason I can respect, as it is a historic and beautifully made house) but nobody wants to have.



    Edit to add: I could understand a requirement to restore the house back to its original size and appearance. The neighborhood I live in is mostly smaller, older houses, and the neighbors have been mostly successful in keeping out houses that don't conform to the general appearance of the neighborhood, which in turn has sustained the desirability of the neighborhood and the value of its houses. Unless you have a much-larger-than-average plot to build on, your decisions will impact the neighborhood generally. That's why there are zoning laws and similar initiatives. I agree that they can go too far, just as absolute freedom can go too far. It's a balance, and how that balance is struck has to respond to the local culture. In this case, Jobs has discovered that the moneyed classes are possessive of their grand old neighborhoods of grand old houses.
  • Reply 108 of 114
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Amorph View Post


    Actually, he offered the house free to anyone willing to pay to move it off the property. There were no takers.



    I don't know if you've been keeping up with these threads, but this issue has been addressed several times already. In short, the "move it or shut up" argument is a red herring. Moving even a small house is a very difficult undertaking. One of that size, virtually impossible. You'd have to be very rich, and very lucky, to make it work. And for those who might be interested, offering a historic building for relocation imparts no value under California environmental regulations. You have to actually mitigate the impacts (which moving might do), not just make it theoretically possible to mitigate them.



    As for the alterations, as said before, I am aware of them. But what has also been said multiple times, is that this was all considered in the professional evaluation of the house. It was found to be significant despite the alterations. Once the property was found to be historic it crossed a threshold in the law, where its demolition had to be considered to be a significant, adverse impact on the environment. That's just the way it works, in California at least.



    So that's the end of that story -- or at least, should be.
  • Reply 109 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I don't know if you've been keeping up with these threads, but this issue has been addressed several times already. In short, the "move it or shut up" argument is a red herring. Moving even a small house is a very difficult undertaking. One of that size, virtually impossible. You'd have to be very rich, and very lucky, to make it work. And for those who might be interested, offering a historic building for relocation imparts no value under California environmental regulations. You have to actually mitigate the impacts (which moving might do), not just make it theoretically possible to mitigate them.



    As for the alterations, as said before, I am aware of them. But what has also been said multiple times, is that this was all considered in the professional evaluation of the house. It was found to be significant despite the alterations. Once the property was found to be historic it crossed a threshold in the law, where its demolition had to be considered to be a significant, adverse impact on the environment. That's just the way it works, in California at least.



    So that's the end of that story -- or at least, should be.



    The tone of this post is a lot better than some of your previous posts Dr. Millnoss. Nothing condescending or smarmy.



    I still do not agree with your viewpoint but I can at least appreciate that you are trying to make your point without coming across as an ass.



    Thank you for that at least.
  • Reply 110 of 114
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven R Wilson View Post


    The tone of this post is a lot better than some of your previous posts Dr. Millnoss. Nothing condescending or smarmy.



    I still do not agree with your viewpoint but I can at least appreciate that you are trying to make your point without coming across as an ass.



    Thank you for that at least.



  • Reply 111 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post






    I guess maybe I sounded sarcastic. I was actually being serious.



    I think Dr. Millmoss has a legitimate viewpoint, he was just expressing it badly at first. I don't have to agree with someone to respect them, but it's hard to respect someone who doesn't show respect in return.
  • Reply 112 of 114
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven R Wilson View Post


    I guess maybe I sounded sarcastic. I was actually being serious.



    I think Dr. Millmoss has a legitimate viewpoint, he was just expressing it badly at first. I don't have to agree with someone to respect them, but it's hard to respect someone who doesn't show respect in return.



    I guess it was your use of the word "ass" in the form of a backhanded compliment that struck me as amusing.
  • Reply 113 of 114
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Ah, so insults are amusing, and can be just as valid as arguments? I guess I must have missed that semester in college.



    FWIW, everything I said in my last post(s) on this subject are a repeats of something I said earlier, sometimes two, three or four times before -- in almost precisely the same language. If anyone was getting tired of hearing me say it, imagine how I feel.
  • Reply 114 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Ah, so insults are amusing, and can be just as valid as arguments? I guess I must have missed that semester in college.



    FWIW, everything I said in my last post(s) on this subject are a repeats of something I said earlier, sometimes two, three or four times before -- in almost precisely the same language. If anyone was getting tired of hearing me say it, imagine how I feel.



    Insults are a lazy bullshit way to get a point across, and for my part I'm sorry I went that route, I got a strong whiff of "holier than thou" "I know more than you do" attitude from your earlier posts, where you didn't bother to explain your reasoning and were dismissive and came across as rude and arrogant. In the post where I said you had improved you gave a good explanation of your view point without coming across as an ass, which is why I said I appreciated that.



    It's the difference between saying "I believe X because of xyz" and "X is true because you don't understand the subject, and are ignoramus boob unworthy of my lofty time". You may have studied this topic for 30 years and have considerable expertise in the matter, but that does not change the laws of human communication, nor does it mean your well informed opinion is the only valid one.



    For the record I still think you are wrong, and believe GWS is an over valued derivative hack, and the house needs to go. But that's merely 1 opinion.



Sign In or Register to comment.