It's not an endangered animal, it's a building. And it's his. You want to preserve it, offer enough money to buy it. Otherwise he should be free to grind it to dust. The only reason things become "historic" is that at one point someone was able to build something new. How about we start making history instead of dithering about preserving run-down hovels?
The article notes it's also 160 feet from a branch of the freakin' San Andreas Fault. Cozy.
As long as the building is built to survive the next big one, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Given the house in question, it sounds like the existing house wouldn't survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthship
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.
No, this doesn't have a spammy vibe, I'm tempted to nuke it.
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.
The entire house moving thing is a sideshow, with no real bearing on the main issues. As I said, the significance of the house is not even slightly dependent on whether someone wants to preserve it. It's a completely independent fact established on a technical basis.
The entire dispute is over whether the city complied with California environmental law, one large part of which is whether the impacts of demolition can be mitigated to a less than significant and adverse level. California law requires feasible mitigation to take place, not just make it theoretically possible for it to take place. So Jobs not standing in the way of someone moving the house is not at all the same thing as the house being moved as part of the building of the new home. Under the law, he gets no mitigation "credit" for just making it available for relocation. Unless it's assured to occur, it's considered to be speculative mitigation, i.e., no mitigation at all.
These are all arcane concepts, I realize. But they are what this dispute is really about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al
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!
The article is entirely wrong about this being the source of significance. I'd already pointed this out.
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.
It must drive Jobs crazy to not be in control of this situation. He doesn't strike me as the type to preserve old things. If it was up to him, I'm sure he'd discard the building like a floppy drive.
The AI article is lacking on details, fails to mention the famous architect who designed the house and leads one to come to a false conclusion.
Having owned historic houses and having friends who own them, your obligated to history for your actions. Yes you won the home and yes you can do what you want, but really your just a temporary renter in the life of some of these very old homes. A lot of rich people move around all the time, they get sick of a place and got the money to move somewhere else. A person buying a house and just living there five years can do a lot of damage to something that has stood over 300 years. If nobody tried to preserve these old homes, they all would be gone in a flash.
Quote:
Jackling House is a 1926 mansion in Woodside, California built for Daniel Cowan Jackling by the noted California architect George Washington Smith. Smith was the foremost proponent of the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style which swept the west in that era and helped create Santa Barbara's unique architectural "look."[1] Jackling was a copper baron for whom the estate represented a statement of his emerging wealth, power, and status.
People should look at other restored George Washington Smith houses around the country before passing judgment on Steve Jobs lack of appreciation of other artists work.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, some of you people are very insensitive and ignorant when it comes to conservation issues. I for one am glad to live in a city with an intact medieval core, and I mourn every beautiful old building that was torn down to make room for some steel-and-glass-monstrosity. And unlike some of you, I can at least admit that this is just my opinion and that I am merely a layman. It's not up to laymen to determine whether an object is worthy of preservation; it's not even up to the object's owner - there are scientists and public officials who are in charge of making these decisions. Why? Because it is in a whole society's best interest that culturally significant objects - be they works of art or buildings - be preserved. When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
Wow, some of you people are very insensitive and ignorant when it comes to conservation issues. I for one am glad to live in a city with an intact medieval core, and I mourn every beautiful old building that was torn down to make room for some steel-and-glass-monstrosity. And unlike some of you, I can at least admit that this is just my opinion and that I am merely a layman. It's not up to laymen to determine whether an object is worthy of preservation; it's not even up to the object's owner - there are scientists and public officials who are in charge of making these decisions. Why? Because it is in a whole society's best interest that culturally significant objects - be they works of art or buildings - be preserved. When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
HAH. Scientists and public officials...
Who's to say that their opinion of the "greater good" is actually for the greater good? Or that their opinion of the greater good is more valid than MY opinion of the greater good? Or Steve Jobs' opinion of the greater good? Hell, he irritates the crap out of me, but he is obviously intelligent and cunning enough to become the leader of one of the most influential companies of the past couple decades, why not also assume that he's wise enough to decide what the "greater good" is as far as what amounts to a tiny structure on little plot of land on this huge, huge planet?
All these hippie QQ-ers crack me up.
Look, I'm all for preserving history, but that thing is not it... =P
Wow, some of you people are very insensitive and ignorant when it comes to conservation issues. I for one am glad to live in a city with an intact medieval core, and I mourn every beautiful old building that was torn down to make room for some steel-and-glass-monstrosity. And unlike some of you, I can at least admit that this is just my opinion and that I am merely a layman. It's not up to laymen to determine whether an object is worthy of preservation; it's not even up to the object's owner - there are scientists and public officials who are in charge of making these decisions. Why? Because it is in a whole society's best interest that culturally significant objects - be they works of art or buildings - be preserved. When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
Good for you.
If your someone who is considering buying in a historic house or area, be prepared to be held to history and the community.
If you want to do your own thing, then buy into a area that you can where nobody cares, the country is full of crackpot housing project areas. Houses shaped like spaceships, soccer balls, boats etc.
Lot's of land available in the US, no need to destroy history.
Comments
The article notes it's also 160 feet from a branch of the freakin' San Andreas Fault. Cozy.
As long as the building is built to survive the next big one, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Given the house in question, it sounds like the existing house wouldn't survive.
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.
No, this doesn't have a spammy vibe, I'm tempted to nuke it.
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.
The entire house moving thing is a sideshow, with no real bearing on the main issues. As I said, the significance of the house is not even slightly dependent on whether someone wants to preserve it. It's a completely independent fact established on a technical basis.
The entire dispute is over whether the city complied with California environmental law, one large part of which is whether the impacts of demolition can be mitigated to a less than significant and adverse level. California law requires feasible mitigation to take place, not just make it theoretically possible for it to take place. So Jobs not standing in the way of someone moving the house is not at all the same thing as the house being moved as part of the building of the new home. Under the law, he gets no mitigation "credit" for just making it available for relocation. Unless it's assured to occur, it's considered to be speculative mitigation, i.e., no mitigation at all.
These are all arcane concepts, I realize. But they are what this dispute is really about.
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!
The article is entirely wrong about this being the source of significance. I'd already pointed this out.
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.
It must drive Jobs crazy to not be in control of this situation. He doesn't strike me as the type to preserve old things. If it was up to him, I'm sure he'd discard the building like a floppy drive.
An iHouse, with no Windows..
My guesses (no, I'm not trolling):
* One where no upgrades are possible and windows have a yellow tint.
* A mobile home.
Having owned historic houses and having friends who own them, your obligated to history for your actions. Yes you won the home and yes you can do what you want, but really your just a temporary renter in the life of some of these very old homes. A lot of rich people move around all the time, they get sick of a place and got the money to move somewhere else. A person buying a house and just living there five years can do a lot of damage to something that has stood over 300 years. If nobody tried to preserve these old homes, they all would be gone in a flash.
Jackling House is a 1926 mansion in Woodside, California built for Daniel Cowan Jackling by the noted California architect George Washington Smith. Smith was the foremost proponent of the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style which swept the west in that era and helped create Santa Barbara's unique architectural "look."[1] Jackling was a copper baron for whom the estate represented a statement of his emerging wealth, power, and status.
People should look at other restored George Washington Smith houses around the country before passing judgment on Steve Jobs lack of appreciation of other artists work.
http://santabarbararealestatevoice.c...-montecito-ca/
Look at this fine place!
http://www.casadelherrero.com/index.html
Sold $16,900,000
http://www.sbestatehomes.com/listings/650gws2.shtml
Almost $7 million for this one
http://www.sothebyshomes.com/socal/sales/0113158
http://www.latimes.com/classified/re...4.photogallery
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fourthed.
He doesn't strike me as the type to preserve old things. If it was up to him, I'm sure he'd discard the building like a floppy drive.
Yet again, Apple builds those stylish stores inside of old post offices and decrepit "historic" buildings...
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.
LOL. Go back to Woodstock, hippie!
-Clive
All the money that was wasted in litigation could have paid for the restoration.
Wow, some of you people are very insensitive and ignorant when it comes to conservation issues. I for one am glad to live in a city with an intact medieval core, and I mourn every beautiful old building that was torn down to make room for some steel-and-glass-monstrosity. And unlike some of you, I can at least admit that this is just my opinion and that I am merely a layman. It's not up to laymen to determine whether an object is worthy of preservation; it's not even up to the object's owner - there are scientists and public officials who are in charge of making these decisions. Why? Because it is in a whole society's best interest that culturally significant objects - be they works of art or buildings - be preserved. When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
HAH. Scientists and public officials...
Who's to say that their opinion of the "greater good" is actually for the greater good? Or that their opinion of the greater good is more valid than MY opinion of the greater good? Or Steve Jobs' opinion of the greater good? Hell, he irritates the crap out of me, but he is obviously intelligent and cunning enough to become the leader of one of the most influential companies of the past couple decades, why not also assume that he's wise enough to decide what the "greater good" is as far as what amounts to a tiny structure on little plot of land on this huge, huge planet?
All these hippie QQ-ers crack me up.
Look, I'm all for preserving history, but that thing is not it... =P
-Clive
Wow, some of you people are very insensitive and ignorant when it comes to conservation issues. I for one am glad to live in a city with an intact medieval core, and I mourn every beautiful old building that was torn down to make room for some steel-and-glass-monstrosity. And unlike some of you, I can at least admit that this is just my opinion and that I am merely a layman. It's not up to laymen to determine whether an object is worthy of preservation; it's not even up to the object's owner - there are scientists and public officials who are in charge of making these decisions. Why? Because it is in a whole society's best interest that culturally significant objects - be they works of art or buildings - be preserved. When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
Good for you.
If your someone who is considering buying in a historic house or area, be prepared to be held to history and the community.
If you want to do your own thing, then buy into a area that you can where nobody cares, the country is full of crackpot housing project areas. Houses shaped like spaceships, soccer balls, boats etc.
Lot's of land available in the US, no need to destroy history.
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.
No way El Stevo would build like home like that. There are way to many curves and contrasting colors and materials.
Carnac the Insignificant will now don his feather boa and using the mystical forces of perogi conjure the blue prints for the future house.
It will be a series of connected glass cubes, with white walls, and maple tables.
That is all.
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.
It isn't really Apple news, this is though
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/ga...les-iCopyright
in america, we think a hundred years is a long time.
i mean, if it were an OLD house, it might be worth saving, but...
in europe, they think a hundred miles is a long way.
in america, we think a hundred years is a long time.
Ain't that the truth.
No way El Stevo would build like home like that. There are way to many curves and contrasting colors and materials.
Carnac the Insignificant will now don his feather boa and using the mystical forces of perogi conjure the blue prints for the future house.
It will be a series of connected glass cubes, with white walls, and maple tables.
That is all.
I read your next to last line as 'interconnected glass tubes' and immediately had thoughts of human hamsters...
time to upgrade the glasses...