or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion

post #1 of 209
Thread Starter 
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.
post #2 of 209
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.
post #3 of 209
I can't wait to see what Jobs builds. A glass cube?
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #4 of 209
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
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #5 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

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

An iHouse, with no Windows..
post #6 of 209
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.
post #7 of 209
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?
post #8 of 209
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.
post #9 of 209
When Jobs builds his iHome the SOH will have a new style of rare architecture to preserve.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #10 of 209
How is this news?
post #11 of 209
The yard is perfect though eh?
post #12 of 209
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!!
post #13 of 209
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.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #14 of 209
Spanish Colonial Revival Style - we just aren't that into you.
post #15 of 209
It will be a magical home built at an unbelievable price, and it will be called the iStevePad...
Sometimes, dead is better. ~Stephen King
Reply
Sometimes, dead is better. ~Stephen King
Reply
post #16 of 209
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.
post #17 of 209
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!
post #18 of 209
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
post #19 of 209
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."

post #20 of 209
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.
--
Earthship Biotecture
http://www.earthship.com
Reply
--
Earthship Biotecture
http://www.earthship.com
Reply
post #21 of 209
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.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #22 of 209
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?
post #23 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

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 View Post

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.
post #24 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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.

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!

The article is entirely wrong about this being the source of significance. I'd already pointed this out.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #25 of 209
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.

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.
post #26 of 209
What kind of a world are we living in where a man doesn't have the right to destroy something he owns?
post #27 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by manray View Post

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.
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #28 of 209
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.


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.
post #29 of 209
I look forward to someday buying the mansion built by the great technological innovator Steve Jobs and tearing it down to build what I want instead.
post #30 of 209
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.

Fourthed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by earthship View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #31 of 209
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.
post #32 of 209
Europeans have history. We have revivals.
post #33 of 209
If Save Our Heritage was so concerned about the house, then they should have had a fundraiser to purchase and restore the house themselves.

All the money that was wasted in litigation could have paid for the restoration.
post #34 of 209
It's about time.
post #35 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

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
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #36 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

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.
post #37 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthship View Post

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.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #38 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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
post #39 of 209
in europe, they think a hundred miles is a long way.
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...
>>< drow ><<
Reply
>>< drow ><<
Reply
post #40 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by drow View Post

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.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion