Apple's Steve Jobs gets OK to raze dilapidated mansion - Page 2

I read your next to last line as 'interconnected glass tubes' and immediately had thoughts of human hamsters...

time to upgrade the glasses...

I think I have seen enough posts to see a trend.

1. Anyone who owns property should be able to do with it as it pleases.
Under this logic the owner of the Empire State building could decide to demolish it and nobody could say anything about its historical value. Down with it! Any reasonable person can see that there are limits about what one can do with their property.

2. Most if not all people commenting on this article don't think the Spanish Colonial revival style is worth protecting.
Makes me wonder if people would say the same about demolishing the Dolce Hayes mansion of the same style, or what would they say about the more Victorian style Winchester house. What about demolishing most of downtown Santa Barbara because we don't appreciate Spanish Colonial revival style?

I have a lot of respect for Steve Jobs when it comes to creating technology products. However, I think on this one he is wrong. He just let the house deteriorate to justify demolishing it. Why did he buy it in the first place if he didn't like it?

From the pictures I've seen I think the building is worth saving. What should be the means of saving it I can't say, but knowing how much money Steve Jobs has and seeing that he doesn't seem to be much into charity or philanthropy he could start his philanthropic ways by saving this building, perhaps by making it a small museum or a place that could be visited.

A world in which it is recognized that there is significant historical architecture that needs to be preserved. This has almost always been recognized in Europe which rebuilt many cities (i.e. Munich) after World War II to look almost exactly as it had before the war and in places like Paris, where you can't tear down any of the Haussmann architecture of the 1850s.

The question is whether one believes that money trumps all other interests. IMO, just because some idiot is rich enough to do something, doesn't mean we should permit them to destroy our society. The problem in the U.S. is that we have no sense of history. And so we've destroyed all of our Main Streets and downtowns in favor of the strip mall.

In the U.S., we have already lost so much and usually, in its place, garbage is erected. If you want to have a society of gas stations, shopping malls, cheap multi-family housing and McMansions, then we don't need preservation laws. But in New York, for example, it was recognized after Penn Station was torn down in the 1960s to make way for the ghastly Madison Square Garden that preservation was necessary. Grand Central Station would have been lost if not for Jackie Kennedy. And areas such as parts of Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights in Brooklyn have been designated landmark preservation areas so that the Civil War-era townhouses and brownstones can be preserved.

Preservation laws are not perfect and as other people have documented, this particular property may not have as much significance as some think. But having said that, I'd rather err on the side of caution before tearing down such a property. Jobs certainly has enough money to purchase land and build whatever he wants without tearing down anything historic. In a best case scenario, the building would have been designated historic before Jobs purchased the property so he knew what he was getting into, but we are where we are and hopefully, someone will move that house and attempt to preserve it and Jobs will build something also architecturally significant which will be worthy of preservation 80 years from now (and assuming California doesn't fall into the ocean by then.)

Here's my original April '09 comment on the subject:

"Uphold Our Heritage"

Oh God, how I can't begin to comprehend these type of organizations. In the 200,000 years of human existence, or even just the few thousand we have "recorded", to suggest something made in the last 100 is worthy of preservation - that it deserves the same effort as the pyramids of Giza, is nuts.

That's the appropriate catch-all word for that type of thinking, nuts. They're crazy, certifiable!

We have books, photographs and museums. Our towns and cities cannot fall to eras long over, they must rise to today! Or should we take out some more forest instead? For heaven's sakes, just let the man have his house!

AND FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO DO! EVER TRY HELPING CHILDREN READ?

I have other old comments to rehash on this subject. Put simply preserving this one house is not for the greater good, it's a fetish these folks have and it's disgusting.

This isn't about "opinions". History of Arts - and History of Architecture - are scientific subjects. Someone who is versed in them will be able to tell you whether a landmark is significant or not. If art historians have come to the conclusion that the house in question is culturally significant, that is not an "opinion", but a fact backed up by reason and scientific method, and it doesn't matter what laypeople think about it. Neither you nor I nor Steve Jobs have studied these subjects, so our opinions as to an objects "worthiness" of preservation are unimportant, just like our opinions on a particular drug would not matter to the FDA in deciding whether or not to approve it.

I think maybe it is spelled 'copper'.

An ordered one. The concept is not unique or new. Remember the Enron and Anderson-Hunter document shredding parties? Didn't they own all those records?

And for you movie fans, suppose I own the dam upstream of a particular bridge I dislike. Can I hire a Force 10 from Navarone to remove my dam?

And if you really wanna set off the fireworks, ask what kind of world we are living in when a *woman* doesn't have the right to destroy something she owns. Or does she? (not with a 10 foot pole on this one).

No, he bloody well can't "do as he pleases" with a piece of history.

When you buy a historic property, you don't get to do as you please. You're buying the right to be the caretaker of a piece of history, and the right to live in a piece of history. You ARE NOT buying the right to destroy it.

And yes, I own and live in a historic home. I don't have the right to tear it down either.

Anybody who want to preserve history is crazy!

The only real property under the law is real estate. Also, you mean Federally required records?


Can you flood my property with water? No. Preventing you from doing so protects the property rights of the community.

Let the parade of false analogies continue.

Welcome to the forums.

I am not such a cold anarchical Libertarian that I would say that no building is ever to be preserved "by society," but I think there's something to be said for the arguments charging the SOH with the responsibility of fundraising to relocate the house. And whoever suggested that the SOH damn near spent enough money on litigation as it would've taken to relocate it in the first place... is probably right!

Also, it's simply not practical to save every single building or monument that some people at some point in time found significant. How many buildings throughout all time were considered historically significant at one point or another? The number is likely unfathomable... If we had imposed throughout history that we keep any structure deemed significant at one point in time, we'd have perpetually restored grass huts of some obscure tribal leaders in Macedonia, and supposedly rejoice in visiting the childhood home of king Oompaloompasan. BFD.

A thousand years from now, no one will even know what the Empire State Building is, nor would it matter if they did.

-Clive

I don't know what you're trying to argue here, but it's nothing to do with what I was commenting about or even in the same ballpark. To that end I gather that we aren't really having a conversation or a debate here so I'm bowing out.

My only point, (to reiterate one more time) was that to the degree the article implies that Jobs was providing some kind of obstacle to the moving of the house, it's inaccurate. I said nothing about the significance of the house nor anything about it's merits as architecture.

If I was asked however, my personal opinion would be both that I like the style of the house, but that I don't think it worthy of preservation. I also don't agree that the determination of those things is an "objective process based on facts" as some are arguing because that's just a silly thing to assert. I also don't personally agree with the unspoken assumption in some quarters that simply because he can technically afford to do it, that Steve Jobs should have to pay for preserving the house. My belief is that since Jobs wasn't appraised of the fact that some people would like to preserve the house when he initially purchased it, that the onus is on those who wish to preserve it to deal with the monetary issue this desire creates.

This would be a valid point if Steve Jobs weren't a goddamned billionaire. He's just being stubborn and stingy on this one.

If one follows your reasoning, it would have been better for Egyptians to tear down the pyramids within 100 years of building them as they were not historical at the time. That way they could build a bunch of low quality housing now on the same land.

On the same token we should have torn down the statue of liberty twenty years after it was erected as it was not historical at the time. Just imagine, we could have a McDonalds or a Wal-Mart store now in its place, or a millionaire could have built a mansion there instead of having that green statue there Things become historical when people preserve them for many years. The historical significance might be lost now, but appreciated by future generations.

Okay, I'm all for the preservation of 'historic sites and landmarks' and I'm also for the preservation of holy lands and burial sites of native Americans. However, I do think we are taking this a bit too far.

- Was this house a residence of an important figure in this nations history?

- Was this house designed by a famous architect like Frank Lloyd Wright?

- Was this house the scene of an important event in our history?

- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)

If not, then this house needs to be moved by an architectural preservation society with their own funds and in a timely manner or they should take some pictures and HD video provided the OWNER will allow it and then call it a day.

Sorry if this sounds insane but if a property owner wants to remove/demolish/move/etc a building on the property then then should be within their right to do so (with limited exceptions) provided they follow the building and zoning codes of the area. Stopping the property owner from doing some SHOULD require truly extraordinary circumstances and claiming 'not too many of those style buildings still exit' sounds like a very weak argument at best.

i think you're forgetting that you grew up in an environment that (for the most part) values its cultural heritage because it has one. i do however think that it's one thing to preserve the character of a medieval core of a city that gets used by many people, but another to force the will of a few on the owner of a property that is probably neither visible nor accessible to the public. the good news i guess is that at least there was a discussion about this particular case, and that there was some interest in preserving the building.

Why? This is a pretty far-reaching statement. Are you aware that you're basically calling an entire science groundless here? As I said before, I'm not an Art Historian, but if I were, I would take exception to this. I do, however, hold a degree in literary studies. Your statement is akin to someone saying that the quality of a literary work, its "poeticity", its "worthiness" of being taught and read, cannot be scientifically determined. Would you actually argue that?

[QUOTE=earthship;1590965]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.


If that's what you want.... THEN YOU BUY IT AND BUILD IT. What Jobs has gone through with CA is why I would NEVER LIVE, OWN or run a business in California. You have no property rights .... or very little if some MORON takes a liking to some ugly ass (I'm sure energy sucking) eyesore that's seen it's days and is a prime target for a wrecking ball.

An "earthship", while a novel idea is whole heartedly naive. Why? Because it's too expensive for even someone with a good 6 figure income. Only a Steve Jobs might afford it. but like most liberals you're quick to tell others how to spend their money or what to do with the land they own. The fact remains... YOU DON'T OWN IT.... he does. If he wants to run a bulldozer over the damn thing that's his business, just as it's not my business to tell you you can or can not build a freaking eyesore called an earthship.

Steve should go to an auction and buy up a bunch of famous paintings and just set them all on fir on his front lawn! That would show those "historic preservation" idiots who is boss!

There might be a difference in reality, but in principle it's the same thing. If an object is deemed to be culturally significant, it doesn't matter whether it's situated in the center of town where everyone can see it or in a location where only its owner can see it. It is worthy of protection in both cases. Following your logic, someone who owns a Picasso that is never exhibited - and thus not visible to the public - would have every right to just burn it. I'm not sure any sane person would assert that.

By the way, your initial point is quite interesting. I have never been to the US (though I would love to visit someday), so I'm out of my element here, but I refuse to accept your contention that Americans don't value their cultural heritage, because this implies that they don't HAVE one. Sure they do! Some of the most significant buildings and works of art in the whole world are situated in the US. Now, this particular house might not rank among those, but it definitely appears to be a part of California's cultural heritage - not in the "oh-look-that-place-looks-kinda-neat-and-old"-way, but in the "an-important-architect-built-this-house-and-it-is-a-remarkable-example-of-its-architectural-style"-way.

Indeed. VOTE RON PAUL FREEDOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!11111

If he owns them he can do anything he wants with them.

Great post!!! I agree with you...and I am an Apple fanboy :-) Steve could throw the community a bone and either sell it to a restorer or have it restored.

HAHAHA. "Scientific Method" is an attribute of hard science and factual research. As I do hold a degree in a hard science, I am well-acquainted with the it.

What Scientific Method would tell us about "historical architecture" is that any structure with even a single unique attribute is factually significant, as there is something to be observed and learned about it.

That does not warrant the preservation of said feature. The scientific purpose of studying history is to learn and improve upon the past, preserving it adds nothing to that process, so long as the phenomenon is documented well enough.

P.S., Parkettpolitur, if you're so obsessed with this historic architecture, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go rent out the house for a few nights to soak in all that history?

-Clive

I hope that Steve has a wrecking crew on site before the ink dries on the court papers. Then those whining preservationists can just go away.

Disclaimer - I own / live in a restored Victorian house in San Francisco. I know what's worth saving. SJ's house is worth more in scrap wood.

To be honest, I don't know about the legal status of privately owned artworks, so speaking from a purely formalistic perspective you might even be right (where I live, as I said, even this perspective is incorrect - my parents own their house and certainly aren't legally allowed to "do anything [they] want" with it). However, from an ethical point of view, the destruction of a significant work of art would still be despicable, even if it were technically legal.

No, you're not following my reasoning at all and I think you don't care to. My reasoning has little to do with age, but the reasoning of those you're defending does. I used the last hundred years as a category of human buildings, and by buildings I mean buildings, the number isn't the focus.

My reasoning has a lot to do with who built it and why. The efforts of thousands versus a few contractors, the sheer scale of the project or how easily the significance is recognized by a significant population. You cannot show a picture of the house to a random person as close as ten miles and expect them to always know what the house is, and where it is. You can with the pyramids. You can show an American any European castle and while he or she may not know what its name is, they'll know it is worth protecting.

My reasoning also has a lot to do with the folks involved and what is really involved here. It's nostalgia, not reason. They're the few who have always lived in their area and seen the rest of their childhood memories disappear. This is a drama that happens in towns and cities across the country every day. They're fighting fanatically, not for the greater good, and they should not prevail. You should not be defending them. The greater good is using the land we have, and preserving ecosystems, not expanding and preserving rat infested buildings.

Off to lunch.

HEY... IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what he does with HIS PROPERTY.... any more than it is Steve Jobs's place to decide what you do with your property. What is wrong with some of you in here? Do you not understand what makes the USA so different than other countries? Do you not understand that one big piece to that puzzle is PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS? This means if you buy something... YOU FREAKING OWN IT. Quit thinking like a liberal.... wait... that's kind of an oxymoron. Anyway it's not your place to decide what Jobs does with his property or money... which are essentially the same thing. Jobs has more than been accommodating to you people that think it's your place to decide what other people do with their property and money. If I were him I would have bulldozed the place in the middle of the night and then paid whatever idiotic fines were imposed by the city.

Let me just plant this seed in your head. Do you own a car? Well... I'm going to be visiting your part of the country soon and I need a ride. Since you can afford a car then I think it's your responsibility to provide everyone else with a car that can't afford one. So.... give me your keys and I'll be on my way.

What you're saying is no stinking different.

Z

Haha, this is the single dumbest thing in this entire topic. If there is no testable hypothesis, then it ain't science, kid. A bunch of pretentious people sitting around and agreeing amongst themselves that something is "significant" is no different than any other sort of opinion, except you seem to want to grant it more merrit.

Why people are so eager to shackle future generations down to be hostages of the past is beyond me.

Exactly, look at ... oh but wait ... Ballmer doesn't own M$ so I guess that doesn't count

Not if the owner wants too. If you think it so special, go buy it and then you can decide. Until then, quit whining!

Yes, factually significant maybe, but that's not the same thing as cultural relevance, and you know it. What scientific method tells us with regard to "historical architecture" is whether we are dealing with an original work worthy of our attention and care or simply the derivative work of an epigone. But again, this is not my subject, so I am completely out of my element here. I just chose to chime in because your post reeks of a cetain elitism often exhibited by those who are proud to have studied a so-called "hard science". Well, congratulations, I guess my subject isn't as cool and hard as yours.

BTW, I'm not American, and as a student who's just finishing up his degree and can barely afford to live in a one-bedroom apartment, I sadly can't step in and save the house
But I can assure you that if I were a billionaire, I would spend the pocket change to have the building relocated.

I'm quite disappointed by the number of people who feel that you should be able to demolish anything on your property. I live in a neighbourhood with a lot of older homes, but some people buys these homes, demolish them and put up truly ugly cheaply, made houses because it's cheaper than rebuilding. One of the attractions of this neighbourhood is it's one of the few that is mostly old homes. These people coming in and demolishing here often never live in the house and have no connection to the neighbourhood.

I figure, if you buy property with an older home on it, you have a responsibility to try and preserve it in some fashion. The home has been here longer than you, and will be here, hopefully, long after you're gone.

Obviously, some homes simply cannot be saved, but people have to realize that this "it's my property and I can do what I please" doesn't fit in with the fact that we live in communities with other people, and are simply part of a history of the area. You don't want the responsibility of buying an older home. Then don't. No one is making you buy it. There are loads of properties with newer homes or empty lots. Just buy one of them.

Yes, the only areas of study with any "merrit" are those that are based on testable hypotheses. Oh wait, Art History is actually one of these areas of study! Hooray!
If you had any knowledge of the Humanities, you wouldn't spout such stupid crap - and you would probably know how to spell "merit".

Steve,

Just build a house somewhere else. No big deal.

Save Our Heritage

-- Sent from my iPhone

What if the place is haunted? I am being serious because I had a relative that had to move out of a 125 year old Victorian because things were real strange and he feared for his baby (6 months old). The people who bought the place moved out in 3 months and it still on the market. So be careful in what you "wish" for.

Dude, ownership is a legal category, not an ethical one. Just because the owner of an object chooses to do something to or with that object doesn't make it right. This is why private ownership of artworks is such a problematic and murky concept. Or let's put it this way: if you "owned" a slave in the 19th century, you could do whatever you wanted to him or her and it was legal, but it sure as hell wasn't ethical. I guess those whining crybabies in the north should just have bought all the slaves from southern slaveowners, heh.

Steve Job's wealth is irrelevant. If the SOH wants to save it, the SOH should make it happen financially, instead of whining about it in court.

Such rampant entitlement...

Dude, if YOU think this property is historically significant, put your money where your freaking mouth is, and MAKE IT HAPPEN.

I'm sick of all these faux saints, who bemoan everything and do nothing.

-Clive

Yes, because a billionaire has the exact same moral and political obligations to his community as someone without any wealth at all... If you truly believe that, I consider myself happy not to have to share a country with you and I'll leave you with this simple quote from the German constitution (well, Grundgesetz): "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."

quick, tear the fucker down!

these preservationists are all a bunch of old blue-haired ladies that can't live their lives unless there is a law that tells them what they can and can't do. they spend their lives trying to force people to live the way they do by creating even more laws.