Appeal to block demolition of Steve Jobs' mansion dropped - Page 2

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.

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 OrganShould 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

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.

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.

http://www.terrastories.com/bearings...comment-123432

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.

The house looks like a dump. Burn it down already.

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'

Damn right you are! They're called hippies.

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.

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 not correct.

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.

Your explanation of the facts is appreciated.

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.

Facts are:

- 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.

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.

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 !

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...

Well, I'm not an architect, historian, or architectural historian, but I can't agree with this premise. It's logically equivalent to saying that everything done by an important person is important, which is, prima facie, nonsense. It would mean that even, say, an outhouse, designed by Smith, utterly uncharacteristic of his style, and unnotable. and indistinguishable from other outhouses. in any feature, and which itself influenced no further designs, would be significant. And I don't think the 'just about' qualifier saves this statement, except perhaps by trivializing it into meaninglessness.

The Jackling House may well be "significant", but its significance cannot derive solely from the identity of its architect.


Yeah, that was a pretty stupid statement from an otherwise smart guy.

I don't think you know what "in dispute" means. How many people have to dispute it before it is "in dispute"?

When will these haters realize that whatever Steve WANTS, Steve GETS?

That's not a meaningful distinction. Whether something is historic depends on it meeting the criteria for significance. Protection of buildings found to be historic is entirely another matter. Many if not most local governments extend no protection to historic buildings. Woodside, for one, does not.


Well I am an architectural historian, and I can tell you from long experience that you don't know what you are talking about.

It absolutely can derive its significance solely from the identity of the architect (National Register Criterion C). In this case, the house also derived its significance from the builder, however. That's Criterion B, if you are interested.


When people knowledgable of the facts and the relevant standards disagree, then you can say it is in dispute. When people lacking knowledge of either dispute something, then they are just mouthing off. The important take-away is that the finding of significance was not disputed by anyone with expertise or professional standing, and even more to the point (again, for probably the fifth time), the lawsuit was NOT over the significance of the property, it was over the city's procedures and their compliance with California environmental law.

As usual, you don't seem to understand the real world vs. some overly technical definition of reality. Sorry, but just because some criteria somewhere define something as significant just because of the identity of the architect may define them as significant according to the law (or whatever apparently meaningless nonsense these criteria you reference define) doesn't actually make them significant in any real and meaningful sense of 'significant'. It would indicate mostly that the people who established these criteria are senseless idiots.

From this we can conclude that your remarks regarding whether the Jackling House is significant or not as being so far outside the ordinary language sense of 'significant' that they are meaningless to anyone who actually wants to know if the structure is really significant as opposed to merely "significant" in your sense.

These are not "some criteria somewhere," nor are they my criteria, and they are far from meaningless. These are the criteria used nationwide since 1966, and which are universally accepted, and can understood by anyone with any interest in doing so. This is a set which obviously does not include you. Continuing to spout your arbitrary, uninformed, and willfully ignorant opinions does make you right, and it never will.

Well, apparently they define 'significant' in such a way as to make it a meaningless concept, or at least one with no real world significance. The whole point is that, and I think most reasonable persons would agree, it's ridiculous to consider something as "significant" if it hasn't had any effect on anything, but only because it was designed by a "significant" person, despite the fact that it has nothing notable about it and influenced no one. This sort of definition of 'significant' is effectively circular, where we are told that some structure is significant because it is significant.

I can see that you are locked into your manner of thinking, so it's probably pointless to even make these comments. But, if these are the criteria used for historic preservation (something which I am strongly in favor of for actually significant structures), then it's high time we had some new criteria, because these are senseless.

Laws and legal regulations ARE the real world. We may not like them or agree with them, but they are nonetheless very real. Try not paying your taxes and see how "real world" the consequences are regardless of whether you think tax laws were made by "senseless idiots."

I think our disagreements here stem from the distinction between a legal determination of the historical significance of this property and aesthetic judgements. I don't much care for it myself, but legally there is no denying that it has that status.

There is nothing standing in the way of you becoming active in revising such regulations and laws. It takes a lot of time, commitment, and effort to do so. Complaining about them is far easier.

Well, I think the point is, that someone declaring that some structure is significant may not actually mean what one expects it to mean, and that in that "legalistic", yet entirely nonsensical, sense of 'significance', in may actually be entirely insignificant and of no value whatsoever. In regard to your further comment that one ought not complain about nonsense, one has every right to, one very well ought to, and complaining is the first step to anything being done.

No, it is meaningless only to people who are impervious to learning about these concepts. You have rejected them without even having the most rudimentary understanding of how they work, and are resisting any effort I make to explain them. I would hate to think of anyone who tried to be your teacher.


The law is a good analogy in some respects. Conclusions about significance are drawn from facts + the criteria just as conclusions in law are drawn from evidence + the law. If you don't have evidence or don't understand the law, your legal conclusions are going to be arbitrary, nothing more than your subjective view, i.e., indefensible by any standard. Some people seem to prefer arbitrariness, since it allows them to continue believing whatever they already believe -- but I can't think of any instance where it gets you anywhere useful. Into pointless arguments I guess.

To be clear though, a determination of historical significance is not a legal determination. It is a professional opinion, based on evidence and an understanding of the criteria. All of this procedure and method is extensively documented, for anyone who cares to know.

Completely wrong, as before. The only mystery at this point is why you aren't embarrassed to be so utterly convinced that you comprehend concepts you know not a single thing about, and clearly don't have even the slightest inclination to know anything about.

I see. So because YOU state that it's significant, that allows you to say that the historical significance is not in dispute.

The fact is that the court evaluated the historical significance and found that it was not sufficient to order the house kept in its current form. And that was with experts on both sides.

If it was so incredibly significant, you'd think they'd have found the money to move the house at their own expense instead of asking Jobs to do it.

Steve wins again.

One doesn't have to be an "expert" in the field to recognize that it is, quite simply, stupid to declare a structure "significant" just because it was designed by some big name. Significance needs to stand on it's own feet, and junk ought not ride on coattails just because the person who tossed it off was otherwise brilliant. If it's not notable for some reason, if you can't trace influence back to it, it isn't significant, it's ordinary, not worthy of particular notice, it hasn't affected the development of other designs, and it ought not be defined into significance because of some mistaken notion that the detritus of great men is great stuff. If architectural historians believe otherwise, they are a very mistaken bunch.

Me...I'm just interested in what, if anything Jobs builds there.

Should be an interesting contrast to Bill Gates' home.

One, I think, will be destined to be a home of historical significance. The other, not so much except that Bill owned it.

Come form a town that preserve most everything in the town and will not let you do a thing to your home unless the architectural committee researches and approves every change that happen on the outside of that property, I call tell you if this town really felt it was worth saving they would have used the power to have it declared a land mark or had significant architectural value it would have happen in spite of what anyone here thinks.

Base on the fact the those who tried to save it failed and could not get its status change means it was not worth saving.

With that said, that town will most likely make out on this deal, once he tears it all down it becomes a new property therefore the taxes get reset and SJ will most like end up paying more to the city then he has in past. This is true if it is a complete tear down, however, from my understanding of the code in CA (which a bit old at this time) if he leave at least one wall in places and rebuild on the original foundation the house is not consider new from a taxing stand point so the house does not get re-asset.

"This town" never tried to save the house. Never. The council voted from the very start to permit its demolition. The problem was the procedure -- they tried to cut corners on compliance with state law and got caught. Result: lawsuit. Every community gets to make their own planning decisions. If they want to bulldoze every historic building in town, they can do it, if their constituents don't object. What they can't do (at least not in California) is try to pretend that they doing something else. They have to properly disclose to the public that they know a building they allowed to be demolished is historically significant.

What is "worth" doing is entirely a local planning decision. It may dictate what is done in the end, but it doesn't change facts. Some in this thread are convinced otherwise. They are wrong.

I have to disagree that the local and community can do what they want. I personally watch as community and local, state and federal government try to tear down a church to make way for a new highway, and the historical society got the church declared as having significant architectural and historical value and got it registered as federal land mark, which trumps eminent domain. This church was less then 100yr old at the time and to the community they saw no value in it since most people no longer attend it and they rather have the new highway. Well today the highway goes around the church. They saved the church but it now looks like hell with it sitting 100 ft below the highway as it sit in a hole between the highway and a hillside.

Whether Jobs and his lawyers followed ever little procedure to tear down the house, does not matter since the sole claim by those trying to block it was the house had significant architecture or historical value. I am neither a Architecture or Historian but living in an area where we have large percentage of home and farms which date back to the early 1900's, 1800's and 1700's all those properties have been determine what value they have in history and architecture and are listed on the national registry and there is no question about them. Many of these places claim Washington slept there, it seems he like to sleep in lots of people houses.

Maybe the lawsuit were about procedural errors, however, in the end those who were challenging its demolition were trying to claim the property had some sort of value which it obviously did not since people who deal with properties which have significant historical or architecture value obvious did not agree, otherwise, it would been saved, I have personally seen it done a number of times.