AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Inside Steve Jobs' abandoned Jackling mansion (photos)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Steve Jobs' abandoned Jackling mansion (photos) - Page 4

post #121 of 211
4/30/09 at 5:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjmember View Post

It is a crime if Steve Jobs tears down this MAGNIFICENT house! As someone who has restored a number of historic properties, I cannot believe that he would tear down this piece of history to put up some modern piece of garbage! It is more than possible to make this a home with all the modern conveniences of today yet keep the history of yesterday. I accomplished it on a 1926 Argentinian home, a 1926 English Tudor and a 1924 English Tudor. What a shame it was sold to someone who has such a disdain for history! I hope to hell they keep this travesty from happening!!!!

Were those restorations you did 17,000 square feet with structural problems in an Earthquake zone? Did those restorations cost in excess of 20 million dollars?
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 211
4/30/09 at 5:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyb View Post

This house is ugly, has virtually no architectural merit, as far as I can see, and is a pretty hum-drum pastiche of a style that's well represented elsewhere in the US. Let Jobs get rid of it and build a new 21st century classic that will be featured in architecture books for years to come.

This brings up the question what the architecture of the new place would be like? Glass and metal like the Apple stores
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 211
4/30/09 at 5:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kutjara View Post

To be charged with Breaking & Entering, there has to be some actual "breaking." Merely walking into an open house is trespass, but not B&E. If, as the photog claims, the doors were "wide open," then The Steve would have to sue him for trespass. No criminal act has been committed.

Anyhow, now he can claim historical record, get those photos archived and pull the house down.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 211
4/30/09 at 5:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

He's right- that is an ugly-ass house! "Spanish Revivalism?" So some rich dude in the 20s built a house to look like a Spanish house- in California? It's not like JP Morgan guilt it in Massachusetts or something- it truly looks like shit. Let him demo the thing!

This house is as much Spanish Colonial Revival as Taco Bell, it has 13 bathrooms for crying out loud, not exactly what I could call a meritable representation of the style.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 211
4/30/09 at 5:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmas View Post

Anyhow, now he can claim historical record, get those photos archived and pull the house down.

Actually, the guy was tresspassing and could be prosecuted.

And..

A Theater Organ?!!
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 211
4/30/09 at 5:51am
Has he thought of offering it to Quentin Tarantino? Looks like it would be up his alley....
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 211
4/30/09 at 5:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pm2012 View Post

Nice photos Jonathan!

It seems to me that Steve really likes the location.
The preservationists want to save the building.
Deadlock.

So, why not dismantle the building and rebuild it somewhere the preservationists will be happy with . . . part of a theme park ghost ride maybe!
It might make some money there as "The House that Steve couldn't love".
After all, London Bridge was moved to America . . .

By moving the historic house it would leave a nice spot for Steve to build something that is actually cool. You'd figure that a great American visionary deserves to have some consideration
for all his endeavours.

Just a thought


[/QUOTE]


The London Bridge wasn't made of dilapidated wood and stucco. Moving a stone structure is much easier. I also only cost 9 million to move the London Bridge, this will cost far more.
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 211
4/30/09 at 5:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Look at all those facades. Steve Jobs must really hate that sh*t.

Is that Godfather tape his? I thought part 2 was roundly despised. Maybe that is his sense of humor, i.e. the movie fits the house.

The house was rented to someone else for years, and it is Part III that is the bad one...not Part II.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 211
4/30/09 at 6:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmas View Post

This brings up the question what the architecture of the new place would be like? Glass and metal like the Apple stores

I'm thinking Shigeru Ban would make a pretty good iHouse
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 211
4/30/09 at 6:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyb View Post

I'm thinking Shigeru Ban would make a pretty good iHouse

Mies Van Der Rohe ripoff....this is an International Style building. Actually this style was prevelant during the 20's and 30's, ironically the time the current house was built that is sitting on the site now, and had this style house been built instead, I would have been in line fighting to save it.
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 211
4/30/09 at 6:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

Mies Van Der Rohe ripoff....this is an International Style building. Actually this style was prevelant during the 20's and 30's, ironically the time the current house was built that is sitting on the site now, and had this style house been built instead, I would have been in line fighting to save it.

I chose Ban because his use of materials and colour palette echos Apple's but actually you're right and that coincidental choice of house reinforces my earlier point; the construction of a never-realised Van Der Rohe design would have exactly the sort of architectural merit that the current monstrosity lacks.

Incidentally, I wouldn't say it's a rip-off. Ban is quite clear that it's a Van Der Rohe design on his site. I think it's more of a modern tribute, if anything. Rip-offs don't usually acknowledge their sources.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 211
4/30/09 at 7:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyb View Post

I chose Ban because his use of materials and colour palette echos Apple's but actually you're right and that coincidental choice of house reinforces my earlier point; the construction of a never-realised Van Der Rohe design would have exactly the sort of architectural merit that the current monstrosity lacks.

Incidentally, I wouldn't say it's a rip-off. Ban is quite clear that it's a Van Der Rohe design on his site. I think it's more of a modern tribute, if anything. Rip-offs don't usually acknowledge their sources.

Yeah, ripoff is a little harsh. Phillip Johnson's Glass house would work too. Actually, I'm sure the house he is building there is likely designed, I'm guessing it is probably pretty understated, and will likely surprise everyone on how much it probably won't look like an Apple Store.... and not the monstrosity of Xanadu 2.0
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 211
4/30/09 at 8:24am
Hope you're not including the 5th avenue store that was turned down. I used to live 2 blocks from the location. They refused the designs... which were very understated, because it didn't "fit" in between to other buldings.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 211
4/30/09 at 8:24am
Two thoughts:

The house is falling apart but it still has a pretty damn nice lawn (4th pic down)....

I can see some idiot trying to sell Steve's videotape on ebay...and some idiot would probably buy it....
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 211
4/30/09 at 9:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelcruncher View Post

Like Apple telling you not to jailbreak your iPhone?

Top post on AI.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 211
4/30/09 at 9:34am
... limited knowledge. As an Architect (of European Nationality and having lived in the US for 10+ years) I would caution the overzealous posters wanting to tear down the building.

If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).

Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).

There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.

If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.

Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).

Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.

A current example in Europe:
http://www.architekten24.de/mediadb/news/9664/index.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Liebeskind.jpg

Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 211
4/30/09 at 9:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

Were those restorations you did 17,000 square feet with structural problems in an Earthquake zone? Did those restorations cost in excess of 20 million dollars?

20 million dollars, no. Structural problems yes. Have you ever done a restoration yourself? Bet not. If Jobs didn't want to restore the home, he should have let someone who appreciates these old homes and let them do it! He's allowing the structure to fall apart so that it will need to be torn down. That's the problem with Americans... most have no pride in our history.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 211
4/30/09 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjmember View Post

20 million dollars, no. Structural problems yes. Have you ever done a restoration yourself? Bet not. If Jobs didn't want to restore the home, he should have let someone who appreciates these old homes and let them do it! He's allowing the structure to fall apart so that it will need to be torn down. That's the problem with Americans... most have no pride in our history.

Uh, yeah..never, that architecture degree I have just hangs on the wall to cover a hole.

Here's a couple.
http://www.shp.com/portfolio/project...7&section_id=2
http://www.shp.com/portfolio/project...0&section_id=2

Worked on this:
http://www.darwinmartinhouse.org/
and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinn...Union_Terminal

Currently working on a 50,000 sq ft. factory built in 1825. Where our office is relocating to.

He's letting the home fall apart because he got a demolition permit on it 8 years ago, why would you maintain a building that was suppossed to be gone by now. And he has had 3 offers for someone else to move/restore the house. All of which were not very serious if they want him to foot over 85% of the cost....

Building assesments have been made stating that the building has substantial structural damage due to earthquakes. Building would need to be brought up to current earthquake code. That cost alone is more than the total cost of his new building.

He's not interested in living in this style house. I don't blame him, he's wanting to build a more efficient 6,000 square foot house, almost 1/3 of the size of this one. Has anyone considered he just doesn't like the building? "He could sell it" people say, so far he's gotten 3 pathetic offers, so obviously he can't sell it.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 211
4/30/09 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by toes View Post

... limited knowledge. As an Architect (of European Nationality and having lived in the US for 10+ years) I would caution the overzealous posters wanting to tear down the building.

If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).

Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).

There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.

If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.

Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).

Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.

A current example in Europe:
http://www.architekten24.de/mediadb/news/9664/index.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Liebeskind.jpg

Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)

Not to mention you just copied it from the post you put here yesterday.

First of all....THIS is no Eiffel Tower
Second of all....He's not looking to add to a legacy here, he just wants a house to live in.
Third...a contemporary addition to the building to serve as a museum? The area is not zoned for that, the site would not support the additional parking required, this place is located at the end of a meandering Cul-de-Sac, hardly a place to put such a thing, not to mention Steve Jobs is a very private individual, so having a public entity attached to his residence is just, well, crazy.

And why are we assuming what style building he's putting here?

This building has spent a third of its life in Steve Jobs's possesion, that IS the only historical significance it has. Spanish Colonial Revival from 1925 is actually a revival of a revival, basically it's hollywood, no more authentic than Pottery Barn, and doesn't hold true to the style anyway, the only impressive thing about the house is the fact it has 13 bathrooms.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 211
4/30/09 at 11:59am
I've got a few issues here.

1) Steve Sell it or give it away to the first person willing to buy or take it off your hands (moving it, so you can build there)

2) Have some contractors go in and give it a real good looks-see for a few days (and heck, leave that heater plugged in - who knows, maybe it will burn down)

3) Do what in hell you want with the building ; it's yours!

4) Sell it, move on, be the bigger man - not the one who HAS to get his way all of the time. Life is short, don't be a dick about it. Sometimes you just can't have it your way!

I'm sure it is one hell of a feeling, having folks bow to your every word and want, but come on now, at this rate that house will still be there, when you are dead and gone, then what did you accomplish?

It is, for all intensive purposes - just a house, and not even one you are living in?

Steve, you CAN afford a house ANYWHERE in the world, I can't believe this is the only place you want to live?

Skip
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 211
4/30/09 at 12:14pm
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
He probably enjoys the conflict. I know that I like coming here to fight with people when I am sick...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #142 of 211
4/30/09 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyb View Post

I love history and historic buildings but I disapprove of the movement that says that everything that is old is good merely because it's old.

Yes, but also there is an older movement that says that everything that is new is good merely because it's new.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 211
4/30/09 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by guirt View Post

Yes, but also there is an older movement that says that everything that is new is good merely because it's new.

That's true. But I don't subscribe to that school of thought either. That movement has always been tempered by the idea that a building should be retained if it still holds practical or aesthetic value. Where something has historic or artistic merit, keep it. Where it does not, make way for something that does.

There's a reason we have many great buildings all over the world from all ages. It's because the ones that have lasted have done so because they're beautiful, historic, useful or all three.

Jobs's house is none of the above.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 211
4/30/09 at 2:33pm
can't believe all the people lusting after Steve Jobs' organ
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 211
4/30/09 at 2:50pm
I don't know why he's complaining. Its a lot nicer than my house. Sure, it needs some work, but he can afford the reno costs. Why tear down such a beautiful old place to make a smaller modern house.

If he doesn't like it, why not just sell, and buy a new house somewhere else?
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 211
4/30/09 at 6:44pm
I think he should have put the pipe organ up for sale then bulldozed the place. It's HIS PROPERTY..... not these bonehead nostalgic types. I'm actually surprised he didn't since the fine for doing the demolishion w/o a permit would probably be nothing. Steve was way too nice on this one. And this story illustrates why i would never live in California nor operate any of my businesses there. There's no respect for actual private property laws. Freaking liberals think what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine.

Z
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 211
4/30/09 at 8:27pm
As a photographer, I think the photos are really wonderful, they have melancholy all their own and they reflect a sense of loss that is the house. It would be a shame to see it torn down, but it IS Steve's property and he should be allowed to do with his property what he wishes.

I agree that it is questionable whether or not the house is really worth saving, it has some nice details and it somewhat interesting in its history. But if Steve doesn't want to spend millions fixing the house up, it IS his money.

I commend the photographer, even if he did break the law - it was worth what he got out of it.

If it was me, I would have gotten out years ago and found something more reasonable. I mean look at Candy Spelling, she owns the most expensive residential listing in the U.S.$150 Million Dollars.

Who is going to buy that, why would some one buy it??
Mac user since 1990 - System 6.0.7 through OS X 10.6 - Mac Mini (2009) - 4/320 - Snow Leopard
Reply
Mac user since 1990 - System 6.0.7 through OS X 10.6 - Mac Mini (2009) - 4/320 - Snow Leopard
Reply
post #148 of 211
4/30/09 at 9:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by toes View Post

... limited knowledge. As an Architect (of European Nationality and having lived in the US for 10+ years) I would caution the overzealous posters wanting to tear down the building.

If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).

Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).

There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.

If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.

Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).

Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.

A current example in Europe:
http://www.architekten24.de/mediadb/news/9664/index.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Liebeskind.jpg

Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)

There is no merit at any level to keep such a disgusting piece of architecture - either aesthetically or historically. If you're going to use your classification for preservation - we might as well start a 'bell bottoms and platforms preservation society'.

The purpose of saving something is because it marks a certain moment within history; the buildings embodying that particular moment in the form of architectural expression. That horrible looking house has absolutely no historical merit to hold onto - again, it is a horrible looking house that was planned by some nuevo rich individual which has no historical element other than how a person can amass a fortune and lack taste.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 211
5/1/09 at 6:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by imacmadman22 View Post

As a photographer, I think the photos are really wonderful, they have melancholy all their own and they reflect a sense of loss that is the house. It would be a shame to see it torn down, but it IS Steve's property and he should be allowed to do with his property what he wishes.

I agree that it is questionable whether or not the house is really worth saving, it has some nice details and it somewhat interesting in its history. But if Steve doesn't want to spend millions fixing the house up, it IS his money.

I commend the photographer, even if he did break the law - it was worth what he got out of it.

If it was me, I would have gotten out years ago and found something more reasonable. I mean look at Candy Spelling, she owns the most expensive residential listing in the U.S.$150 Million Dollars.

Who is going to buy that, why would some one buy it??


What you don't see is the parts of the building that are falling apart or have fallen apart, because who would take pictures of that? There is 17,000 square feet of building here, we are not even seeing 10% of it.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 211
5/1/09 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyb View Post

Where something has historic or artistic merit, keep it. Where it does not, make way for something that does.

Sorry, but the problem is precisely what has historic or artistic merit and who stablish this. Every generation believes to have the absolute truth.
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 211
5/1/09 at 8:18am
I think the house that Steve would build in it's place would likely be far more unique and historic in the long run. They are missing out on that by keeping this one.
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 211
5/1/09 at 9:45am
Check out the photographers other photos...simply amazing! Especially the abandoned Six Flags park in New Orleans.

http://www.terrastories.com/bearings/albums/
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 211
5/1/09 at 11:42am
The significance of this house is primarily related to its architect, George Washington Smith, who was the acknowledged master of the Spanish Revival style. Some say he effectively invented it. This significance is not some sort of arbitrary judgement, it is fully established by professionals in architectural history.

Some time back, Uncle Steve make the remark that Smith could not possibly be important because he'd never heard of him. This makes Steve look like a knucklehead. He also looks like a dope for not moving on, and allowing this property to fall into ruin. That's just being stubborn and irresponsible.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #154 of 211
5/1/09 at 1:02pm
Looks like a good place for a horror show, though...
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 211
5/1/09 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

Not to mention you just copied it from the post you put here yesterday.

Hence: It says "repost" in the title

Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

First of all....THIS is no Eiffel Tower

I am talking about an example showing how people's tastes and opinions can be misguided. I am not judging the historic merit of the building one way or another, I am just explaining process. And I would hope that as a colleague you would be a little more objective and respectful. Yes, this is not the Eiffel Tower (d'oh).

Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

Second of all....He's not looking to add to a legacy here, he just wants a house to live in.

Right, in the meantime he is living in a tent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

Third...a contemporary addition to the building to serve as a museum? The area is not zoned for that, the site would not support the additional parking required, this place is located at the end of a meandering Cul-de-Sac, hardly a place to put such a thing, not to mention Steve Jobs is a very private individual, so having a public entity attached to his residence is just, well, crazy.

Think Different, it was just a suggestion, not a decision to do this, but if you must argue: have you ever heard of rezoning? For an Architect you have very little imagination and creativity to offer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

And why are we assuming what style building he's putting here?

Because that is what has been brought up in these posts over and over again and frankly it is a reasonable assumption, considering Apple's product design and their stores, which I am sure Steve Jobs has had some say in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

This building has spent a third of its life in Steve Jobs's possesion, that IS the only historical significance it has. Spanish Colonial Revival from 1925 is actually a revival of a revival, basically it's hollywood, no more authentic than Pottery Barn, and doesn't hold true to the style anyway, the only impressive thing about the house is the fact it has 13 bathrooms.

Have you conducted an assessment or where did you obtain all your "knowledge" and "wisdom"? I guess "Hollywood" has no historic significance to you? What about Mr. Jackling?
Again: Just because someone (in this case you) does not like (or appreciate) the Architectural style does not make it historically insignificant.

Would I design a new house in this style, no, my taste is probably quite similar to yours. Do I think we should tear everything down that does not align with my tastes? What sad a world would it be? All buildings of one (matching) design philosophy ... that sounds a lot like what Albert Speer did in Nazi Germany and the Socialists had accomplished in the former GDR.

Just to clarify once more: My intent was not to justify a solution one way or another, simply to explain what considerations should be given to any "deemed historic" structure.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 211
5/1/09 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaiwai View Post

There is no merit at any level to keep such a disgusting piece of architecture - either aesthetically or historically. If you're going to use your classification for preservation - we might as well start a 'bell bottoms and platforms preservation society'.

The purpose of saving something is because it marks a certain moment within history; the buildings embodying that particular moment in the form of architectural expression. That horrible looking house has absolutely no historical merit to hold onto - again, it is a horrible looking house that was planned by some nuevo rich individual which has no historical element other than how a person can amass a fortune and lack taste.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I am sure that "bell bottoms and platforms" are being maintained in a fashion museum somewhere (much like knight's armor and baroque costumes).

As far as Architecture goes: Just because you don't like the design of something does not distract from (or add to) its historic significance.

Wouldn't your comment about that "nouveau riche" person apply just as much to Steve Jobs :-) ?
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 211
5/1/09 at 3:21pm
George Washington Smith - one of the great architects of Spanish homes built this house for Daniel and Virginia Jackling in Woodside in 1925. There are many beautiful pictures of both the inside and outside of this house - complete with furnishings, extensive artwork, beautiful floors, ceilings, tile and brick work. What a beautiful home. To see these pictures, look at the book "Gabriel Moulin's San Francisco Peninsula" and you will just marvel at what a perfectly wonderful house this is.

The crime is that the present owner - who acquired the house in the 1980s has let it fall to poor condition. This house can be brought back to the pristine condition it was in = and deserves to be once again. Consider Filoli - nearby - and how it is used and loved today - as a National Trust for Historic Preservation property. What a crime if Filoli had been torn down in the 1970s. The Roth family generously gave the house to the National Trust, so it can now be viewed by scores of people from around the world - including historians, horticulturists, and those interested in architecture.

The Jackling house, which was called "La Casita Espanol" is as valuable a property as Filoli and should definitely be spared from the wrecker's ball. Mr. Jobs prevented the house from being a National Trust or historic property because he didn't want it preserved. Perhaps he should not have bought the house if he didn't care for it. I understand he did not even know who George Washington Smith was - - one of the most important architects of California history. What a shame. The best thing Mr. Jobs should do with his billions of dollars - is help us provide a new location for this home - and become a hero in the eyes of the country by helping preserve this treasured home. Anyone viewing the pictures of this terrific home before it was allowed to fall into disrepair will come away feeling this property should be preserved. The amount of money the restoration will cost could be recouped many times over with help from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Please Mr. Jobs - please reconsider!!
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 211
5/1/09 at 3:25pm
The owner of the house can do what he wants to with it. He owns it.



As long as he gives me the organ.

And a place to put it.

---

Oh, how I tire of architecture and the art world.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #159 of 211
5/1/09 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The owner of the house can do what he wants to with it. He owns it.

This is a fundamentally untrue statement.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #160 of 211
5/1/09 at 3:35pm
Wow! That is an amazing house! I hope it is saved.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Inside Steve Jobs' abandoned Jackling mansion (photos)