Inside Steve Jobs' abandoned Jackling mansion (photos) - Page 5

"If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today." Yes, there would be... in Vegas!

Now that I registered, just another few points...

The mansion is far too PC, I guess.

The reason, why Jobs didn't demolished it was that at the time, Apple computers were white plastic. Cheap toasters are made from plastic, not houses. But with aluminum and glass...

So expect super-glossy windows and some humming noise. And no Firewire, sorry! \

Man, that place is amazing!!! That pipe organ is so fantastic, it seems Steve Jobs has a brushed aluminum & glass soul...

WOW that house is amazing! A musician's delight...so much charm and charactor. Is that blood splattered over that bottle/container of water softener! :P

As for Jobs' estimates on reno costs, well that is hardly an independent assessment. If it suits his argument then I'm sure he'll find a way to fix the prices to serve his cause.

I think heritage is something worth holding on to. Who's to say if Jobs gets his way that he won't rebuild it with something far more bland and hideous?

It's a multi-million dollar piece of property. If you think it's worth it, you make a serious offer to buy it that doesn't include him footing your bills. If not, get out of the way.

Now I see that I drove by his mansion on many occasions, trying to escape the Silicon Valley. Nice area, really.

Actually, no he can't. Trespassing only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when instructed to do so by the property owner (or an authorized representative). Since the photographer left the premises on his own, there's no real legal recourse. He may be open to a civil action (i.e., a lawsuit), but unless there's some evidence that he caused damage to the property, it's probably unlikely that would be successful in court.

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, but I worked as a private security guard when I was going to school and sometimes had assignments watching over places like this so I read up a bit on the rent-a-cop manual.

That doesn't apply to private property, only to (for example) a bookstore in a mall or a restaurant or some other place where the general public has an expectation they would be allowed in.

A couple previous posts were promoting hysteria over the mold seen in a few pictures. I would like to contribute a bit of sanity.

The mold seen in these pictures does not come remotely close to justifying the demolition of a building. The following addresses the subject from a health and safety perspective and isn't meant as commentary on what an owner should or should not be allowed to do with realestate.

It is important to consider a number of factors; climate, groundwater, building materials, and how those materials are used.

In this case we're dealing with a solid masonry structure, meaning no wall cavities and little timber in the walls themselves. Being built in the 20s, the walls probably contain portland cement but likely also have a large lime component. This is important because these types of walls will wick moisture from wet soil or roof leaks. This is actually a good thing when the building is well maintained. Any moisture that works its way into the walls will be able to evaporate instead of being trapped. However when buildings are abandoned, downspouts fall off, gutters start to leak, and moisture is drawn into the walls.

The good news is that these types of structures have existed for thousands of years. It is well known that mold can develop and well known how to get rid of it. Simply fix the roof leaks and make sure downspouts drain away from the foundation. Buildings like these have been neglected for centuries and yet can still be salvaged.

This differs drastically from modern construction. Modern construction is built completely differently. Instead of designing buildings to be permiable and to dry natural between rainfalls, modern building are designed to be almost completely air tight. Once water gets into the wall, it tends to stay there. Also modern building materials like dry wall, or even gypsum based plaster, do not hold up well to moisture. However lime plaster and masonry is quite different, it can get wet and dry out without being problematic. Oftentimes old house owners will clad their old home in siding and then insulate, not realizing that this will lead to moisture and mold problems. For instance, a home with leaking box gutters will quickly be ruined if it has been sealed up in the modern fashion during a remodel. Air tight homes and insulation fare much better with hanging gutters, which when leaking, leak onto the ground rather than the home's framing.

Also keep in mind that without wall cavities there isn't much mold lurking inside the walls like there would be in a modern home. It primarily exists on the surface. Most people in the US live in modern construction so the concept of a non-hollow wall is probably a bit foreign to some. Mold wasn't much of a problem at all before the invention of air-tight buildings with wall cavities filled with insulation.

Finally, the climate. Mold isn't as much of a problem in California as it is in some other. Low humidity, limited precipitation, and few cloudy days all mean that things dry out much quicker than say, New Orleans.

In summary, the mold seen in these pictures is completely trivial. It doesn't pose much of a health problem and remediation would be dead simple. The fact that the home is two stories tall (and has a stairs) is far more dangerous than would be living in the home after it has been fixed up a a bit for habitation. Yes the stairs are more dangerous than the mold.

If you couldn't tell by now, I'm an old house nut that couldn't resist stepping in to dispel the misinformation that was floating around about mold. My home had a far worse mold problem when I moved in. I fixed the gutters and downspouts and then sprayed the wall with chemicals... bam! No more mold. If the home was air-tight modern construction with impermeable materials, than sure, the mold would have been a problem.

After my lengthy post on mold... here's a stab at the topic from a different direction, discussing the merits of preserving historic homes.

I can't comment on how unique or significant this particular home is, but it can't be written off for the reasons mentioned by a few previous posts.

The fact that the home isn't embellished with lots of architectural detail does not make it not worth saving. Plain styles are historic too.

The fact that the home is considered ugly by some shouldn't be a factor either. Many historic structures have been considered ugly at some point in their existance. The Twin Towers and the Eiffel Tower were both considered ugly when first built. Impressive but ugly.

Lack of overall architectural coherence doesn't preclude historical significance either. The history of a home, including additions and alterations, are themselves of historical significance.



Living in Pittsburgh, I've gotten to see first hand what happens to old mansions. After the steel industry died, there wasn't enough wealth to keep the grand structures in good condition. Gradually, nearly all of the mansions became too costly to repair and only mid-sized and small homes remain. Nearly all the mansions have been sub-divided or torn down and replaced with rectangular apartment complexes of about the same square footage. A book by the name of "Pittsburgh Then and Now" is a fascinating chronicle of these changes. The author traveled the city with a camera and replicated old photographs by taking pictures from the exact same vantage point. In the book the old picture consumes the left page and the new pictures is always on the right page. The contrast is astounding. Nearly all of the solid stone mansions are gone forever. Whole neighborhoods erased from the face of the earth. The book doesn't even need words to prove a point. All that's necessary are the pictures. It only takes five minutes to realize what has been lost.

What is economically desirable in the short term for the owner of individual properties doesn't necessarily equate to the greatest good in the long run. During the hardest decades in Pittsburgh, the choice was to let these properties sit idle or to rip them down and build something profitable at that moment in time. But that moment in time was fleeting and the economic benefits not terribly widespread. Fast forward a few decades. Now that Pittsburgh has largely recovered, it would be to everyone's benefit if those old mansions still existed. But the short term benefit to a few was allowed to take precedence over the long-term benefit of many.

Or for instance, slum lords. They buy up big houses, sub-divide them, and then don't do any maintenance whatsoever. This became so endemic that sub-dividing is now prohibited. It turns out that allowing people that freedom results in certain decline of a neighborhood. In pittsburgh, rented houses bring down the value of nearby homes because landlords won't pay to have the victorian architecture maintained. Porch gutters leaking? Just tear down the porch, 2 foot diameter columns and all, and replace with a small concrete slab.

This doesn't mean I'm always on the side of preservation. Only that when completely ungoverned, the tendency is to error on the side of too little preservation. The key is balancing it with personal freedom. I'm glad that we no longer have the freedom to sub-divide homes here. On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to afford my home if it had to be maintained in a historic manner. I would be pissed if someone told me I had to install a slate roof because that's what my home had originally. A slate roof would cost more than the home is worth at this point!

Too often there seem to be knee-jerk reactions to this subject. Typically this is because someone has had a previous experience where the trade-off was made too far in one direction. From then on, they are on the opposite side, failing to consider any balance between personal freedom and building ordinances, including historic preservation.

Agreed in general but you'd have a difficult time building a case that any design by George Washington Smith lacked architectural coherence. He was regarded as one of the top architects of his day, and is even more well-regarded today for his contributions towards the creation of a California style. The fact is, if a person doesn't know the first thing about architecture, we really don't need to spend much time entertaining their views on the subject.

The insidiousness of extreme wealth has been around since the dawn of civilization. These are great photos, and they illustrate to me the wealth of this mansion, cast off by Steve Jobs. Many of us would live here, as it is. A little paint, a couple of throw pillows...

The 1931 additions reduced the architectural coherence but an "expert" such as yourself should have known that.

I know about the additions. The significance of the property was established by a professional architectural historian, who took this into consideration. That is what matters.

Screw it, it's his house, he can tear it down if he likes. If you don't like it, make him an offer, I'm sure he'd be happy to get rid of it now at a little profit. However, the notion of prohibiting someone to do what they like to THEIR OWN Property is beyond ludicrous. We are talking Millions of dollars of personal wealth at stake being dictated by people with no right to the property, nor will they ever even step foot in it.

I would have "accidentally" driven through it with a bulldozer years ago.

I just realized how apt my signature is to this topic...

So, you are totally against all land use regulations?

I have nothing against regulations as long as it's not overtly imposing on one's personal rights to property and will prevent a detrimental impact to the neighbors lives and well being. It seems as this building has been an abandoned eyesore for many years and if it is as important as many are saying it should have been snapped up and restored by those causing commotion a long time ago, weather it be an individual, a historic society or the state. Not waiting for someone to purchase it and then forcing their hand.

As I designer, I understand the importance of the preserving of style and culture, but not all instances of design and culture can and should be kept by any and everyone against their will. Regulations should be for safety, not personal taste.

You're certainly entitled to your own views, but I'm sure you know, land use regulations cover a wide variety of issues, many of which no doubt cross your own personal line of being "overly imposing." Long ago, the Supreme Court determined that governments can pass regulations which protect the health, safety and general welfare of communities. And yes, historic preservation is explicitly one of those issues. Disagree with it all you like, but these regulations are very very common.

As to this building, it's only an abandoned eyesore because the owner elected to abandon it and allow it to become an eyesore. So even by your own definition of when it is right and proper to regulate, Steve Jobs crossed that line simply by permitting his property to fall into decay.

Also, the house could not have been "snapped up" by anyone, since Jobs did not even try to sell it. As I have pointed out several times in this and other threads on this subject, homes by this architect are rare and desirable, and fetch a premium in the market. He could have sold it he'd wanted to, and probably at a tidy profit, but he did not want to.

I highly doubt it was an oasis when he bought it. How long has he ad it and in what condition did he purchase it in? It seem to have been laid in ruin for quite some time.

Its one thing to say he can't build an apartment complex or strip mall at that location. Its another to say the old house has to stay for all eternity. If he (or anyone else OBTW) wants to build another house appropriate to the neighborhood, why on Earth would you get in the way of that? If the old house itself is that important, then start a fundraiser and make an offer on it yourself.

Here's the question that I keep coming back to: Does the abandoned monolith add value to the neighborhood as it stands, and would its replacement enhance the neighborhood?

No, he lived in it for a while and then rented it out for some time. It only fell into ruin when he decided not to rent it out.


So it's only historic preservation regulations you are against, all the others are fine?

I think what he's trying to get at is the property is not for sale and the window seems to be closed for that direction. I still feel that as property owners, as long as he isn't trying to re-zone or increase traffic to the neighborhood he shouldn't be dictated on historic preservation. If this is such a big deal the courts should be giving a premium over fair market value for the property and take the choice out of his hands (much like if the government needs to seize your land for environmental reasons). Catching a home owner in a catch 22 (it's yours, but you can't do anything you want with it, but it's yours...) like this is ridiculous and happens way to often. There are always a shortage of people to save something when the bill falls on them but they find a voice when it's someone else's problem.

That's stated with such certainty.

The only thing certain here is that none of us know what really went on nor the thought process involved. We don't know what kind of maintenance was needed upon purchase, while it was occupied, or what is needed now. We also don't know if renting it out was economically viable. It is quite likely that the rental income wasn't enough to cover insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc.

What we can do is speculate.

Short answer, yes. Long answer, well that's depends on if it's the last example of the Designer's work, if it really is THAT influentially important.

Saw the pictures, the house has a lot of potential to be restored.

First off the structure is solid, it just has been neglected.

Lots of curves and shapes, rare things.

Look at other restored George Washington Smith houses, fetch quite a bit of money too. Google images to see.

http://www.luxist.com/2006/02/14/mon...te-of-the-day/

http://periodhomes.blogspot.com/2008...one-of-my.html

(scroll down to see)

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,1726739.story


Steve should be ashamed of himself.

I agree, the style of the house in question is lovely, way better than my modest home, but this point I am trying to make is that it is HIS home. He should be able to do what he wants with it. My wife and I every once and a while play the "what if lottery" game, where we rhapsodize about what we would do if we cam in to some exorbitant amount of money and we have always said that since we love our area (filled with great shops, central location yet little traffic and streets canopied with beautiful Elm Trees) we would rather rebuild our home than move to a different location. Now, the houses in our area date back to the 20's and are considered character homes. We didn't buy the house with the intention to tear it down, but if it was feasible, we'd do it in a second and heaven help anyone who gets in my way. If Jobs was looking to tear it down when he purchased it, that would be one thing, but the house is his and he wants to change it. It really shouldn't be anyone else's business but his, especially since there seems to be many more examples existing of not only the style, but direct from the architects own design. If this was the last one or so, fine... I understand the last push for a preservation of a final piece, but that is not the case here.

Perhaps Jobs can secretly hire this demolition company. CNN Video: House demolished by accident

I feel bad for the guy in the video though.

First off, how do you know the structure is solid, have you inspected it or are you guessing from photos? Curves and shapes are not rare things at all, the designer's name may be, that's all. Why should he be ashamed? For making HIS home his own? It's not like they're making any more land, especially in an area like this, with an neighborhood and view he's happy with.

Jeez, making it sound like he's taking a chainsaw to the Mona Lisa...

No, he's just demolishing a house designed by one of California's most important architects.

it's funny how people will fight an easy target like jobs on his place because of wealth and name recognition but we will never hear about this guy's hardship again. That was something to be protected. When something truly means something to the owner and has honest, one of a kind value.

Not all works of art survive, and not everyone should made to appreciate other's taste in design, especially if they have to actually live in it.

That's an odd statement. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. Are you saying that people who own historically significant properties should always be allowed to destroy them simply because they don't like them?

What I mean is that we all know that, regardless of the medium, art is subjective. When you deal in a medium that is more utilitarian than show piece you run the risk of it being subject to modification, or in this case deconstruction. If the owner truly appreciated it for the home it's self I think it would be fantastic that it be restored and appreciated, such as the examples in the links above. Just like an old painting restored to it's former glory. However, it's not a painting, nor a sculpture or any other form of art that can be moved, shown and displayed. It's a home with land and a neighborhood. It's location and view as well as design. Most importantly it's utilitarian purpose is for a family dwelling. And if the family dwelling in it wants to see it changed, then they should not have to appease anyone who doesn't live with in it.

I'm not arguing weather the home can be considered a work or art to some, that's no question, but since it has more purpose that just being admired, especial for those who live there/actually own it, it shouldn't held only to that trait when the owner places a higher value on other traits, such as location.

I think the "nice" thing to do is sell the house, sure, but to force someone to not build a home of their own design (that would undoubtedly pass all codes and regulations on any other plot of land) on a property they have owned for apparently quite some time underlines that no matter how much we succeed or how much money we put aside, we don't own what we own... regardless of the exorbitant amount of our livelihood we invest in it. That's a sad thing.

Got to stop you there. Accepted standards and methods are used for determining if a property is historically significant, and the determinations are made by people who understand the methods and standards as well as the data being used to make the determinations. It's not guesswork, nor is it a subjective process. I think what I'm hearing here in a variety of guises is that an uninformed opinion is just a good as an informed opinion. Not where I come from, anyway.

In terms of what is regulated, I see no reason, and no stated justification, for why historic preservation is so different than any other land use regulation. Hell, in many communities architectural review boards can tell you what color to paint your downspouts. If you don't like it, complain to your city council.

The other thing I'm hearing is that historic preservation regulations are being called an awful thing by people who probably never even thought about the subject before. Guess what, thousands of communities across the country protect their historic buildings, and they've been doing it for a long, long time. I didn't start with Steve Jobs and his house. And don't bother complaining bitterly on behalf of Steve -- it's pretty obvious that he and his lawyers can deal with it on their own.

I'm well aware of the methods used to back up preservation, I live in a city with many deeply historic communities deemed historical landmarks. Not just one or two structures, but districts. I know. I get it. I just think that, like many regulations, these are areas that go way beyond preservation towards property bullying. I specifically like the "If you don't like it, complain to your city council", that fits perfectly with the attitude of people I've had to deal with when helping associates restructuring buildings in our exchange district.

But none of this matters. I thought we were all having proper conversation but apparently my voice is just "complaining bitterly"... I must not be a intellectually elevated to have a view thats worthy to be head though I agreed to many points you mad.

Enjoy talking to yourself I guess... I hope the "big bad wolf" blows his own house down.

Sorry, it wasn't really directed at you. Take a look around -- lots of posts in this and the other threads on this subject take the form of bitter complaints, and it seems obvious to me at least that some of the complainers had never thought about historic preservation before. Now it matters deeply to them, since Steve Jobs is involved. A lot of the posts reflect not only a lack of knowledge on the issue, but an aggressive disinterest in gaining any.

Local government is what you make of it, and it isn't bad just because it doesn't always reflect your preferences and desires. It's not an "attitude," it's a fact.

I know he finally got approval to tear this down legally, but he should have just done it Chicago style years ago. Shine bright lights so the media can't film it, then bring in a wrecking crew.

How do you light it so it can't be filmed? Pro camcorders have neutral density filters and failing that, shutter and iris controls.

This house REAKS of potential for horror movies!