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.
What kind of a world are we living in where a man doesn't have the right to destroy something he owns?
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.
Who's to say that their opinion of the "greater good" is actually for the greater good? Or that their opinion of the greater good is more valid than MY opinion of the greater good? Or Steve Jobs' opinion of the greater good? Hell, he irritates the crap out of me, but he is obviously intelligent and cunning enough to become the leader of one of the most influential companies of the past couple decades, why not also assume that he's wise enough to decide what the "greater good" is as far as what amounts to a tiny structure on little plot of land on this huge, huge planet?
All these hippie QQ-ers crack me up.
Look, I'm all for preserving history, but that thing is not it... =P
-Clive
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.
What kind of a world are we living in where a man doesn't have the right to destroy something he owns?
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).
It is his property, let him do with it as he pleases. If Save Our Heritage wants to to keep the mansion than they should pay for the relocation.
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.
It's not an endangered animal, it's a building. And it's his. You want to preserve it, offer enough money to buy it. Otherwise he should be free to grind it to dust. The only reason things become "historic" is that at one point someone was able to build something new. How about we start making history instead of dithering about preserving run-down hovels?
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?
The only real property under the law is real estate. Also, you mean Federally required records?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightzero
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?
Can you flood my property with water? No. Preventing you from doing so protects the property rights of the community.
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.
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.
The entire house moving thing is a sideshow, with no real bearing on the main issues. As I said, the significance of the house is not even slightly dependent on whether someone wants to preserve it. It's a completely independent fact established on a technical basis....
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.
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.
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.
Wow, some of you people are very insensitive and ignorant when it comes to conservation issues. I for one am glad to live in a city with an intact medieval core, and I mourn every beautiful old building that was torn down to make room for some steel-and-glass-monstrosity. And unlike some of you, I can at least admit that this is just my opinion and that I am merely a layman. It's not up to laymen to determine whether an object is worthy of preservation; it's not even up to the object's owner - there are scientists and public officials who are in charge of making these decisions. Why? Because it is in a whole society's best interest that culturally significant objects - be they works of art or buildings - be preserved. When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
Indeed. VOTE RON PAUL FREEDOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!11111
Comments
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!
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.
What kind of a world are we living in where a man doesn't have the right to destroy something he owns?
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.)
"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.
HAH. Scientists and public officials...
Who's to say that their opinion of the "greater good" is actually for the greater good? Or that their opinion of the greater good is more valid than MY opinion of the greater good? Or Steve Jobs' opinion of the greater good? Hell, he irritates the crap out of me, but he is obviously intelligent and cunning enough to become the leader of one of the most influential companies of the past couple decades, why not also assume that he's wise enough to decide what the "greater good" is as far as what amounts to a tiny structure on little plot of land on this huge, huge planet?
All these hippie QQ-ers crack me up.
Look, I'm all for preserving history, but that thing is not it... =P
-Clive
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.
The home was built in 1929 for coper mining mogul Daniel Jackling.
I think maybe it is spelled 'copper'.
What kind of a world are we living in where a man doesn't have the right to destroy something he owns?
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).
It is his property, let him do with it as he pleases. If Save Our Heritage wants to to keep the mansion than they should pay for the relocation.
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.
It's not an endangered animal, it's a building. And it's his. You want to preserve it, offer enough money to buy it. Otherwise he should be free to grind it to dust. The only reason things become "historic" is that at one point someone was able to build something new. How about we start making history instead of dithering about preserving run-down hovels?
Anybody who want to preserve history is crazy!
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?
The only real property under the law is real estate. Also, you mean Federally required 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?
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.
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!
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.
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
The entire house moving thing is a sideshow, with no real bearing on the main issues. As I said, the significance of the house is not even slightly dependent on whether someone wants to preserve it. It's a completely independent fact established on a technical basis....
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.
I think there's something to be said for the arguments charging the SOH with the responsibility of fundraising to relocate the house.
This would be a valid point if Steve Jobs weren't a goddamned billionaire. He's just being stubborn and stingy on this one.
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.
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
- 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.
Wow, some of you people are very insensitive and ignorant when it comes to conservation issues. I for one am glad to live in a city with an intact medieval core, and I mourn every beautiful old building that was torn down to make room for some steel-and-glass-monstrosity. And unlike some of you, I can at least admit that this is just my opinion and that I am merely a layman. It's not up to laymen to determine whether an object is worthy of preservation; it's not even up to the object's owner - there are scientists and public officials who are in charge of making these decisions. Why? Because it is in a whole society's best interest that culturally significant objects - be they works of art or buildings - be preserved. When my parents wanted to increase the size of the windows in the roof of their house (which they own), their request was declined by the city's preservation office because the new windows would have significantly altered the character and appearance of what it deemed to be an object worthy of preservation. And you know what? I sided with the city, not with my parents.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
Indeed. VOTE RON PAUL FREEDOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!11111