Yes, factually significant maybe, but that's not the same thing as cultural relevance, and you know it. What scientific method tells us with regard to "historical architecture" is whether we are dealing with an original work worthy of our attention and care or simply the derivative work of an epigone. But again, this is not my subject, so I am completely out of my element here. I just chose to chime in because your post reeks of a cetain elitism often exhibited by those who are proud to have studied a so-called "hard science". Well, congratulations, I guess my subject isn't as cool and hard as yours.
BTW, I'm not American, and as a student who's just finishing up his degree and can barely afford to live in a one-bedroom apartment, I sadly can't step in and save the house
But I can assure you that if I were a billionaire, I would spend the pocket change to have the building relocated.
My argument is not about flaunting my degrees or their subjects. It's about distinguishing what is a product of scientific method and what is not. The difference is that scientific method yields knowledge. If you've adequately studied colonial spanish revival architecture, preserving this mansion will do nothing for you.
The significance of cultural landmarks and icons is that they are of EMOTIONAL IMPORTANCE. This is the opposite of scientific method, ergo, they cannot be determined to be "significant" by fact, and are instead a matter of opinion. Thus the decision of their preservation is ALSO opinion.
QED
-Clive
P.S., if you ever become a billionaire, please don't waste your money on moving sh**ty houses, and instead spend it on things that actually matter, like disease research, and famine relief in impoverished third-world countries lead by corrupt assh*les who keep their people subjugated and living in slews.
You don't want the responsibility of buying an older home. Then don't. No one is making you buy it. There are loads of properties with newer homes or empty lots. Just buy one of them.
If you don't like it, move to another neighborhood. Problem solved!
It's not like a downtown building that the general public is familiar with or has appreciated over the years. It is secluded private property that no one would be allowed to get within sight of if Steve restored it and lived there.
I have restored a few older homes and I never really enjoyed them afterwards as much as building a new house. Some people like old homes, but short of tearing them down a rebuilding them again with all new mechanicals, it just isn't my cup of tea. And if you did go to that extent it wouldn't really be restored, it would be a replica.
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 wasn't actually arguing anything, just explaining how this process works -- which I well know enough to explain it, since this is my profession, and it has been for decades. I'm not at all interested in getting into the emotional-political-philsophical debate about the value of historic preservation. That is immaterial to what I'm attempting to explain.
As I have already said, the "style of the house" is not the source of its significance. The article states this wrongly. It is the owner of the house when it was built, and the architect who designed it which are the source of its significance. These determinations are made objectively on the basis of fact and analytical criteria by people who are knowledgeable about both. Whether you believe this or not is immaterial. It happens to be true in any case. If you reject this information out of hand for no other reason than you don't know anything about it (or don't want to), then it is not someone else who is being silly.
I have never said or even implied that Steve Jobs should be forced to preserve the house. In fact the city council has voted at least twice to allow him to demolish it. As I said, the battle which has been ongoing for the past several years is entirely over whether the city complied with California environmental law in allowing him to so.
Or let's put it this way: if you "owned" a slave in the 19th century, you could do whatever you wanted to him or her and it was legal, but it sure as hell wasn't ethical. I guess those whining crybabies in the north should just have bought all the slaves from southern slaveowners, heh.
The Book of Leviticus has specific rules about how to morally own slaves. You can't due anything but there are many things you can due.
I'll leave you with this simple quote from the German constitution (well, Grundgesetz): "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."
Then it's a good thing I don't live in Deutschland, because I completely disagree. It's my belief that people should be able to live as they choose so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
As none of us have a right to that house, nor can we come anywhere close to arguing that its demolition will irreparably damage the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations, I see no reason it shouldn't go.
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
Thanks for the welcome. After such a long time visiting the page it was about time to join the forum. It's funny that my first posts are not about Apple products but about this sideshow issue. Anyway, I take your points that not everything can be preserved. However, it seems that a knowledgeable group of people think that this mansion is worth preserving. We'll see what happens. By the way, we maintain whatever is left of the Acropolis and other places. It's sad a lot of people in the past didn't preserve things that sometimes we now unearth and try to bring back at great expense. Again, I understand that there is no money and resources to keep everything and that not everything might be worth keeping. However, in this dispute we have a group of people who think this is worth preserving and a billionaire who is doing everything (by doing nothing) to let the mansion fall into disrepair so he can justify demolishing it.
Ahahahaha best post ever, whether you're trolling or not (I sure hope you are).
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
My argument is not about flaunting my degrees or their subjects. It's about distinguishing what is a product of scientific method and what is not. The difference is that scientific method yields knowledge. If you've adequately studied colonial spanish revival architecture, preserving this mansion will do nothing for you.
The significance of cultural landmarks and icons is that they are of EMOTIONAL IMPORTANCE. This is the opposite of scientific method, ergo, they cannot be determined to be "significant" by fact, and are instead a matter of opinion. Thus the decision of their preservation is ALSO opinion.
You are completely wrong about the criteria and how they are applied. It may not be mathematics, but is it's hardly just a matter of opinion and certainly not one of emotion. Very far from it. I can explain this in more detail, if you are interested.
My argument is not about flaunting my degrees or their subjects. It's about distinguishing what is a product of scientific method and what is not. The difference is that scientific method yields knowledge. If you've adequately studied colonial spanish revival architecture, preserving this mansion will do nothing for you.
The significance of cultural landmarks and icons is that they are of EMOTIONAL IMPORTANCE. This is the opposite of scientific method, ergo, they cannot be determined to be "significant" by fact, and are instead a matter of opinion. Thus the decision of their preservation is ALSO opinion.
QED
-Clive
Except that the relevant decisions on whether to preserve an object or not are not made on an emotional basis This is not how conservation works. In my country alone, there is a very complex and very detailed federal law that specifically outlines these processes. I'm not a lawyer, but it sure as hell doesn't say "a few grannies get together over tea and decide which buildings should be preserved because they're just SO lovely". There are expert panels, regulations, specific criteria yadda yadda yadda. Yes, landmarks are of emotional importance, but this is not central to the decision as to whether they should be preserved or not.
Quote:
P.S., if you ever become a billionaire, please don't waste your money on moving sh**ty houses, and instead spend it on things that actually matter, like disease research, and famine relief in impoverished third-world countries lead by corrupt assh*les who keep their people subjugated and living in slews.
Yes, because SJ is an exemplary philanthropist. Oh wait...
Then it's a good thing I don't live in Deutschland, because I completely disagree. It's my belief that people should be able to live as they choose so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
As none of us have a right to that house, nor can we come anywhere close to arguing that its demolition will irreparably damage the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations, I see no reason it shouldn't go.
-Clive
I don't live in Deutschland either, nor would I want to, but that's a nice tenet they have there
BTW, it could be argued that since the house is culturally significant - i.e. a significant example of American culture -, you as an American have a right to see it preserved, whether you cherish that right or not. Also, the destruction of a culturally relevant object does not necessarily have to be so devastating as to "irreparably damage the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations". It's just wrong in and of itself.
HEY... IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what he does with HIS PROPERTY.... any more than it is Steve Jobs's place to decide what you do with your property. What is wrong with some of you in here? Do you not understand what makes the USA so different than other countries? Do you not understand that one big piece to that puzzle is PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS? This means if you buy something... YOU FREAKING OWN IT. Quit thinking like a liberal.... wait... that's kind of an oxymoron. Anyway it's not your place to decide what Jobs does with his property or money... which are essentially the same thing. Jobs has more than been accommodating to you people that think it's your place to decide what other people do with their property and money. If I were him I would have bulldozed the place in the middle of the night and then paid whatever idiotic fines were imposed by the city.
Let me just plant this seed in your head. Do you own a car? Well... I'm going to be visiting your part of the country soon and I need a ride. Since you can afford a car then I think it's your responsibility to provide everyone else with a car that can't afford one. So.... give me your keys and I'll be on my way.
What you're saying is no stinking different.
Z
How far are you willing to take that idea that you can do whatever you want with your property? Can I then plant opium poppies there because I can do whatever I want with and in my property. Would it be alright to make it into a nudist camp, or build a ten story building besides your house. Truth is that cities impose limits on what you can and cannot do with your property, and as far as I can see that hasn't been called unamerican before. In fact, there are more restrictions here than in most of the rest of the world due to lack of enforcement in other places. The kind of comments you make just make you sound angry, not right. What would you say if a Chinese company buys the statue of liberty and decides to bring it down to build the Panda Express headquarters? According to your reasoning that the owner can do whatever they want you wouldn't bat an eye to that, would you?
I am not sure what the car analogy has to do with this. Nobody is asking Steve Jobs to let people squat in his property, just to preserve it, or perhaps sell it to someone who would preserve it.
You are completely wrong about the criteria and how they are applied. It may not be mathematics, but is it's hardly just a matter of opinion and certainly not one of emotion. Very far from it. I can explain this in more detail, if you are interested.
A bold claim without justification is just a bold claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
Except that the relevant decisions on whether to preserve an object or not are not made on an emotional basis This is not how conservation works. In my country alone, there is a very complex and very detailed federal law that specifically outlines these processes. I'm not a lawyer, but it sure as hell doesn't say "a few grannies get together over tea and decide which buildings should be preserved because they're just SO lovely". There are expert panels, regulations, specific criteria yadda yadda yadda. Yes, landmarks are of emotional importance, but this is not central to the decision as to whether they should be preserved or not.
Okay, then if there's absolutely no emotion involved, then let's document every possible detail of the house and rip the thing down. Problem Solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
Yes, because SJ is an exemplary philanthropist. Oh wait...
Who's talking about Steve? All I'm saying is that (in my opinion) there are much greater global concerns than this stupid house, such as the ones I listed.
Why don't you let Steve worry about Steve and you can worry about yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv
The Book of Leviticus has specific rules about how to morally own slaves. You can't due anything but there are many things you can due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
Ahahahaha best post ever, whether you're trolling or not (I sure hope you are).
While bluntly stated by iLuv, there are forms of slavery that exist today in modern culture. South Korea, for example, mandates military service of all men. One could even argue that paying taxes is a form of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huracan
Thanks for the welcome. After such a long time visiting the page it was about time to join the forum. It's funny that my first posts are not about Apple products but about this sideshow issue. Anyway, I take your points that not everything can be preserved. However, it seems that a knowledgeable group of people think that this mansion is worth preserving. We'll see what happens. By the way, we maintain whatever is left of the Acropolis and other places. It's sad a lot of people in the past didn't preserve things that sometimes we now unearth and try to bring back at great expense. Again, I understand that there is no money and resources to keep everything and that not everything might be worth keeping. However, in this dispute we have a group of people who think this is worth preserving and a billionaire who is doing everything (by doing nothing) to let the mansion fall into disrepair so he can justify demolishing it.
We certainly agree on the logic, just perhaps not on where to draw the line between being overly cautious and practical.
Except that the relevant decisions on whether to preserve an object or not are not made on an emotional basis This is not how conservation works. In my country alone, there is a very complex and very detailed federal law that specifically outlines these processes. I'm not a lawyer, but it sure as hell doesn't say "a few grannies get together over tea and decide which buildings should be preserved because they're just SO lovely". There are expert panels, regulations, specific criteria yadda yadda yadda. Yes, landmarks are of emotional importance, but this is not central to the decision as to whether they should be preserved or not.
It's much the same here, although the regulations are much more decentralized to the states and local governments, and for the most part, far weaker. Some states have virtually no environmental protection laws; others like California, have very detailed and complex laws. Even in California, it's rare for a local government to mandate the preservation of any building (or any other environmental resource, for that matter). The laws in this state really only require that the local government properly disclose the environmental impacts of their decisions. It's then up to the voters in that community to decide if their elected officials are responsive to their priorities.
- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)
No problem!
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv
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!
That would definitely be an interesting scene...
And, well, it would certainly be quite a commentary on the fiasco this mansion's fate has become!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I hope that Steve has a wrecking crew on site before the ink dries on the court papers. Then those whining preservationists can just go away.
Disclaimer - I own / live in a restored Victorian house in San Francisco. I know what's worth saving. SJ's house is worth more in scrap wood.
I agree -- it looks like something from a '70s Chuck Bronson movie or "Columbo" episode. I am a _great_ admirer of old houses, mansions, castles, palaces, etc., and this particular structure is absolutely ugly, IMHumO. Steve Jobs obviously bought the property for the location (and/or its particular siting) with pre-established thoughts of erecting a new home. He knew exactly what he was doing!
Comments
Yes, factually significant maybe, but that's not the same thing as cultural relevance, and you know it. What scientific method tells us with regard to "historical architecture" is whether we are dealing with an original work worthy of our attention and care or simply the derivative work of an epigone. But again, this is not my subject, so I am completely out of my element here. I just chose to chime in because your post reeks of a cetain elitism often exhibited by those who are proud to have studied a so-called "hard science". Well, congratulations, I guess my subject isn't as cool and hard as yours.
BTW, I'm not American, and as a student who's just finishing up his degree and can barely afford to live in a one-bedroom apartment, I sadly can't step in and save the house
But I can assure you that if I were a billionaire, I would spend the pocket change to have the building relocated.
My argument is not about flaunting my degrees or their subjects. It's about distinguishing what is a product of scientific method and what is not. The difference is that scientific method yields knowledge. If you've adequately studied colonial spanish revival architecture, preserving this mansion will do nothing for you.
The significance of cultural landmarks and icons is that they are of EMOTIONAL IMPORTANCE. This is the opposite of scientific method, ergo, they cannot be determined to be "significant" by fact, and are instead a matter of opinion. Thus the decision of their preservation is ALSO opinion.
QED
-Clive
P.S., if you ever become a billionaire, please don't waste your money on moving sh**ty houses, and instead spend it on things that actually matter, like disease research, and famine relief in impoverished third-world countries lead by corrupt assh*les who keep their people subjugated and living in slews.
LOL. Go back to Woodstock, hippie!
-Clive
Just noticed your sig. Nice.
This would be a valid point if Steve Jobs weren't a goddamned billionaire. He's just being stubborn and stingy on this one.
What's your point?
You don't want the responsibility of buying an older home. Then don't. No one is making you buy it. There are loads of properties with newer homes or empty lots. Just buy one of them.
If you don't like it, move to another neighborhood. Problem solved!
I have restored a few older homes and I never really enjoyed them afterwards as much as building a new house. Some people like old homes, but short of tearing them down a rebuilding them again with all new mechanicals, it just isn't my cup of tea. And if you did go to that extent it wouldn't really be restored, it would be a replica.
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 wasn't actually arguing anything, just explaining how this process works -- which I well know enough to explain it, since this is my profession, and it has been for decades. I'm not at all interested in getting into the emotional-political-philsophical debate about the value of historic preservation. That is immaterial to what I'm attempting to explain.
As I have already said, the "style of the house" is not the source of its significance. The article states this wrongly. It is the owner of the house when it was built, and the architect who designed it which are the source of its significance. These determinations are made objectively on the basis of fact and analytical criteria by people who are knowledgeable about both. Whether you believe this or not is immaterial. It happens to be true in any case. If you reject this information out of hand for no other reason than you don't know anything about it (or don't want to), then it is not someone else who is being silly.
I have never said or even implied that Steve Jobs should be forced to preserve the house. In fact the city council has voted at least twice to allow him to demolish it. As I said, the battle which has been ongoing for the past several years is entirely over whether the city complied with California environmental law in allowing him to so.
Or let's put it this way: if you "owned" a slave in the 19th century, you could do whatever you wanted to him or her and it was legal, but it sure as hell wasn't ethical. I guess those whining crybabies in the north should just have bought all the slaves from southern slaveowners, heh.
The Book of Leviticus has specific rules about how to morally own slaves. You can't due anything but there are many things you can due.
The Book of Leviticus has specific rules about how to morally own slaves. You can't due anything but there are many things you can due.
Ahahahaha best post ever, whether you're trolling or not (I sure hope you are).
I'll leave you with this simple quote from the German constitution (well, Grundgesetz): "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."
Then it's a good thing I don't live in Deutschland, because I completely disagree. It's my belief that people should be able to live as they choose so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
As none of us have a right to that house, nor can we come anywhere close to arguing that its demolition will irreparably damage the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations, I see no reason it shouldn't go.
-Clive
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
Thanks for the welcome. After such a long time visiting the page it was about time to join the forum. It's funny that my first posts are not about Apple products but about this sideshow issue. Anyway, I take your points that not everything can be preserved. However, it seems that a knowledgeable group of people think that this mansion is worth preserving. We'll see what happens. By the way, we maintain whatever is left of the Acropolis and other places. It's sad a lot of people in the past didn't preserve things that sometimes we now unearth and try to bring back at great expense. Again, I understand that there is no money and resources to keep everything and that not everything might be worth keeping. However, in this dispute we have a group of people who think this is worth preserving and a billionaire who is doing everything (by doing nothing) to let the mansion fall into disrepair so he can justify demolishing it.
Ahahahaha best post ever, whether you're trolling or not (I sure hope you are).
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
My argument is not about flaunting my degrees or their subjects. It's about distinguishing what is a product of scientific method and what is not. The difference is that scientific method yields knowledge. If you've adequately studied colonial spanish revival architecture, preserving this mansion will do nothing for you.
The significance of cultural landmarks and icons is that they are of EMOTIONAL IMPORTANCE. This is the opposite of scientific method, ergo, they cannot be determined to be "significant" by fact, and are instead a matter of opinion. Thus the decision of their preservation is ALSO opinion.
You are completely wrong about the criteria and how they are applied. It may not be mathematics, but is it's hardly just a matter of opinion and certainly not one of emotion. Very far from it. I can explain this in more detail, if you are interested.
My argument is not about flaunting my degrees or their subjects. It's about distinguishing what is a product of scientific method and what is not. The difference is that scientific method yields knowledge. If you've adequately studied colonial spanish revival architecture, preserving this mansion will do nothing for you.
The significance of cultural landmarks and icons is that they are of EMOTIONAL IMPORTANCE. This is the opposite of scientific method, ergo, they cannot be determined to be "significant" by fact, and are instead a matter of opinion. Thus the decision of their preservation is ALSO opinion.
QED
-Clive
Except that the relevant decisions on whether to preserve an object or not are not made on an emotional basis
P.S., if you ever become a billionaire, please don't waste your money on moving sh**ty houses, and instead spend it on things that actually matter, like disease research, and famine relief in impoverished third-world countries lead by corrupt assh*les who keep their people subjugated and living in slews.
Yes, because SJ is an exemplary philanthropist. Oh wait...
Then it's a good thing I don't live in Deutschland, because I completely disagree. It's my belief that people should be able to live as they choose so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
As none of us have a right to that house, nor can we come anywhere close to arguing that its demolition will irreparably damage the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations, I see no reason it shouldn't go.
-Clive
I don't live in Deutschland either, nor would I want to, but that's a nice tenet they have there
BTW, it could be argued that since the house is culturally significant - i.e. a significant example of American culture -, you as an American have a right to see it preserved, whether you cherish that right or not. Also, the destruction of a culturally relevant object does not necessarily have to be so devastating as to "irreparably damage the architectural and cultural understanding of future generations". It's just wrong in and of itself.
Yes, because SJ is an exemplary philanthropist. Oh wait...
Bill Gates runs around the world wasting money, but Steve wants to build something better than the floppy disk that's now uglifying his property.
HEY... IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what he does with HIS PROPERTY.... any more than it is Steve Jobs's place to decide what you do with your property. What is wrong with some of you in here? Do you not understand what makes the USA so different than other countries? Do you not understand that one big piece to that puzzle is PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS? This means if you buy something... YOU FREAKING OWN IT. Quit thinking like a liberal.... wait... that's kind of an oxymoron. Anyway it's not your place to decide what Jobs does with his property or money... which are essentially the same thing. Jobs has more than been accommodating to you people that think it's your place to decide what other people do with their property and money. If I were him I would have bulldozed the place in the middle of the night and then paid whatever idiotic fines were imposed by the city.
Let me just plant this seed in your head. Do you own a car? Well... I'm going to be visiting your part of the country soon and I need a ride. Since you can afford a car then I think it's your responsibility to provide everyone else with a car that can't afford one. So.... give me your keys and I'll be on my way.
What you're saying is no stinking different.
Z
How far are you willing to take that idea that you can do whatever you want with your property? Can I then plant opium poppies there because I can do whatever I want with and in my property. Would it be alright to make it into a nudist camp, or build a ten story building besides your house. Truth is that cities impose limits on what you can and cannot do with your property, and as far as I can see that hasn't been called unamerican before. In fact, there are more restrictions here than in most of the rest of the world due to lack of enforcement in other places. The kind of comments you make just make you sound angry, not right. What would you say if a Chinese company buys the statue of liberty and decides to bring it down to build the Panda Express headquarters?
I am not sure what the car analogy has to do with this. Nobody is asking Steve Jobs to let people squat in his property, just to preserve it, or perhaps sell it to someone who would preserve it.
[ed: removed religious part of discussion]
Religion has no place in a debate.
Go spam somewhere else.
You are completely wrong about the criteria and how they are applied. It may not be mathematics, but is it's hardly just a matter of opinion and certainly not one of emotion. Very far from it. I can explain this in more detail, if you are interested.
A bold claim without justification is just a bold claim.
Except that the relevant decisions on whether to preserve an object or not are not made on an emotional basis
Okay, then if there's absolutely no emotion involved, then let's document every possible detail of the house and rip the thing down. Problem Solved.
Yes, because SJ is an exemplary philanthropist. Oh wait...
Who's talking about Steve? All I'm saying is that (in my opinion) there are much greater global concerns than this stupid house, such as the ones I listed.
Why don't you let Steve worry about Steve and you can worry about yourself?
The Book of Leviticus has specific rules about how to morally own slaves. You can't due anything but there are many things you can due.
Ahahahaha best post ever, whether you're trolling or not (I sure hope you are).
While bluntly stated by iLuv, there are forms of slavery that exist today in modern culture. South Korea, for example, mandates military service of all men. One could even argue that paying taxes is a form of slavery.
Thanks for the welcome. After such a long time visiting the page it was about time to join the forum. It's funny that my first posts are not about Apple products but about this sideshow issue. Anyway, I take your points that not everything can be preserved. However, it seems that a knowledgeable group of people think that this mansion is worth preserving. We'll see what happens. By the way, we maintain whatever is left of the Acropolis and other places. It's sad a lot of people in the past didn't preserve things that sometimes we now unearth and try to bring back at great expense. Again, I understand that there is no money and resources to keep everything and that not everything might be worth keeping. However, in this dispute we have a group of people who think this is worth preserving and a billionaire who is doing everything (by doing nothing) to let the mansion fall into disrepair so he can justify demolishing it.
We certainly agree on the logic, just perhaps not on where to draw the line between being overly cautious and practical.
-Clive
Except that the relevant decisions on whether to preserve an object or not are not made on an emotional basis
It's much the same here, although the regulations are much more decentralized to the states and local governments, and for the most part, far weaker. Some states have virtually no environmental protection laws; others like California, have very detailed and complex laws. Even in California, it's rare for a local government to mandate the preservation of any building (or any other environmental resource, for that matter). The laws in this state really only require that the local government properly disclose the environmental impacts of their decisions. It's then up to the voters in that community to decide if their elected officials are responsive to their priorities.
- Did William Jefferson Clinton not have sex with Monica Lewinsky in this house? (sorry I couldn't resist)
No problem!
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!
That would definitely be an interesting scene...
And, well, it would certainly be quite a commentary on the fiasco this mansion's fate has become!
I hope that Steve has a wrecking crew on site before the ink dries on the court papers. Then those whining preservationists can just go away.
Disclaimer - I own / live in a restored Victorian house in San Francisco. I know what's worth saving. SJ's house is worth more in scrap wood.
I agree -- it looks like something from a '70s Chuck Bronson movie or "Columbo" episode. I am a _great_ admirer of old houses, mansions, castles, palaces, etc., and this particular structure is absolutely ugly, IMHumO. Steve Jobs obviously bought the property for the location (and/or its particular siting) with pre-established thoughts of erecting a new home. He knew exactly what he was doing!