60-80 years *is* historic in California. Their "antique" stores are filled with things about that age. I visited a "historic" farmhouse that was only about 100 years old.
The minimum age for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is 50 years. This standard applies from Maine to Guam, not just in California. Some buildings are listed or found to be eligible at under 50 years of age, but it is substantially more difficult for them to qualify.
Sorry, but your ideology does not trump reality. Historic preservation has been a Constitutionally approved use of local regulatory authority for a long time.
I understand what you are saying, Doc. I really do. But just to put things in perspective, think of where the San Francisco Bay Area would be if BART had not been built at all? If every time they started digging in the Market Street area, someone stood up and said "Wait! That sidewalk storefront is historic! There's no way they can tear that down an make it new!"
As it was, it only took what, over 20 something years to get the damn thing to run all the way the SF Airport? Different issue, I understand. But I think you know what I am getting at here.
Perhaps we need to take a lesson from Europe - where somehow they always manage to work it all out.
Nice analogy. Zoning regulations are now like repression and murder.
Ah, the 19th century -- it would be such a great time to live in, so long as we didn't have to actually live in it.
No, but if you're going to insist on keep a building as a historical site then simply don't sell the land it sits on.
If you plan to make it a historical site after the land has been purchased - pay full price for that land to re-acquire it and deem it "historical" - never to be sold again.
Don't go around annexing property that isn't your, wasn't yours and never should be yours - that breaks just about every civil liberty that used to make America great.
I know Jobs has a shitload of money, but I'm pretty sure his neighbors aren't hurting financially either.
"I heard you're going to demolish your garden shed. Can you please give it to me? Oh, and help me pay for moving it."
Yeah. Most news outlets make this sound like the two people were doing a kindly favour and trying to save architectural history etc., but in fact these are the two burrs that have been under the saddle all along.
As far as I recall a similar proposal was made quite a while ago that required Steve Jobs to pay for the entire cost of moving and preserving it. It looks like in the interim the preservation folks came up with *some* of the money but still wanted Steve to chip in.
I would support saving it, but there is no way the owner (who doesn't even *like* the house), should be forced to pay anything for someone else's agenda. Despite what anyone says about this, if people really wanted to save this building and if it really was so important to do so, someone would have stepped forward with the financing by now.
Most people with his kind of money would have simply bought something better a long time ago. I always thought of his legendary strong will as playing out as "I want it my way and I want it now." Steve's will also appears to have the endurance of one who laughs loudest and last.
Steve also has a nice property in Palo Alto. It's actually adjacent two lots that he combined.
Again, he was forced to deal with preserving historic structures. To the chagrin of local preservationists, the legal solution was not the one that they had hoped for: the larger structure was demolished whereas a smaller (and older, I believe) building was preserved.
It makes no difference to me whether it is historic or who says so. The government has no right to tell Steve Jobs or anyone else that he can't bulldoze a building he owns on the basis of it being historical. If bulldozing it would put asbestos into the air, fine, require him to contain the pollution. If bulldozing it could potentially harm someone else's life or property, fine. But to use government force to prevent him from bulldozing his own property because people who don't own it like to look at it is tyranny.
This is total BS.
By this measure the Taliban were perfectly fine blowing up that 2,000 year old Buddha, because, you know ... they "owned" it at the time. Forget about the fact that the men that blew it up were only alive for a relative blink of an eye, and that a million other folks "owned" it in the preceding 2,000 years.
Every society has rules, and every community has a right to preserve historical buildings and so forth. This is standard stuff and it's been this way in civilised countries since pretty much forever. Your point of view is extreme to say the least.
There is no such a thing as absolute rights and that's a good thing. Your rights end where others begin and if the whole community was against your decision, you should lose out, and rightfully so. In this case, it was one person against Steve Jobs with a community that basically didn't care one way or the other. If in fact the entire town was against tearing it down however, it would have to stay, and that's a great, democratic, and eminently fair thing.
I understand what you are saying, Doc. I really do. But just to put things in perspective, think of where the San Francisco Bay Area would be if BART had not been built at all? If every time they started digging in the Market Street area, someone stood up and said "Wait! That sidewalk storefront is historic! There's no way they can tear that down an make it new!"
As it was, it only took what, over 20 something years to get the damn thing to run all the way the SF Airport? Different issue, I understand. But I think you know what I am getting at here.
Perhaps we need to take a lesson from Europe - where somehow they always manage to work it all out.
We manage to work it all out too. As I said, in this case it was a matter of complying with the law, not a question of whether the city wanted to allow the demolition. That is always a local decision in the end. It only gets complicated (in California at least) when the local government tries to shortstop the state's environmental review laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcode
No, but if you're going to insist on keep a building as a historical site then simply don't sell the land it sits on.
If you plan to make it a historical site after the land has been purchased - pay full price for that land to re-acquire it and deem it "historical" - never to be sold again.
Don't go around annexing property that isn't your, wasn't yours and never should be yours - that breaks just about every civil liberty that used to make America great.
Zoning regulations were found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court for the first time in 1926. Like I said, the 19th century was a great time to live in, provided we don't have to actually live there.
It did not take 26 years. That's only how long he owned the property; it was only a few years ago that he declared his intention to demolish it. And yes, the property was historic, as determined by a professional architectural historian. This fact was never in question. It was not in dispute. The entire business was a procedural matter based on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The property is NOT historically significant. I know the place. I've been in the house. I used to party with Andrew Lloyd in the ballroom when his family owned it. It's a big, Spanish-colonial house built by a successful copper miner. That's it. Period. If you compare it to other, truly historic estates in the area, you'd agree that the Jackling house is nothing to write home about. Other, truly historic estates, local to the Jackling house, are Filoli, The Carolans, The Folger Estate, The Coleman Mansion, Uplands (Crocker, now Crystal Springs Uplands School), Douglas Hall (now called Stent Hall), the Fleischacker Estate, the Buck Estate... shall I go on?
The property is NOT historically significant. I know the place. I've been in the house. I used to party with Andrew Lloyd in the ballroom when his family owned it. It's a big, Spanish-colonial house built by a successful copper miner. That's it. Period. If you compare it to other, truly historic estates in the area, you'd agree that the Jackling house is nothing to write home about. Other, truly historic estates, local to the Jackling house, are Filoli, The Carolans, The Folger Estate, The Coleman Mansion, Uplands (Crocker, now Crystal Springs Uplands School), Douglas Hall (now called Stent Hall), the Fleischacker Estate, the Buck Estate... shall I go on?
Amen. I have only seen the pictures, but it was obvious to me that this place is a very poorly done piece of Spanish revival architecture. A good example of a badly done McMansion of yesteryear. The same architect did some good ones, but this is not one of them. This sometimes happens when rich people hire good architects, then proceed to tell them exactly how to do their job. What you get is a pile of nouveau riche kitsch. Plow the damn thing under, the sooner the better. What Mr. Jobs will build will likely be an historically significant site 100 years from now.
The property is NOT historically significant. I know the place. I've been in the house. I used to party with Andrew Lloyd in the ballroom when his family owned it. It's a big, Spanish-colonial house built by a successful copper miner. That's it. Period. If you compare it to other, truly historic estates in the area, you'd agree that the Jackling house is nothing to write home about. Other, truly historic estates, local to the Jackling house, are Filoli, The Carolans, The Folger Estate, The Coleman Mansion, Uplands (Crocker, now Crystal Springs Uplands School), Douglas Hall (now called Stent Hall), the Fleischacker Estate, the Buck Estate... shall I go on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Amen. I have only seen the pictures, but it was obvious to me that this place is a very poorly done piece of Spanish revival architecture. A good example of a badly done McMansion of yesteryear. The same architect did some good ones, but this is not one of them. This sometimes happens when rich people hire good architects, then proceed to tell them exactly how to do their job. What you get is a pile of nouveau riche kitsch. Plow the damn thing under, the sooner the better. What Mr. Jobs will build will likely be an historically significant site 100 years from now.
You are both incorrect. The significance of the house was never in dispute.
You are both incorrect. The significance of the house was never in dispute.
No? Then why is it that there are 10,000 articles about people attacking Jobs for wanting to knock it down, but not a single article explaining what historical significance it has?
It's a big house - one of many built by a famous architect. What is so special in this house that deserves taking away Jobs' right to his own property?
No? Then why is it that there are 10,000 articles about people attacking Jobs for wanting to knock it down, but not a single article explaining what historical significance it has?
It's a big house - one of many built by a famous architect. What is so special in this house that deserves taking away Jobs' right to his own property?
Lots of material is available to explain the significance, if you were to take the trouble to find them. I've explained it in detail myself, right here, numerous times. But the only point I am making now is that the significance question was NEVER the substance of the battle. Never, as in, not at all. Ironically perhaps, the city authorized the demolition years ago, but they failed to comply with their responsibilities under state law. That's what created the fight, not a dispute over significance. Not as sexy perhaps, not as entertaining as a bunch of people who know nothing whatsoever about a subject weighing in as if they were instant experts -- but the facts just the same.
You are both incorrect. The significance of the house was never in dispute.
I almost always find you spot on, but so on this not so much. How about some evidence? Personal assertions don't carry much weight by themselves.
On the face of it it would seem to me that the significance is very much in dispute, because they have been disputing it all these years. You cite a "professional architectural historian" but fail to say who hired him/her. Was it the State? Was he/she hired by the plaintiffs? It makes a difference. I am not a professional architectural historian, but I do have some credentials in this area. I wrote the definitive history of the Merced Theatre of Los Angeles (built 1870) by architect Ezra Kysor. I am disputing the historical significance of this house based on what I have seen. I went over the photos of the interior that were published a year or so ago, and it is a terrible mish-mosh of styles. The question is: of what significance is it? I would say, not much. That may be enough for some, but not for me. What say you?
Not as sexy perhaps, not as entertaining as a bunch of people who know nothing whatsoever about a subject weighing in as if they were instant experts -- but the facts just the same.
Fair enough. Since you brought it up, on what is your expertise based?
PS - This isn't a pissing contest. I honestly hope that you are an expert in this area and can articulate what it is about this particular structure that makes it one of the better representations of this architect's work. I prefer to be wrong. The reason I come to this site is to learn something new, not to confirm my prejudices or ignorance.
I almost always find you spot on, but so on this not so much. How about some evidence? Personal assertions don't carry much weight by themselves.
On the face of it it would seem to me that the significance is very much in dispute, because they have been disputing it all these years. You cite a "professional architectural historian" but fail to say who hired him/her. Was it the State? Was he/she hired by the plaintiffs? It makes a difference. I am not a professional architectural historian, but I do have some credentials in this area. I wrote the definitive history of the Merced Theatre of Los Angeles (built 1870) by architect Ezra Kysor. I am disputing the historical significance of this house based on what I have seen. I went over the photos of the interior that were published a year or so ago, and it is a terrible mish-mosh of styles. The question is: of what significance is it? I would say, not much. That may be enough for some, but not for me. What say you?
You might want to check out some of the many other threads on this topic which have cropped up over the course of this battle, which probably occurred before you turned up here. I've done a lot of explaining, which I really don't want to repeat.
Most likely the city would have required Steve to submit a report prepared by a qualified historian when he made an application for demolition. This was long before there were any plaintiffs because it was entirely a procedural matter at that point. The report found the property to be historically and architecturally significant, which based on the owner and architect, was close to a slam-dunk. At that point the property is a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Now the city can't issue the permit without studying the impacts of doing so, and considering alternatives and mitigating impacts. This is where the city stumbled, and where lawsuit came from. They were sued, not Steve. The battle was never over whether the property was historically significant, a factual finding that had already been made, but over whether the requirements of the state environmental laws had been fulfilled by the city once that finding was made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Fair enough. Since you brought it up, on what is your expertise based?
Architectural historian, over 30 years experience.
You might want to check out some of the many other threads on this topic which have cropped up over the course of this battle, which probably occurred before you turned up here.
Architectural historian, over 30 years experience.
Actually, I think I showed up here many years before you did. But be that as it may I did do a search and found that we both expressed ourselves similarly over a year ago here.
I take you at your word on credentials and bow to your superior expertise. I accept that the place has been deemed significant by someone who should know based on whatever criteria obtain here.
However, that doesn't stop me from having a personal opinion. There is no question that Smith is a significant architect. But I think there are far better examples of G.W.'s work elsewhere in California. My cousin owned one for a time in Santa Barbara. Based solely on the photos I saw I of this place, it was not very compelling. Not that that matters to anyone but me. Thanks for taking the time to fill me and others in.
Comments
Steve really needs to get the dozers rolling!
Dozers?!?! The man better make quick work of it using C-4 before some group gets it in their head to fight a little longer.
60-80 years *is* historic in California. Their "antique" stores are filled with things about that age. I visited a "historic" farmhouse that was only about 100 years old.
The minimum age for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is 50 years. This standard applies from Maine to Guam, not just in California. Some buildings are listed or found to be eligible at under 50 years of age, but it is substantially more difficult for them to qualify.
Sorry, but your ideology does not trump reality. Historic preservation has been a Constitutionally approved use of local regulatory authority for a long time.
I understand what you are saying, Doc. I really do. But just to put things in perspective, think of where the San Francisco Bay Area would be if BART had not been built at all? If every time they started digging in the Market Street area, someone stood up and said "Wait! That sidewalk storefront is historic! There's no way they can tear that down an make it new!"
As it was, it only took what, over 20 something years to get the damn thing to run all the way the SF Airport? Different issue, I understand. But I think you know what I am getting at here.
Perhaps we need to take a lesson from Europe - where somehow they always manage to work it all out.
Nice analogy. Zoning regulations are now like repression and murder.
Ah, the 19th century -- it would be such a great time to live in, so long as we didn't have to actually live in it.
No, but if you're going to insist on keep a building as a historical site then simply don't sell the land it sits on.
If you plan to make it a historical site after the land has been purchased - pay full price for that land to re-acquire it and deem it "historical" - never to be sold again.
Don't go around annexing property that isn't your, wasn't yours and never should be yours - that breaks just about every civil liberty that used to make America great.
I know Jobs has a shitload of money, but I'm pretty sure his neighbors aren't hurting financially either.
"I heard you're going to demolish your garden shed. Can you please give it to me? Oh, and help me pay for moving it."
Yeah. Most news outlets make this sound like the two people were doing a kindly favour and trying to save architectural history etc., but in fact these are the two burrs that have been under the saddle all along.
As far as I recall a similar proposal was made quite a while ago that required Steve Jobs to pay for the entire cost of moving and preserving it. It looks like in the interim the preservation folks came up with *some* of the money but still wanted Steve to chip in.
I would support saving it, but there is no way the owner (who doesn't even *like* the house), should be forced to pay anything for someone else's agenda. Despite what anyone says about this, if people really wanted to save this building and if it really was so important to do so, someone would have stepped forward with the financing by now.
It's been ten years for cripes sake.
Most people with his kind of money would have simply bought something better a long time ago. I always thought of his legendary strong will as playing out as "I want it my way and I want it now." Steve's will also appears to have the endurance of one who laughs loudest and last.
Steve also has a nice property in Palo Alto. It's actually adjacent two lots that he combined.
Again, he was forced to deal with preserving historic structures. To the chagrin of local preservationists, the legal solution was not the one that they had hoped for: the larger structure was demolished whereas a smaller (and older, I believe) building was preserved.
It makes no difference to me whether it is historic or who says so. The government has no right to tell Steve Jobs or anyone else that he can't bulldoze a building he owns on the basis of it being historical. If bulldozing it would put asbestos into the air, fine, require him to contain the pollution. If bulldozing it could potentially harm someone else's life or property, fine. But to use government force to prevent him from bulldozing his own property because people who don't own it like to look at it is tyranny.
This is total BS.
By this measure the Taliban were perfectly fine blowing up that 2,000 year old Buddha, because, you know ... they "owned" it at the time. Forget about the fact that the men that blew it up were only alive for a relative blink of an eye, and that a million other folks "owned" it in the preceding 2,000 years.
Every society has rules, and every community has a right to preserve historical buildings and so forth. This is standard stuff and it's been this way in civilised countries since pretty much forever. Your point of view is extreme to say the least.
There is no such a thing as absolute rights and that's a good thing. Your rights end where others begin and if the whole community was against your decision, you should lose out, and rightfully so. In this case, it was one person against Steve Jobs with a community that basically didn't care one way or the other. If in fact the entire town was against tearing it down however, it would have to stay, and that's a great, democratic, and eminently fair thing.
I understand what you are saying, Doc. I really do. But just to put things in perspective, think of where the San Francisco Bay Area would be if BART had not been built at all? If every time they started digging in the Market Street area, someone stood up and said "Wait! That sidewalk storefront is historic! There's no way they can tear that down an make it new!"
As it was, it only took what, over 20 something years to get the damn thing to run all the way the SF Airport? Different issue, I understand. But I think you know what I am getting at here.
Perhaps we need to take a lesson from Europe - where somehow they always manage to work it all out.
We manage to work it all out too. As I said, in this case it was a matter of complying with the law, not a question of whether the city wanted to allow the demolition. That is always a local decision in the end. It only gets complicated (in California at least) when the local government tries to shortstop the state's environmental review laws.
No, but if you're going to insist on keep a building as a historical site then simply don't sell the land it sits on.
If you plan to make it a historical site after the land has been purchased - pay full price for that land to re-acquire it and deem it "historical" - never to be sold again.
Don't go around annexing property that isn't your, wasn't yours and never should be yours - that breaks just about every civil liberty that used to make America great.
Zoning regulations were found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court for the first time in 1926. Like I said, the 19th century was a great time to live in, provided we don't have to actually live there.
It did not take 26 years. That's only how long he owned the property; it was only a few years ago that he declared his intention to demolish it. And yes, the property was historic, as determined by a professional architectural historian. This fact was never in question. It was not in dispute. The entire business was a procedural matter based on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The property is NOT historically significant. I know the place. I've been in the house. I used to party with Andrew Lloyd in the ballroom when his family owned it. It's a big, Spanish-colonial house built by a successful copper miner. That's it. Period. If you compare it to other, truly historic estates in the area, you'd agree that the Jackling house is nothing to write home about. Other, truly historic estates, local to the Jackling house, are Filoli, The Carolans, The Folger Estate, The Coleman Mansion, Uplands (Crocker, now Crystal Springs Uplands School), Douglas Hall (now called Stent Hall), the Fleischacker Estate, the Buck Estate... shall I go on?
The property is NOT historically significant. I know the place. I've been in the house. I used to party with Andrew Lloyd in the ballroom when his family owned it. It's a big, Spanish-colonial house built by a successful copper miner. That's it. Period. If you compare it to other, truly historic estates in the area, you'd agree that the Jackling house is nothing to write home about. Other, truly historic estates, local to the Jackling house, are Filoli, The Carolans, The Folger Estate, The Coleman Mansion, Uplands (Crocker, now Crystal Springs Uplands School), Douglas Hall (now called Stent Hall), the Fleischacker Estate, the Buck Estate... shall I go on?
Amen. I have only seen the pictures, but it was obvious to me that this place is a very poorly done piece of Spanish revival architecture. A good example of a badly done McMansion of yesteryear. The same architect did some good ones, but this is not one of them. This sometimes happens when rich people hire good architects, then proceed to tell them exactly how to do their job. What you get is a pile of nouveau riche kitsch. Plow the damn thing under, the sooner the better. What Mr. Jobs will build will likely be an historically significant site 100 years from now.
The property is NOT historically significant. I know the place. I've been in the house. I used to party with Andrew Lloyd in the ballroom when his family owned it. It's a big, Spanish-colonial house built by a successful copper miner. That's it. Period. If you compare it to other, truly historic estates in the area, you'd agree that the Jackling house is nothing to write home about. Other, truly historic estates, local to the Jackling house, are Filoli, The Carolans, The Folger Estate, The Coleman Mansion, Uplands (Crocker, now Crystal Springs Uplands School), Douglas Hall (now called Stent Hall), the Fleischacker Estate, the Buck Estate... shall I go on?
Amen. I have only seen the pictures, but it was obvious to me that this place is a very poorly done piece of Spanish revival architecture. A good example of a badly done McMansion of yesteryear. The same architect did some good ones, but this is not one of them. This sometimes happens when rich people hire good architects, then proceed to tell them exactly how to do their job. What you get is a pile of nouveau riche kitsch. Plow the damn thing under, the sooner the better. What Mr. Jobs will build will likely be an historically significant site 100 years from now.
You are both incorrect. The significance of the house was never in dispute.
You are both incorrect. The significance of the house was never in dispute.
No? Then why is it that there are 10,000 articles about people attacking Jobs for wanting to knock it down, but not a single article explaining what historical significance it has?
It's a big house - one of many built by a famous architect. What is so special in this house that deserves taking away Jobs' right to his own property?
No? Then why is it that there are 10,000 articles about people attacking Jobs for wanting to knock it down, but not a single article explaining what historical significance it has?
It's a big house - one of many built by a famous architect. What is so special in this house that deserves taking away Jobs' right to his own property?
Lots of material is available to explain the significance, if you were to take the trouble to find them. I've explained it in detail myself, right here, numerous times. But the only point I am making now is that the significance question was NEVER the substance of the battle. Never, as in, not at all. Ironically perhaps, the city authorized the demolition years ago, but they failed to comply with their responsibilities under state law. That's what created the fight, not a dispute over significance. Not as sexy perhaps, not as entertaining as a bunch of people who know nothing whatsoever about a subject weighing in as if they were instant experts -- but the facts just the same.
You are both incorrect. The significance of the house was never in dispute.
I almost always find you spot on, but so on this not so much. How about some evidence? Personal assertions don't carry much weight by themselves.
On the face of it it would seem to me that the significance is very much in dispute, because they have been disputing it all these years. You cite a "professional architectural historian" but fail to say who hired him/her. Was it the State? Was he/she hired by the plaintiffs? It makes a difference. I am not a professional architectural historian, but I do have some credentials in this area. I wrote the definitive history of the Merced Theatre of Los Angeles (built 1870) by architect Ezra Kysor. I am disputing the historical significance of this house based on what I have seen. I went over the photos of the interior that were published a year or so ago, and it is a terrible mish-mosh of styles. The question is: of what significance is it? I would say, not much. That may be enough for some, but not for me. What say you?
Not as sexy perhaps, not as entertaining as a bunch of people who know nothing whatsoever about a subject weighing in as if they were instant experts -- but the facts just the same.
Fair enough. Since you brought it up, on what is your expertise based?
PS - This isn't a pissing contest. I honestly hope that you are an expert in this area and can articulate what it is about this particular structure that makes it one of the better representations of this architect's work. I prefer to be wrong. The reason I come to this site is to learn something new, not to confirm my prejudices or ignorance.
I almost always find you spot on, but so on this not so much. How about some evidence? Personal assertions don't carry much weight by themselves.
On the face of it it would seem to me that the significance is very much in dispute, because they have been disputing it all these years. You cite a "professional architectural historian" but fail to say who hired him/her. Was it the State? Was he/she hired by the plaintiffs? It makes a difference. I am not a professional architectural historian, but I do have some credentials in this area. I wrote the definitive history of the Merced Theatre of Los Angeles (built 1870) by architect Ezra Kysor. I am disputing the historical significance of this house based on what I have seen. I went over the photos of the interior that were published a year or so ago, and it is a terrible mish-mosh of styles. The question is: of what significance is it? I would say, not much. That may be enough for some, but not for me. What say you?
You might want to check out some of the many other threads on this topic which have cropped up over the course of this battle, which probably occurred before you turned up here. I've done a lot of explaining, which I really don't want to repeat.
Most likely the city would have required Steve to submit a report prepared by a qualified historian when he made an application for demolition. This was long before there were any plaintiffs because it was entirely a procedural matter at that point. The report found the property to be historically and architecturally significant, which based on the owner and architect, was close to a slam-dunk. At that point the property is a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Now the city can't issue the permit without studying the impacts of doing so, and considering alternatives and mitigating impacts. This is where the city stumbled, and where lawsuit came from. They were sued, not Steve. The battle was never over whether the property was historically significant, a factual finding that had already been made, but over whether the requirements of the state environmental laws had been fulfilled by the city once that finding was made.
Fair enough. Since you brought it up, on what is your expertise based?
Architectural historian, over 30 years experience.
You might want to check out some of the many other threads on this topic which have cropped up over the course of this battle, which probably occurred before you turned up here.
Architectural historian, over 30 years experience.
Actually, I think I showed up here many years before you did. But be that as it may I did do a search and found that we both expressed ourselves similarly over a year ago here.
I take you at your word on credentials and bow to your superior expertise. I accept that the place has been deemed significant by someone who should know based on whatever criteria obtain here.
However, that doesn't stop me from having a personal opinion. There is no question that Smith is a significant architect. But I think there are far better examples of G.W.'s work elsewhere in California. My cousin owned one for a time in Santa Barbara. Based solely on the photos I saw I of this place, it was not very compelling. Not that that matters to anyone but me. Thanks for taking the time to fill me and others in.