... If a building is designed by a "master architect" (which Smith certainly was) just about anything he designed is going to be significant on that basis. ...
Well, I'm not an architect, historian, or architectural historian, but I can't agree with this premise. It's logically equivalent to saying that everything done by an important person is important, which is, prima facie, nonsense. It would mean that even, say, an outhouse, designed by Smith, utterly uncharacteristic of his style, and unnotable. and indistinguishable from other outhouses. in any feature, and which itself influenced no further designs, would be significant. And I don't think the 'just about' qualifier saves this statement, except perhaps by trivializing it into meaninglessness.
The Jackling House may well be "significant", but its significance cannot derive solely from the identity of its architect.
Quote:
Steve, in what I'd call one of his worst public moments ever, said near the beginning of this controversy that Smith could not be important because he'd never heard of him. That's a bit like claiming that Mars can't possibly exist because you've never been there. Not a very sound argument coming from such an otherwise smart guy.
Yeah, that was a pretty stupid statement from an otherwise smart guy.
Just saying is right. The reality that you can always find a nut to say something nutty does not render facts disputable. The person who wrote this report is not a nut and the conclusions were not nutty, they were fact-based, which is why they were not challenged. I assume Steve hired him, since that's the way it normally works.
I don't think you know what "in dispute" means. How many people have to dispute it before it is "in dispute"?
Preservationists who for years have fought Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs and prevented him from demolishing an aging California mansion have finally thrown in the towel.
When will these haters realize that whatever Steve WANTS, Steve GETS?
I think his point was that is wasn't of sufficient historical significance to warrant protection. Whatever that magic threshold is, it was not passed.
For you, all such buildings are historic. For the rest of us layfolks, only those of protected status appear to be truly "historic" in nature.
That's not a meaningful distinction. Whether something is historic depends on it meeting the criteria for significance. Protection of buildings found to be historic is entirely another matter. Many if not most local governments extend no protection to historic buildings. Woodside, for one, does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, I'm not an architect, historian, or architectural historian, but I can't agree with this premise. It's logically equivalent to saying that everything done by an important person is important, which is, prima facie, nonsense. It would mean that even, say, an outhouse, designed by Smith, utterly uncharacteristic of his style, and unnotable. and indistinguishable from other outhouses. in any feature, and which itself influenced no further designs, would be significant. And I don't think the 'just about' qualifier saves this statement, except perhaps by trivializing it into meaninglessness.
The Jackling House may well be "significant", but its significance cannot derive solely from the identity of its architect.
Well I am an architectural historian, and I can tell you from long experience that you don't know what you are talking about.
It absolutely can derive its significance solely from the identity of the architect (National Register Criterion C). In this case, the house also derived its significance from the builder, however. That's Criterion B, if you are interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
I don't think you know what "in dispute" means. How many people have to dispute it before it is "in dispute"?
When people knowledgable of the facts and the relevant standards disagree, then you can say it is in dispute. When people lacking knowledge of either dispute something, then they are just mouthing off. The important take-away is that the finding of significance was not disputed by anyone with expertise or professional standing, and even more to the point (again, for probably the fifth time), the lawsuit was NOT over the significance of the property, it was over the city's procedures and their compliance with California environmental law.
Well I am an architectural historian, and I can tell you from long experience that you don't know what you are talking about.
It absolutely can derive its significance solely from the identity of the architect (National Register Criterion C). In this case, the house also derived its significance from the builder, however. That's Criterion B, if you are interested.
As usual, you don't seem to understand the real world vs. some overly technical definition of reality. Sorry, but just because some criteria somewhere define something as significant just because of the identity of the architect may define them as significant according to the law (or whatever apparently meaningless nonsense these criteria you reference define) doesn't actually make them significant in any real and meaningful sense of 'significant'. It would indicate mostly that the people who established these criteria are senseless idiots.
From this we can conclude that your remarks regarding whether the Jackling House is significant or not as being so far outside the ordinary language sense of 'significant' that they are meaningless to anyone who actually wants to know if the structure is really significant as opposed to merely "significant" in your sense.
As usual, you don't seem to understand the real world vs. some overly technical definition of reality. Sorry, but just because some criteria somewhere define something as significant just because of the identity of the architect may define them as significant according to the law (or whatever apparently meaningless nonsense these criteria you reference define) doesn't actually make them significant in any real and meaningful sense of 'significant'. It would indicate mostly that the people who established these criteria are senseless idiots.
From this we can conclude that your remarks regarding whether the Jackling House is significant or not as being so far outside the ordinary language sense of 'significant' that they are meaningless to anyone who actually wants to know if the structure is really significant as opposed to merely "significant" in your sense.
These are not "some criteria somewhere," nor are they my criteria, and they are far from meaningless. These are the criteria used nationwide since 1966, and which are universally accepted, and can understood by anyone with any interest in doing so. This is a set which obviously does not include you. Continuing to spout your arbitrary, uninformed, and willfully ignorant opinions does make you right, and it never will.
These are not "some criteria somewhere," nor are they my criteria, and they are far from meaningless. These are the criteria used nationwide since 1966, and which are universally accepted, and can understood by anyone with any interest in doing so. This is a set which obviously does not include you. Continuing to spout your arbitrary, uninformed, and willfully ignorant opinions does make you right, and it never will.
Well, apparently they define 'significant' in such a way as to make it a meaningless concept, or at least one with no real world significance. The whole point is that, and I think most reasonable persons would agree, it's ridiculous to consider something as "significant" if it hasn't had any effect on anything, but only because it was designed by a "significant" person, despite the fact that it has nothing notable about it and influenced no one. This sort of definition of 'significant' is effectively circular, where we are told that some structure is significant because it is significant.
I can see that you are locked into your manner of thinking, so it's probably pointless to even make these comments. But, if these are the criteria used for historic preservation (something which I am strongly in favor of for actually significant structures), then it's high time we had some new criteria, because these are senseless.
As usual, you don't seem to understand the real world vs. some overly technical definition of reality. Sorry, but just because some criteria somewhere define something as significant just because of the identity of the architect may define them as significant according to the law (or whatever apparently meaningless nonsense these criteria you reference define) doesn't actually make them significant in any real and meaningful sense of 'significant'. It would indicate mostly that the people who established these criteria are senseless idiots.
Laws and legal regulations ARE the real world. We may not like them or agree with them, but they are nonetheless very real. Try not paying your taxes and see how "real world" the consequences are regardless of whether you think tax laws were made by "senseless idiots."
I think our disagreements here stem from the distinction between a legal determination of the historical significance of this property and aesthetic judgements. I don't much care for it myself, but legally there is no denying that it has that status.
But, if these are the criteria used for historic preservation (something which I am strongly in favor of for actually significant structures), then it's high time we had some new criteria, because these are senseless.
There is nothing standing in the way of you becoming active in revising such regulations and laws. It takes a lot of time, commitment, and effort to do so. Complaining about them is far easier.
I think our disagreements here stem from the distinction between a legal determination of the historical significance of this property and aesthetic judgements. I don't much care for it myself, but legally there is no denying that it has that status.
Well, I think the point is, that someone declaring that some structure is significant may not actually mean what one expects it to mean, and that in that "legalistic", yet entirely nonsensical, sense of 'significance', in may actually be entirely insignificant and of no value whatsoever. In regard to your further comment that one ought not complain about nonsense, one has every right to, one very well ought to, and complaining is the first step to anything being done.
Well, apparently they define 'significant' in such a way as to make it a meaningless concept, or at least one with no real world significance. The whole point is that, and I think most reasonable persons would agree, it's ridiculous to consider something as "significant" if it hasn't had any effect on anything, but only because it was designed by a "significant" person, despite the fact that it has nothing notable about it and influenced no one. This sort of definition of 'significant' is effectively circular, where we are told that some structure is significant because it is significant.
I can see that you are locked into your manner of thinking, so it's probably pointless to even make these comments. But, if these are the criteria used for historic preservation (something which I am strongly in favor of for actually significant structures), then it's high time we had some new criteria, because these are senseless.
No, it is meaningless only to people who are impervious to learning about these concepts. You have rejected them without even having the most rudimentary understanding of how they work, and are resisting any effort I make to explain them. I would hate to think of anyone who tried to be your teacher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Laws and legal regulations ARE the real world. We may not like them or agree with them, but they are nonetheless very real. Try not paying your taxes and see how "real world" the consequences are regardless of whether you think tax laws were made by "senseless idiots."
I think our disagreements here stem from the distinction between a legal determination of the historical significance of this property and aesthetic judgements. I don't much care for it myself, but legally there is no denying that it has that status.
The law is a good analogy in some respects. Conclusions about significance are drawn from facts + the criteria just as conclusions in law are drawn from evidence + the law. If you don't have evidence or don't understand the law, your legal conclusions are going to be arbitrary, nothing more than your subjective view, i.e., indefensible by any standard. Some people seem to prefer arbitrariness, since it allows them to continue believing whatever they already believe -- but I can't think of any instance where it gets you anywhere useful. Into pointless arguments I guess.
To be clear though, a determination of historical significance is not a legal determination. It is a professional opinion, based on evidence and an understanding of the criteria. All of this procedure and method is extensively documented, for anyone who cares to know.
Well, I think the point is, that someone declaring that some structure is significant may not actually mean what one expects it to mean, and that in that "legalistic", yet entirely nonsensical, sense of 'significance', in may actually be entirely insignificant and of no value whatsoever. In regard to your further comment that one ought not complain about nonsense, one has every right to, one very well ought to, and complaining is the first step to anything being done.
Completely wrong, as before. The only mystery at this point is why you aren't embarrassed to be so utterly convinced that you comprehend concepts you know not a single thing about, and clearly don't have even the slightest inclination to know anything about.
The thing is, it's not a contest. If a building is designed by a "master architect" (which Smith certainly was) just about anything he designed is going to be significant on that basis. In Smith's case in particular, he practiced for a relatively short time but his influence was very great, so it's hard to argue against the significance of any remaining examples of his work, unless they are heavily altered..
I see. So because YOU state that it's significant, that allows you to say that the historical significance is not in dispute.
The fact is that the court evaluated the historical significance and found that it was not sufficient to order the house kept in its current form. And that was with experts on both sides.
If it was so incredibly significant, you'd think they'd have found the money to move the house at their own expense instead of asking Jobs to do it.
Completely wrong, as before. The only mystery at this point is why you aren't embarrassed to be so utterly convinced that you comprehend concepts you know not a single thing about, and clearly don't have even the slightest inclination to know anything about.
One doesn't have to be an "expert" in the field to recognize that it is, quite simply, stupid to declare a structure "significant" just because it was designed by some big name. Significance needs to stand on it's own feet, and junk ought not ride on coattails just because the person who tossed it off was otherwise brilliant. If it's not notable for some reason, if you can't trace influence back to it, it isn't significant, it's ordinary, not worthy of particular notice, it hasn't affected the development of other designs, and it ought not be defined into significance because of some mistaken notion that the detritus of great men is great stuff. If architectural historians believe otherwise, they are a very mistaken bunch.
Come form a town that preserve most everything in the town and will not let you do a thing to your home unless the architectural committee researches and approves every change that happen on the outside of that property, I call tell you if this town really felt it was worth saving they would have used the power to have it declared a land mark or had significant architectural value it would have happen in spite of what anyone here thinks.
Base on the fact the those who tried to save it failed and could not get its status change means it was not worth saving.
With that said, that town will most likely make out on this deal, once he tears it all down it becomes a new property therefore the taxes get reset and SJ will most like end up paying more to the city then he has in past. This is true if it is a complete tear down, however, from my understanding of the code in CA (which a bit old at this time) if he leave at least one wall in places and rebuild on the original foundation the house is not consider new from a taxing stand point so the house does not get re-asset.
Come form a town that preserve most everything in the town and will not let you do a thing to your home unless the architectural committee researches and approves every change that happen on the outside of that property, I call tell you if this town really felt it was worth saving they would have used the power to have it declared a land mark or had significant architectural value it would have happen in spite of what anyone here thinks.
Base on the fact the those who tried to save it failed and could not get its status change means it was not worth saving.
With that said, that town will most likely make out on this deal, once he tears it all down it becomes a new property therefore the taxes get reset and SJ will most like end up paying more to the city then he has in past. This is true if it is a complete tear down, however, from my understanding of the code in CA (which a bit old at this time) if he leave at least one wall in places and rebuild on the original foundation the house is not consider new from a taxing stand point so the house does not get re-asset.
"This town" never tried to save the house. Never. The council voted from the very start to permit its demolition. The problem was the procedure -- they tried to cut corners on compliance with state law and got caught. Result: lawsuit. Every community gets to make their own planning decisions. If they want to bulldoze every historic building in town, they can do it, if their constituents don't object. What they can't do (at least not in California) is try to pretend that they doing something else. They have to properly disclose to the public that they know a building they allowed to be demolished is historically significant.
What is "worth" doing is entirely a local planning decision. It may dictate what is done in the end, but it doesn't change facts. Some in this thread are convinced otherwise. They are wrong.
"This town" never tried to save the house. Never. The council voted from the very start to permit its demolition. The problem was the procedure -- they tried to cut corners on compliance with state law and got caught. Result: lawsuit. Every community gets to make their own planning decisions. If they want to bulldoze every historic building in town, they can do it, if their constituents don't object. What they can't do (at least not in California) is try to pretend that they doing something else. They have to properly disclose to the public that they know a building they allowed to be demolished is historically significant.
What is "worth" doing is entirely a local planning decision. It may dictate what is done in the end, but it doesn't change facts. Some in this thread are convinced otherwise. They are wrong.
I have to disagree that the local and community can do what they want. I personally watch as community and local, state and federal government try to tear down a church to make way for a new highway, and the historical society got the church declared as having significant architectural and historical value and got it registered as federal land mark, which trumps eminent domain. This church was less then 100yr old at the time and to the community they saw no value in it since most people no longer attend it and they rather have the new highway. Well today the highway goes around the church. They saved the church but it now looks like hell with it sitting 100 ft below the highway as it sit in a hole between the highway and a hillside.
Whether Jobs and his lawyers followed ever little procedure to tear down the house, does not matter since the sole claim by those trying to block it was the house had significant architecture or historical value. I am neither a Architecture or Historian but living in an area where we have large percentage of home and farms which date back to the early 1900's, 1800's and 1700's all those properties have been determine what value they have in history and architecture and are listed on the national registry and there is no question about them. Many of these places claim Washington slept there, it seems he like to sleep in lots of people houses.
Maybe the lawsuit were about procedural errors, however, in the end those who were challenging its demolition were trying to claim the property had some sort of value which it obviously did not since people who deal with properties which have significant historical or architecture value obvious did not agree, otherwise, it would been saved, I have personally seen it done a number of times.
I have to disagree that the local and community can do what they want. I personally watch as community and local, state and federal government try to tear down a church to make way for a new highway, and the historical society got the church declared as having significant architectural and historical value and got it registered as federal land mark, which trumps eminent domain. This church was less then 100yr old at the time and to the community they saw no value in it since most people no longer attend it and they rather have the new highway. Well today the highway goes around the church. They saved the church but it now looks like hell with it sitting 100 ft below the highway as it sit in a hole between the highway and a hillside.
Whether Jobs and his lawyers followed ever little procedure to tear down the house, does not matter since the sole claim by those trying to block it was the house had significant architecture or historical value. I am neither a Architecture or Historian but living in an area where we have large percentage of home and farms which date back to the early 1900's, 1800's and 1700's all those properties have been determine what value they have in history and architecture and are listed on the national registry and there is no question about them. Many of these places claim Washington slept there, it seems he like to sleep in lots of people houses.
Maybe the lawsuit were about procedural errors, however, in the end those who were challenging its demolition were trying to claim the property had some sort of value which it obviously did not since people who deal with properties which have significant historical or architecture value obvious did not agree, otherwise, it would been saved, I have personally seen it done a number of times.
Maybe I'm just a little old fashioned about this, but I don't believe you can take factual errors and make them right through repetition.
First, the determination of historical significance and a decision to protect or not protect by any given locality are completely separate matters. In this particular case, the house was determined to be significant according to nationally accepted standards of evaluation before anyone sued. Jobs was required, by the city, to hire an architectural historian to evaluate its significance. This report was used by the city as the basis for the subsequent decision-making, and for what steps the city was required to take under state law before they gave him the demolition permit.
Second, the environmental laws in this state apply to properties which are not currently listed. They also apply to properties that are determined to be significant, in precisely the manner this one was. Fortunately the laws require the discovery of all environmental resources (historic buildings being just one kind) during the review process. If they did not, the laws would be utterly pointless. An application of basic logic goes a long way towards the understanding of how this works.
The lawsuit was essentially about procedural errors, but these are not "little things" under California law, since the law is fundamentally procedural. Certain steps are required to be taken by the local government in order to comply. And again, it was not Steve Jobs or his lawyers who were required to comply, it was the city. Steve Jobs was not sued, the city was.
Every state and locality has their own laws and ordinances. I can only speak for how this is done in California, which is where the event we are discussing, occurred. In the end, it is certainly up to a local government to decide what they want to do. The only requirement of the law is that they do so on the basis of full disclosure.
Comments
... If a building is designed by a "master architect" (which Smith certainly was) just about anything he designed is going to be significant on that basis. ...
Well, I'm not an architect, historian, or architectural historian, but I can't agree with this premise. It's logically equivalent to saying that everything done by an important person is important, which is, prima facie, nonsense. It would mean that even, say, an outhouse, designed by Smith, utterly uncharacteristic of his style, and unnotable. and indistinguishable from other outhouses. in any feature, and which itself influenced no further designs, would be significant. And I don't think the 'just about' qualifier saves this statement, except perhaps by trivializing it into meaninglessness.
The Jackling House may well be "significant", but its significance cannot derive solely from the identity of its architect.
Steve, in what I'd call one of his worst public moments ever, said near the beginning of this controversy that Smith could not be important because he'd never heard of him. That's a bit like claiming that Mars can't possibly exist because you've never been there. Not a very sound argument coming from such an otherwise smart guy.
Yeah, that was a pretty stupid statement from an otherwise smart guy.
Just saying is right. The reality that you can always find a nut to say something nutty does not render facts disputable. The person who wrote this report is not a nut and the conclusions were not nutty, they were fact-based, which is why they were not challenged. I assume Steve hired him, since that's the way it normally works.
I don't think you know what "in dispute" means. How many people have to dispute it before it is "in dispute"?
Preservationists who for years have fought Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs and prevented him from demolishing an aging California mansion have finally thrown in the towel.
When will these haters realize that whatever Steve WANTS, Steve GETS?
I think his point was that is wasn't of sufficient historical significance to warrant protection. Whatever that magic threshold is, it was not passed.
For you, all such buildings are historic. For the rest of us layfolks, only those of protected status appear to be truly "historic" in nature.
That's not a meaningful distinction. Whether something is historic depends on it meeting the criteria for significance. Protection of buildings found to be historic is entirely another matter. Many if not most local governments extend no protection to historic buildings. Woodside, for one, does not.
Well, I'm not an architect, historian, or architectural historian, but I can't agree with this premise. It's logically equivalent to saying that everything done by an important person is important, which is, prima facie, nonsense. It would mean that even, say, an outhouse, designed by Smith, utterly uncharacteristic of his style, and unnotable. and indistinguishable from other outhouses. in any feature, and which itself influenced no further designs, would be significant. And I don't think the 'just about' qualifier saves this statement, except perhaps by trivializing it into meaninglessness.
The Jackling House may well be "significant", but its significance cannot derive solely from the identity of its architect.
Well I am an architectural historian, and I can tell you from long experience that you don't know what you are talking about.
It absolutely can derive its significance solely from the identity of the architect (National Register Criterion C). In this case, the house also derived its significance from the builder, however. That's Criterion B, if you are interested.
I don't think you know what "in dispute" means. How many people have to dispute it before it is "in dispute"?
When people knowledgable of the facts and the relevant standards disagree, then you can say it is in dispute. When people lacking knowledge of either dispute something, then they are just mouthing off. The important take-away is that the finding of significance was not disputed by anyone with expertise or professional standing, and even more to the point (again, for probably the fifth time), the lawsuit was NOT over the significance of the property, it was over the city's procedures and their compliance with California environmental law.
Well I am an architectural historian, and I can tell you from long experience that you don't know what you are talking about.
It absolutely can derive its significance solely from the identity of the architect (National Register Criterion C). In this case, the house also derived its significance from the builder, however. That's Criterion B, if you are interested.
As usual, you don't seem to understand the real world vs. some overly technical definition of reality. Sorry, but just because some criteria somewhere define something as significant just because of the identity of the architect may define them as significant according to the law (or whatever apparently meaningless nonsense these criteria you reference define) doesn't actually make them significant in any real and meaningful sense of 'significant'. It would indicate mostly that the people who established these criteria are senseless idiots.
From this we can conclude that your remarks regarding whether the Jackling House is significant or not as being so far outside the ordinary language sense of 'significant' that they are meaningless to anyone who actually wants to know if the structure is really significant as opposed to merely "significant" in your sense.
As usual, you don't seem to understand the real world vs. some overly technical definition of reality. Sorry, but just because some criteria somewhere define something as significant just because of the identity of the architect may define them as significant according to the law (or whatever apparently meaningless nonsense these criteria you reference define) doesn't actually make them significant in any real and meaningful sense of 'significant'. It would indicate mostly that the people who established these criteria are senseless idiots.
From this we can conclude that your remarks regarding whether the Jackling House is significant or not as being so far outside the ordinary language sense of 'significant' that they are meaningless to anyone who actually wants to know if the structure is really significant as opposed to merely "significant" in your sense.
These are not "some criteria somewhere," nor are they my criteria, and they are far from meaningless. These are the criteria used nationwide since 1966, and which are universally accepted, and can understood by anyone with any interest in doing so. This is a set which obviously does not include you. Continuing to spout your arbitrary, uninformed, and willfully ignorant opinions does make you right, and it never will.
These are not "some criteria somewhere," nor are they my criteria, and they are far from meaningless. These are the criteria used nationwide since 1966, and which are universally accepted, and can understood by anyone with any interest in doing so. This is a set which obviously does not include you. Continuing to spout your arbitrary, uninformed, and willfully ignorant opinions does make you right, and it never will.
Well, apparently they define 'significant' in such a way as to make it a meaningless concept, or at least one with no real world significance. The whole point is that, and I think most reasonable persons would agree, it's ridiculous to consider something as "significant" if it hasn't had any effect on anything, but only because it was designed by a "significant" person, despite the fact that it has nothing notable about it and influenced no one. This sort of definition of 'significant' is effectively circular, where we are told that some structure is significant because it is significant.
I can see that you are locked into your manner of thinking, so it's probably pointless to even make these comments. But, if these are the criteria used for historic preservation (something which I am strongly in favor of for actually significant structures), then it's high time we had some new criteria, because these are senseless.
As usual, you don't seem to understand the real world vs. some overly technical definition of reality. Sorry, but just because some criteria somewhere define something as significant just because of the identity of the architect may define them as significant according to the law (or whatever apparently meaningless nonsense these criteria you reference define) doesn't actually make them significant in any real and meaningful sense of 'significant'. It would indicate mostly that the people who established these criteria are senseless idiots.
Laws and legal regulations ARE the real world. We may not like them or agree with them, but they are nonetheless very real. Try not paying your taxes and see how "real world" the consequences are regardless of whether you think tax laws were made by "senseless idiots."
I think our disagreements here stem from the distinction between a legal determination of the historical significance of this property and aesthetic judgements. I don't much care for it myself, but legally there is no denying that it has that status.
But, if these are the criteria used for historic preservation (something which I am strongly in favor of for actually significant structures), then it's high time we had some new criteria, because these are senseless.
There is nothing standing in the way of you becoming active in revising such regulations and laws. It takes a lot of time, commitment, and effort to do so. Complaining about them is far easier.
I think our disagreements here stem from the distinction between a legal determination of the historical significance of this property and aesthetic judgements. I don't much care for it myself, but legally there is no denying that it has that status.
Well, I think the point is, that someone declaring that some structure is significant may not actually mean what one expects it to mean, and that in that "legalistic", yet entirely nonsensical, sense of 'significance', in may actually be entirely insignificant and of no value whatsoever. In regard to your further comment that one ought not complain about nonsense, one has every right to, one very well ought to, and complaining is the first step to anything being done.
Well, apparently they define 'significant' in such a way as to make it a meaningless concept, or at least one with no real world significance. The whole point is that, and I think most reasonable persons would agree, it's ridiculous to consider something as "significant" if it hasn't had any effect on anything, but only because it was designed by a "significant" person, despite the fact that it has nothing notable about it and influenced no one. This sort of definition of 'significant' is effectively circular, where we are told that some structure is significant because it is significant.
I can see that you are locked into your manner of thinking, so it's probably pointless to even make these comments. But, if these are the criteria used for historic preservation (something which I am strongly in favor of for actually significant structures), then it's high time we had some new criteria, because these are senseless.
No, it is meaningless only to people who are impervious to learning about these concepts. You have rejected them without even having the most rudimentary understanding of how they work, and are resisting any effort I make to explain them. I would hate to think of anyone who tried to be your teacher.
Laws and legal regulations ARE the real world. We may not like them or agree with them, but they are nonetheless very real. Try not paying your taxes and see how "real world" the consequences are regardless of whether you think tax laws were made by "senseless idiots."
I think our disagreements here stem from the distinction between a legal determination of the historical significance of this property and aesthetic judgements. I don't much care for it myself, but legally there is no denying that it has that status.
The law is a good analogy in some respects. Conclusions about significance are drawn from facts + the criteria just as conclusions in law are drawn from evidence + the law. If you don't have evidence or don't understand the law, your legal conclusions are going to be arbitrary, nothing more than your subjective view, i.e., indefensible by any standard. Some people seem to prefer arbitrariness, since it allows them to continue believing whatever they already believe -- but I can't think of any instance where it gets you anywhere useful. Into pointless arguments I guess.
To be clear though, a determination of historical significance is not a legal determination. It is a professional opinion, based on evidence and an understanding of the criteria. All of this procedure and method is extensively documented, for anyone who cares to know.
Well, I think the point is, that someone declaring that some structure is significant may not actually mean what one expects it to mean, and that in that "legalistic", yet entirely nonsensical, sense of 'significance', in may actually be entirely insignificant and of no value whatsoever. In regard to your further comment that one ought not complain about nonsense, one has every right to, one very well ought to, and complaining is the first step to anything being done.
Completely wrong, as before. The only mystery at this point is why you aren't embarrassed to be so utterly convinced that you comprehend concepts you know not a single thing about, and clearly don't have even the slightest inclination to know anything about.
The thing is, it's not a contest. If a building is designed by a "master architect" (which Smith certainly was) just about anything he designed is going to be significant on that basis. In Smith's case in particular, he practiced for a relatively short time but his influence was very great, so it's hard to argue against the significance of any remaining examples of his work, unless they are heavily altered..
I see. So because YOU state that it's significant, that allows you to say that the historical significance is not in dispute.
The fact is that the court evaluated the historical significance and found that it was not sufficient to order the house kept in its current form. And that was with experts on both sides.
If it was so incredibly significant, you'd think they'd have found the money to move the house at their own expense instead of asking Jobs to do it.
Completely wrong, as before. The only mystery at this point is why you aren't embarrassed to be so utterly convinced that you comprehend concepts you know not a single thing about, and clearly don't have even the slightest inclination to know anything about.
One doesn't have to be an "expert" in the field to recognize that it is, quite simply, stupid to declare a structure "significant" just because it was designed by some big name. Significance needs to stand on it's own feet, and junk ought not ride on coattails just because the person who tossed it off was otherwise brilliant. If it's not notable for some reason, if you can't trace influence back to it, it isn't significant, it's ordinary, not worthy of particular notice, it hasn't affected the development of other designs, and it ought not be defined into significance because of some mistaken notion that the detritus of great men is great stuff. If architectural historians believe otherwise, they are a very mistaken bunch.
Should be an interesting contrast to Bill Gates' home.
One, I think, will be destined to be a home of historical significance. The other, not so much except that Bill owned it.
Base on the fact the those who tried to save it failed and could not get its status change means it was not worth saving.
With that said, that town will most likely make out on this deal, once he tears it all down it becomes a new property therefore the taxes get reset and SJ will most like end up paying more to the city then he has in past. This is true if it is a complete tear down, however, from my understanding of the code in CA (which a bit old at this time) if he leave at least one wall in places and rebuild on the original foundation the house is not consider new from a taxing stand point so the house does not get re-asset.
Come form a town that preserve most everything in the town and will not let you do a thing to your home unless the architectural committee researches and approves every change that happen on the outside of that property, I call tell you if this town really felt it was worth saving they would have used the power to have it declared a land mark or had significant architectural value it would have happen in spite of what anyone here thinks.
Base on the fact the those who tried to save it failed and could not get its status change means it was not worth saving.
With that said, that town will most likely make out on this deal, once he tears it all down it becomes a new property therefore the taxes get reset and SJ will most like end up paying more to the city then he has in past. This is true if it is a complete tear down, however, from my understanding of the code in CA (which a bit old at this time) if he leave at least one wall in places and rebuild on the original foundation the house is not consider new from a taxing stand point so the house does not get re-asset.
"This town" never tried to save the house. Never. The council voted from the very start to permit its demolition. The problem was the procedure -- they tried to cut corners on compliance with state law and got caught. Result: lawsuit. Every community gets to make their own planning decisions. If they want to bulldoze every historic building in town, they can do it, if their constituents don't object. What they can't do (at least not in California) is try to pretend that they doing something else. They have to properly disclose to the public that they know a building they allowed to be demolished is historically significant.
What is "worth" doing is entirely a local planning decision. It may dictate what is done in the end, but it doesn't change facts. Some in this thread are convinced otherwise. They are wrong.
"This town" never tried to save the house. Never. The council voted from the very start to permit its demolition. The problem was the procedure -- they tried to cut corners on compliance with state law and got caught. Result: lawsuit. Every community gets to make their own planning decisions. If they want to bulldoze every historic building in town, they can do it, if their constituents don't object. What they can't do (at least not in California) is try to pretend that they doing something else. They have to properly disclose to the public that they know a building they allowed to be demolished is historically significant.
What is "worth" doing is entirely a local planning decision. It may dictate what is done in the end, but it doesn't change facts. Some in this thread are convinced otherwise. They are wrong.
I have to disagree that the local and community can do what they want. I personally watch as community and local, state and federal government try to tear down a church to make way for a new highway, and the historical society got the church declared as having significant architectural and historical value and got it registered as federal land mark, which trumps eminent domain. This church was less then 100yr old at the time and to the community they saw no value in it since most people no longer attend it and they rather have the new highway. Well today the highway goes around the church. They saved the church but it now looks like hell with it sitting 100 ft below the highway as it sit in a hole between the highway and a hillside.
Whether Jobs and his lawyers followed ever little procedure to tear down the house, does not matter since the sole claim by those trying to block it was the house had significant architecture or historical value. I am neither a Architecture or Historian but living in an area where we have large percentage of home and farms which date back to the early 1900's, 1800's and 1700's all those properties have been determine what value they have in history and architecture and are listed on the national registry and there is no question about them. Many of these places claim Washington slept there, it seems he like to sleep in lots of people houses.
Maybe the lawsuit were about procedural errors, however, in the end those who were challenging its demolition were trying to claim the property had some sort of value which it obviously did not since people who deal with properties which have significant historical or architecture value obvious did not agree, otherwise, it would been saved, I have personally seen it done a number of times.
I have to disagree that the local and community can do what they want. I personally watch as community and local, state and federal government try to tear down a church to make way for a new highway, and the historical society got the church declared as having significant architectural and historical value and got it registered as federal land mark, which trumps eminent domain. This church was less then 100yr old at the time and to the community they saw no value in it since most people no longer attend it and they rather have the new highway. Well today the highway goes around the church. They saved the church but it now looks like hell with it sitting 100 ft below the highway as it sit in a hole between the highway and a hillside.
Whether Jobs and his lawyers followed ever little procedure to tear down the house, does not matter since the sole claim by those trying to block it was the house had significant architecture or historical value. I am neither a Architecture or Historian but living in an area where we have large percentage of home and farms which date back to the early 1900's, 1800's and 1700's all those properties have been determine what value they have in history and architecture and are listed on the national registry and there is no question about them. Many of these places claim Washington slept there, it seems he like to sleep in lots of people houses.
Maybe the lawsuit were about procedural errors, however, in the end those who were challenging its demolition were trying to claim the property had some sort of value which it obviously did not since people who deal with properties which have significant historical or architecture value obvious did not agree, otherwise, it would been saved, I have personally seen it done a number of times.
Maybe I'm just a little old fashioned about this, but I don't believe you can take factual errors and make them right through repetition.
First, the determination of historical significance and a decision to protect or not protect by any given locality are completely separate matters. In this particular case, the house was determined to be significant according to nationally accepted standards of evaluation before anyone sued. Jobs was required, by the city, to hire an architectural historian to evaluate its significance. This report was used by the city as the basis for the subsequent decision-making, and for what steps the city was required to take under state law before they gave him the demolition permit.
Second, the environmental laws in this state apply to properties which are not currently listed. They also apply to properties that are determined to be significant, in precisely the manner this one was. Fortunately the laws require the discovery of all environmental resources (historic buildings being just one kind) during the review process. If they did not, the laws would be utterly pointless. An application of basic logic goes a long way towards the understanding of how this works.
The lawsuit was essentially about procedural errors, but these are not "little things" under California law, since the law is fundamentally procedural. Certain steps are required to be taken by the local government in order to comply. And again, it was not Steve Jobs or his lawyers who were required to comply, it was the city. Steve Jobs was not sued, the city was.
Every state and locality has their own laws and ordinances. I can only speak for how this is done in California, which is where the event we are discussing, occurred. In the end, it is certainly up to a local government to decide what they want to do. The only requirement of the law is that they do so on the basis of full disclosure.