What? He couldn't tear down his own house? Hmmm sounds like a iPhone to me. We buy the phone and the service plan, but then Apple and AT&T tell us what we can and cannot do, even after the contract is up. Very similar. How does it feel Stevie!
It doesn't need to be old to be historic. Something from 1996 can be historic if it is a great example of an architectural style or simply a great building.
The Status of Liberty was historic the day it was dedicated, and should not be torn down. It's not about old.
I'm glad it's over. In my opinion based the on the interior and exterior photos I've seen this house was not one of that architect's finer works. From the outside it looked like Spanish Colonial as interpreted by Benito Mussolini. It had that kind of blank industrial modernism that Italian fascists were so fond of. That, with a few terra cotta tiles and wrought iron railings thrown in for local color. The wealthy and powerful client who is used to getting his way often thinks of himself as "smarter" than the architect and will impose his own ideas on the plan. Wouldn't surprise me if that happened here. Frankly, the house is a rather poor example of its type compared to others of his work I've seen in Santa Barbara and elsewhere. Kinda ugly.
I'm glad it's over. In my opinion based the on the interior and exterior photos I've seen this house was not one of that architect's finer works. From the outside it looked like Spanish Colonial as interpreted by Benito Mussolini. It had that kind of blank industrial modernism that Italian fascists were so fond of. That, with a few terra cotta tiles and wrought iron railings thrown in for local color. The wealthy and powerful client who is used to getting his way often thinks of himself as "smarter" than the architect and will impose his own ideas on the plan. Wouldn't surprise me if that happened here. Frankly, the house is a rather poor example of its type compared to others of his work I've seen in Santa Barbara and elsewhere. Kinda ugly.
It's actually quite comparable to his other work. You're entitled not to like it, but that changes nothing factually.
I know it's a waste of time, but I feel obligated to say it: Before anyone thinks about restarting the debate over whether this house was historically significant, or plans on offering any pet theories for why it took so long for Steve to get his demo permit, they might want to read one or two of the many previous threads on this subject, where all of this was explained in painful detail.
The fact that it took so long for Jobs to demolish a house that he legally owned is, I believe, an illustration of what's wrong with California. There are just too many obstacles to progress in that state. I don't mean to suggest that I want to live in some kind of libertarian fantasy world where we ignore all externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities) and have everyone pursue their private interests without regard to any other consideration. I'm just saying that in CA it seems that the process for balancing these competing concerns appears to be highly inefficient, and that the balance seems a little skewed to me in many cases (another example is the difficulty in using desert land for solar power generation due to environmental concerns -- the irony of course being that the whole point of solar power generation is to help solve the single biggest environmental issue in the history of human civilization, but god forbid we piss off some turtles).
It is not something unique to California. Same thing happens with regard to historical landmarks anywhere in the US but especially in affluent cities.
With regard to environmental issues: The main problem is there are several billion more people on this planet than it can sustain. If someone was truly an environmentalist they should not have any children. The desert turtles are being threatened more by people living in the desert than any solar power facility would.
Here is what is happening: People buy land ever closer to the desert and put in a nice landscaped yard with irrigation. Then it becomes an oasis for crows who can use the water as a staging area to go into the desert to hunt baby turtles. Previously they were unable to do so because there was no water within their flying range to get to and from the desert.
... "Using the iPad is not 'just like a reading book' at all since books do not close when the reader is enjoying them in the sunlight or in other normal environmental environments," the complaint read. ...
Finally. The mansion stories with the bleeding-heart defenders of "history" pontificating in the forums about something they know nothing about is finally over. And so they will move on to some other subject to misinformantly preach on.
I want to do some "testing" at this same resort by the swimming pool.... where is this? The swimming pool looks vaguely familiar... i think I may have gone to a convention there. If it has a swim-up bar then I think I have been swimming there. And it's definately a nice place to do "research" and work on getting ideas.
Finally. The mansion stories with the bleeding-heart defenders of "history" pontificating in the forums about something they know nothing about is finally over. And so they will move on to some other subject to misinformantly preach on.
Pontification about something they know nothing about is a perfect definition of you to yourself.
I think anything over 50 yrs is considered historical (in the US). However, I live in a 105 yr old house and I'm quite sure somebody could tear it down with no complaints
Ah the perennial debate about when something morphs from being "Junk" to "Antique" in the minds of the beholder. For awhile I believe Palo Alto had an ordinance that dictated that any structure before a certain date (1940 if I recall) would be considered "historic". This raised a ruckus and I believe cooler heads prevailed and the ordinance was thrown out (not completely sure of all the facts, but it was almost as amusing as the Berkeley City Council and all its well-publicized left-wing politics and associated problems).
Ah the perennial debate about when something morphs from being "Junk" to "Antique" in the minds of the beholder. For awhile I believe Palo Alto had an ordinance that dictated that any structure before a certain date (1940 if I recall) would be considered "historic". This raised a ruckus and I believe cooler heads prevailed and the ordinance was thrown out (not completely sure of all the facts, but it was almost as amusing as the Berkeley City Council and all its well-publicized left-wing politics and associated problems).
The accuracy of your memory of this is very doubtful. It would make no sense for any city to declare all buildings built before a certain date to automatically be historic, since significance is based on many factors other than age. Far more likely, they established a cutoff date for buildings to require further study before being demolished. This would hardly be irregular. In fact, it's completely typical.
So no, historic is not in the mind of the beholder. Actual standards do apply.
The accuracy of your memory of this is very doubtful. It would make no sense for any city to declare all buildings built before a certain date to automatically be historic, since significance is based on many factors other than age. Far more likely, they established a cutoff date for buildings to require further study before being demolished. This would hardly be irregular. In fact, it's completely typical.
So no, historic is not in the mind of the beholder. Actual standards do apply.
You are correct, in that it required a review by Palo Alto on ALL structures built before 1940, scheduled for demolition. Unfortunately, Palo Alto went a little overboard, and fully 2/3rds of those were either designated historic structures or contributing structures (which was a nebulous and ill-defined term at best), preventing basically 2/3rds of those stuctures from being demolished.
I don't know, but would guess that the uproar (it was in 1997) caused cooler heads to prevail, but the liberal bias toward preservation at all costs, and the anti-business sentiment in Palo Alto is well documented (I know first hand about this from trying to establish my practice back in 2003, and Palo Alto did everything possible to keep me from moving my practice). Had to hire consultants and lawyers to get up and running in a new location, but it was a nightmare. Palo Alto does things completely differently than the surrounding communities.
Don't know all the details of Jobs' problems, but would guess that he ran into quite a bit of subjective judgment on the merits of his house, rather than "Actual Standards" as you imply.
You are correct, in that it required a review by Palo Alto on ALL structures built before 1940, scheduled for demolition. Unfortunately, Palo Alto went a little overboard, and fully 2/3rds of those were either designated historic structures or contributing structures (which was a nebulous and ill-defined term at best), preventing basically 2/3rds of those stuctures from being demolished.
I don't know, but would guess that the uproar (it was in 1997) caused cooler heads to prevail, but the liberal bias toward preservation at all costs, and the anti-business sentiment in Palo Alto is well documented (I know first hand about this from trying to establish my practice back in 2003, and Palo Alto did everything possible to keep me from moving my practice). Had to hire consultants and lawyers to get up and running in a new location, but it was a nightmare. Palo Alto does things completely differently than the surrounding communities.
Don't know all the details of Jobs' problems, but would guess that he ran into quite a bit of subjective judgment on the merits of his house, rather than "Actual Standards" as you imply.
If this is what Palo Alto did, it would be an extremely unusual case. Even designated historic buildings are rarely protected to that extent, let alone, en masse.
Steve didn't run into subjective judgment. What he ran into was a city that tried to cut corners on the environmental review process (the city council was in favor of letting him demolish the house from the start). The city got busted and had to answer in court. If they'd done their business correctly from the very start, the entire process would have taken months instead of years.
I do this for a living. We often have to advise clients that the conservative approach is more likely to succeed. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't.
Using the iPad is not 'just like a reading book' at all since books do not close when the reader is enjoying them in the sunlight or in other normal environmental environments,
I really would like to see death by a thousand iPad cuts. That would be quite interesting.
Comments
I guess all the standard outrage over lawsuits isn't justifiable. You don't simply drop one in the slot and money comes pouring out.
The Status of Liberty was historic the day it was dedicated, and should not be torn down. It's not about old.
I'm glad it's over. In my opinion based the on the interior and exterior photos I've seen this house was not one of that architect's finer works. From the outside it looked like Spanish Colonial as interpreted by Benito Mussolini. It had that kind of blank industrial modernism that Italian fascists were so fond of. That, with a few terra cotta tiles and wrought iron railings thrown in for local color. The wealthy and powerful client who is used to getting his way often thinks of himself as "smarter" than the architect and will impose his own ideas on the plan. Wouldn't surprise me if that happened here. Frankly, the house is a rather poor example of its type compared to others of his work I've seen in Santa Barbara and elsewhere. Kinda ugly.
It's actually quite comparable to his other work. You're entitled not to like it, but that changes nothing factually.
I know it's a waste of time, but I feel obligated to say it: Before anyone thinks about restarting the debate over whether this house was historically significant, or plans on offering any pet theories for why it took so long for Steve to get his demo permit, they might want to read one or two of the many previous threads on this subject, where all of this was explained in painful detail.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=107813
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=99027
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=112274
The fact that it took so long for Jobs to demolish a house that he legally owned is, I believe, an illustration of what's wrong with California. There are just too many obstacles to progress in that state. I don't mean to suggest that I want to live in some kind of libertarian fantasy world where we ignore all externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities) and have everyone pursue their private interests without regard to any other consideration. I'm just saying that in CA it seems that the process for balancing these competing concerns appears to be highly inefficient, and that the balance seems a little skewed to me in many cases (another example is the difficulty in using desert land for solar power generation due to environmental concerns -- the irony of course being that the whole point of solar power generation is to help solve the single biggest environmental issue in the history of human civilization, but god forbid we piss off some turtles).
It is not something unique to California. Same thing happens with regard to historical landmarks anywhere in the US but especially in affluent cities.
With regard to environmental issues: The main problem is there are several billion more people on this planet than it can sustain. If someone was truly an environmentalist they should not have any children. The desert turtles are being threatened more by people living in the desert than any solar power facility would.
Here is what is happening: People buy land ever closer to the desert and put in a nice landscaped yard with irrigation. Then it becomes an oasis for crows who can use the water as a staging area to go into the desert to hunt baby turtles. Previously they were unable to do so because there was no water within their flying range to get to and from the desert.
... "Using the iPad is not 'just like a reading book' at all since books do not close when the reader is enjoying them in the sunlight or in other normal environmental environments," the complaint read. ...
Oh the humanity!
Don't forget my YouTube video testing iPad overheating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jv1EYFQuZM
I want to do some "testing" at this same resort by the swimming pool.... where is this? The swimming pool looks vaguely familiar... i think I may have gone to a convention there. If it has a swim-up bar then I think I have been swimming there. And it's definately a nice place to do "research" and work on getting ideas.
Any way, nice video and nice "research project".
Get the inside scoop about the latest convention booth ideas.
Finally. The mansion stories with the bleeding-heart defenders of "history" pontificating in the forums about something they know nothing about is finally over. And so they will move on to some other subject to misinformantly preach on.
Pontification about something they know nothing about is a perfect definition of you to yourself.
In the USA that's "old" apparently.
I think anything over 50 yrs is considered historical (in the US). However, I live in a 105 yr old house and I'm quite sure somebody could tear it down with no complaints
I think anything over 50 yrs is considered historical (in the US).
No, it isn't.
Ah the perennial debate about when something morphs from being "Junk" to "Antique" in the minds of the beholder. For awhile I believe Palo Alto had an ordinance that dictated that any structure before a certain date (1940 if I recall) would be considered "historic". This raised a ruckus and I believe cooler heads prevailed and the ordinance was thrown out (not completely sure of all the facts, but it was almost as amusing as the Berkeley City Council and all its well-publicized left-wing politics and associated problems).
The accuracy of your memory of this is very doubtful. It would make no sense for any city to declare all buildings built before a certain date to automatically be historic, since significance is based on many factors other than age. Far more likely, they established a cutoff date for buildings to require further study before being demolished. This would hardly be irregular. In fact, it's completely typical.
So no, historic is not in the mind of the beholder. Actual standards do apply.
The accuracy of your memory of this is very doubtful. It would make no sense for any city to declare all buildings built before a certain date to automatically be historic, since significance is based on many factors other than age. Far more likely, they established a cutoff date for buildings to require further study before being demolished. This would hardly be irregular. In fact, it's completely typical.
So no, historic is not in the mind of the beholder. Actual standards do apply.
You are correct, in that it required a review by Palo Alto on ALL structures built before 1940, scheduled for demolition. Unfortunately, Palo Alto went a little overboard, and fully 2/3rds of those were either designated historic structures or contributing structures (which was a nebulous and ill-defined term at best), preventing basically 2/3rds of those stuctures from being demolished.
I don't know, but would guess that the uproar (it was in 1997) caused cooler heads to prevail, but the liberal bias toward preservation at all costs, and the anti-business sentiment in Palo Alto is well documented (I know first hand about this from trying to establish my practice back in 2003, and Palo Alto did everything possible to keep me from moving my practice). Had to hire consultants and lawyers to get up and running in a new location, but it was a nightmare. Palo Alto does things completely differently than the surrounding communities.
Don't know all the details of Jobs' problems, but would guess that he ran into quite a bit of subjective judgment on the merits of his house, rather than "Actual Standards" as you imply.
You are correct, in that it required a review by Palo Alto on ALL structures built before 1940, scheduled for demolition. Unfortunately, Palo Alto went a little overboard, and fully 2/3rds of those were either designated historic structures or contributing structures (which was a nebulous and ill-defined term at best), preventing basically 2/3rds of those stuctures from being demolished.
I don't know, but would guess that the uproar (it was in 1997) caused cooler heads to prevail, but the liberal bias toward preservation at all costs, and the anti-business sentiment in Palo Alto is well documented (I know first hand about this from trying to establish my practice back in 2003, and Palo Alto did everything possible to keep me from moving my practice). Had to hire consultants and lawyers to get up and running in a new location, but it was a nightmare. Palo Alto does things completely differently than the surrounding communities.
Don't know all the details of Jobs' problems, but would guess that he ran into quite a bit of subjective judgment on the merits of his house, rather than "Actual Standards" as you imply.
If this is what Palo Alto did, it would be an extremely unusual case. Even designated historic buildings are rarely protected to that extent, let alone, en masse.
Steve didn't run into subjective judgment. What he ran into was a city that tried to cut corners on the environmental review process (the city council was in favor of letting him demolish the house from the start). The city got busted and had to answer in court. If they'd done their business correctly from the very start, the entire process would have taken months instead of years.
I do this for a living. We often have to advise clients that the conservative approach is more likely to succeed. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't.
In the USA that's "old" apparently.
"I come from England... you know, where all the history comes from" - Eddie Izzard.
Using the iPad is not 'just like a reading book' at all since books do not close when the reader is enjoying them in the sunlight or in other normal environmental environments,
I really would like to see death by a thousand iPad cuts. That would be quite interesting.
You guys are obsessed with this mansion.
Not anymore!