My wife told me about some small housing development where the original intent of the architect was to build cheap housing that was not intended to last. Now that it's "hysterically preserved" the curator decided that repairing them would go against the architects intent. So, they are allowed to decay and fall apart. What are they going to do when the walls fall down?
My wife told me about some small housing development where the original intent of the architect was to build cheap housing that was not intended to last. Now that it's "hysterically preserved" the curator decided that repairing them would go against the architects intent. So, they are allowed to decay and fall apart. What are they going to do when the walls fall down?
Incompetence on the part of some preservationists does not invalidate historical preservation generally. The historical society here does a great job with the ~150 years of history it has to work with. If people are willing to restore buildings so that they externally match the original spec, and so they're in good shape, they get money to do so.
There's a similar campaign to restore St. Louis that has been successful. The buildings look great, some of them have areas that can be toured publicly, and some family gets a really nice place to live and money to restore it in return for keeping it up to standard. If the basic structure is nice, and architecturally sound, why not keep it up?
As for the house under discussion, I think it's hideously ugly. It's faceless and there's no sense of composition holding its sprawling bulk together. Maybe it would actually look better with some of the additions knocked back off, but I don't see a lot of hope for it.
Okay, we've got a classic case here of uninformed opinions.
I don't plan on explaining all of historic preservation or California environmental law, but suffice to say, nobody can render a judgment about the significance of a property based on one photo. This is a task completed by a professional and based on detailed information and actual knowledge of the subject matter.
Also, for the record, George Washington Smith is one of California's finest and most important architects, and the demolition of one of his buildings is no trivial matter. It's not unlike someone wanting to tear down a Frank Lloyd Wright house just because they don't like it. As someone said above, if Steve didn't like the house, maybe he should have bought a different one.
I remember reading in a previous article a very disappointing quote from Uncle Steve saying that because he'd never heard of Smith, that he could not be important. I just hope he doesn't run Apple with that attitude.
Okay, we've got a classic case here of uninformed opinions.
I don't plan on explaining all of historic preservation or California environmental law, but suffice to say, nobody can render a judgment about the significance of a property based on one photo. This is a task completed by a professional and based on detailed information and actual knowledge of the subject matter.
Also, for the record, George Washington Smith is one of California's finest and most important architects, and the demolition of one of his buildings is no trivial matter. It's not unlike someone wanting to tear down a Frank Lloyd Wright house just because they don't like it. As someone said above, if Steve didn't like the house, maybe he should have bought a different one.
I remember reading in a previous article a very disappointing quote from Uncle Steve saying that because he'd never heard of Smith, that he could not be important. I just hope he doesn't run Apple with that attitude.
All good points. But there is also the property owner's rights to consider here. It gets trickier then if the property owner doesn't care about the building (as in this case) and more so if the building was NOT declared a historical building before it was purchased (which is not clear from what I have read). The property owner has rights too. Steve bought it for the land/view. If it was not designated as a "historical" building before he bought it, it also seems wrong for some outside party to now dictate what can/cannot be done with the property without properly compensating the property owner.
All good points. But there is also the property owner's rights to consider here. It gets trickier then if the property owner doesn't care about the building (as in this case) and more so if the building was NOT declared a historical building before it was purchased (which is not clear from what I have read). The property owner has rights too. Steve bought it for the land/view. If it was not designated as a "historical" building before he bought it, it also seems wrong for some outside party to now dictate what can/cannot be done with the property without properly compensating the property owner.
Not so, and the "outside party" to whom you seem to be referring would be the city, which has every authority to order the preservation of the house, whether it was designated before Steve Jobs bought it or not. Again, I don't want to get into a big discussion about California environmental regulations or historic preservation (or land use regulations) unless somebody wants me to, but in fact "property rights" really isn't an issue here, at least not legally. A preservation order would not be considered a "taking." The Supreme Court decided this issue long ago, so it's not a subject up for debate.
To be honest, I'm pretty disappointed in Steve. He has enough dough to build whatever kind of house he wants just about wherever he wants, but he's got to tear down an architecturally significant building to do it. What he's doing is pretty boorish IMO.
Not so, and the "outside party" to whom you seem to be referring would be the city, which has every authority to order the preservation of the house, whether it was designated before Steve Jobs bought it or not. Again, I don't want to get into a big discussion about California environmental regulations or historic preservation (or land use regulations) unless somebody wants me to, but in fact "property rights" really isn't an issue here, at least not legally. A preservation order would not be considered a "taking." The Supreme Court decided this issue long ago, so it's not a subject up for debate.
This is all well and fine...and assume that the "law" (and governing authority) is about what is right and wrong. Not always.
All I'm saying is that if someone has the authority to limit the value of a property by making such a declaration...they own the land owners something to compensate for the difference in what they might have sold it for otherwise.
This is all well and fine...and assume that the "law" (and governing authority) is about what is right and wrong. Not always.
All I'm saying is that if someone has the authority to limit the value of a property by making such a declaration...they own the land owners something to compensate for the difference in what they might have sold it for otherwise.
Steve being boorish? Perhaps...but irrelevant.
No, they don't owe them any compensation. This is just a fact, and it pertains to all land use regulations, not just this one. I'm sorry, but this just isn't a debatable issue. I am only reporting a fact, which you can choose to believe or not. It's only a matter of whether you prefer to be accurate or not.
Steve's boorishness matters to me. I was quite annoyed when he claimed that George Washington Smith couldn't possibly be an important architect because he'd never heard of him. This is quite simply ignorance mixed with arrogance, which plays little better than outright stupidity. Steve runs my favorite company. I admire him for a lot of things, so I certainly don't want to see him making remarks that make him look like a numskull. What this little episode may say about the way he runs Apple also concerns me.
No, they don't owe them any compensation. This is just a fact, and it pertains to all land use regulations, not just this one. I'm sorry, but this just isn't a debatable issue. I am only reporting a fact, which you can choose to believe or not. It's only a matter of whether you prefer to be accurate or not.
I am not debating you on the law (if you read my post, you'd see that). I don't have any knowledge of California law...let alone on this subject. I am stating my OPINION about what the right thing to do is...and that law (assuming you are right about that) isn't always about what is RIGHT or WRONG.
Quote:
Steve's boorishness matters to me.
Fine...but not really relevant to the legal or moral or other issues related to what should/shouldn't/can/can't be done with the land/building.
I did read your post, and you said the regulators owed them compensation. I'm saying they don't, as a legal or a moral issue. Some people have pushed for a compensatory land use regulation system because they know it would effectively destroy all forms of government regulation of land uses, which is what they are after. Maybe you're of that mind; I don't know. If you're not, then I would ask you to examine this notion a bit more carefully before promoting it as the solution to any problem.
FWIW, the key cases are US Supreme Court.
The "Steve issue" is entangled. It seems to me that we would not be discussing historic preservation and land uses questions here if it were not. In addition, this story told me something quite unflattering about Steve that I would honestly preferred not to know.
Okay, we've got a classic case here of uninformed opinions.
I don't plan on explaining all of historic preservation or California environmental law, but suffice to say, nobody can render a judgment about the significance of a property based on one photo. This is a task completed by a professional and based on detailed information and actual knowledge of the subject matter.
The significance of a building has nothing to do with its aesthetic value. There's a historic building smack downtown here that's just as ugly as sin, but nobody's about to tear it down. You can't conflate one judgment with the other.
Quote:
Also, for the record, George Washington Smith is one of California's finest and most important architects, and the demolition of one of his buildings is no trivial matter. It's not unlike someone wanting to tear down a Frank Lloyd Wright house just because they don't like it. As someone said above, if Steve didn't like the house, maybe he should have bought a different one.
He bought the property for the property, not for the house.
Quote:
I remember reading in a previous article a very disappointing quote from Uncle Steve saying that because he'd never heard of Smith, that he could not be important. I just hope he doesn't run Apple with that attitude.
That quote doesn't surprise me. Steve is famously indifferent to history, and famously bullheaded about his opinions. At any rate, this latest decision shows that he's perfectly willing to let someone else find some value in the house; he just wants it gone one way or another.
If the City decides the mansion has to stay there and be restored, I'm sure he'll manage, since he only wanted to build a small house anyway. The mansion might even look better with the "improvements" removed and some TLC, who knows? But given that he'd watched the place moulder for years and years, and there's only been an uproar now, I think it was not an unfair guess on his part that nobody would care if the the thing came down. It's a fair bet that, had he said nothing, the house would have decayed to the point where it would have had to be demolished anyway.
Funny thing is...the building is still on private property...so a) if Steve doesn't want to restore it, it won't be...and perhaps will simply fall down, and b) even if it is...it will be inaccessible to the general public. Oh well. Bunch of baloney me-thinks.
The significance of a building has nothing to do with its aesthetic value. There's a historic building smack downtown here that's just as ugly as sin, but nobody's about to tear it down. You can't conflate one judgment with the other.
Well I certainly don't have any problem sorting out the two issues, though keep in mind, the significance of his property is related to the architect. It could also be significant for its association with an historical event or individual, though I don't think this is the case here (at least from what I've read).
Quote:
He bought the property for the property, not for the house.
That was his mistake. In fact, if he doesn't appreciate the architecture, he'd be far better off selling the property to someone who does and buying a vacant parcel or a real tear-down. GW Smith's career was relatively brief so his houses are fairly scarce, especially in Northern California. People who understand such things would delighted to find one. I'm sure Steve would get a great price for the house, even though he's apparently let it run down.
Quote:
That quote doesn't surprise me. Steve is famously indifferent to history, and famously bullheaded about his opinions. At any rate, this latest decision shows that he's perfectly willing to let someone else find some value in the house; he just wants it gone one way or another.
If the City decides the mansion has to stay there and be restored, I'm sure he'll manage, since he only wanted to build a small house anyway. The mansion might even look better with the "improvements" removed and some TLC, who knows? But given that he'd watched the place moulder for years and years, and there's only been an uproar now, I think it was not an unfair guess on his part that nobody would care if the the thing came down. It's a fair bet that, had he said nothing, the house would have decayed to the point where it would have had to be demolished anyway.
Most cities would not stand idly by while a property owner allowed a house to deteriorate to that degree, not especially in Steve's tony neighborhood.
Funny thing is...the building is still on private property...so a) if Steve doesn't want to restore it, it won't be...and perhaps will simply fall down, and b) even if it is...it will be inaccessible to the general public. Oh well. Bunch of baloney me-thinks.
Accessibility is of no relevance. Nobody is asking him to put up velvet ropes and open a museum.
Accessibility is of no relevance. Nobody is asking him to put up velvet ropes and open a museum.
No...but it might illuminate the pointlessness of the exercise in this case.
Secondly, regarding your previous post...I'm wondering if they city will force him to not let it run down. How will they do this exactly? If they do this for him...why not for the slums found in many cities? There is (and ought to be) a limit to government intervention into private property matters.
Finally, you should appreciate Steve's offer to give the house away. Now someone...a preservationist group can put their money where their mouth is and pay for it to be relocated and restored.
It only seems like a pointless exercise to people who don't care about things like cultural heritage. The viewpoint on this has changed a great deal over the last 25 years, but I realize better than most that some people still don't get it.
Yes indeed, code enforcement is uneven at best, but I think you'll find that enforcement is the most aggressive in the wealthiest neighborhoods -- because these are the people who tend to complain. Yes, and inner city areas that need it the most often get it the least. This is changing too though. It's finally dawning on cities that they can improving the livability of urban areas overall by paying attention to the small stuff, like weeds and broken windows. Another discussion for another time, perhaps.
Steve's offer isn't quite as generous as it might seem. A house of that size costs tens of thousands to demolish and cart off, so if he found a taker, he'd be money ahead. If the house does get moved, it probably won't be by a preservation organization. More likely an individual with a nearby property will take it, if anyone does. But moving houses, especially large ones, is a major, major effort. They rarely work out under time pressure, and Steve does not have a reputation for patience.
Comments
Originally posted by Louzer
Preservationists are such a touchy lot. ...
My wife told me about some small housing development where the original intent of the architect was to build cheap housing that was not intended to last. Now that it's "hysterically preserved" the curator decided that repairing them would go against the architects intent. So, they are allowed to decay and fall apart. What are they going to do when the walls fall down?
Originally posted by Mike Peel
the only picture I can find of the mansion, and
a few people seem to be interested paying the shipping...
Based on THAT picture, I think Steve is right.
Originally posted by Scott
My wife told me about some small housing development where the original intent of the architect was to build cheap housing that was not intended to last. Now that it's "hysterically preserved" the curator decided that repairing them would go against the architects intent. So, they are allowed to decay and fall apart. What are they going to do when the walls fall down?
Incompetence on the part of some preservationists does not invalidate historical preservation generally. The historical society here does a great job with the ~150 years of history it has to work with.
There's a similar campaign to restore St. Louis that has been successful. The buildings look great, some of them have areas that can be toured publicly, and some family gets a really nice place to live and money to restore it in return for keeping it up to standard. If the basic structure is nice, and architecturally sound, why not keep it up?
As for the house under discussion, I think it's hideously ugly. It's faceless and there's no sense of composition holding its sprawling bulk together. Maybe it would actually look better with some of the additions knocked back off, but I don't see a lot of hope for it.
I don't plan on explaining all of historic preservation or California environmental law, but suffice to say, nobody can render a judgment about the significance of a property based on one photo. This is a task completed by a professional and based on detailed information and actual knowledge of the subject matter.
Also, for the record, George Washington Smith is one of California's finest and most important architects, and the demolition of one of his buildings is no trivial matter. It's not unlike someone wanting to tear down a Frank Lloyd Wright house just because they don't like it. As someone said above, if Steve didn't like the house, maybe he should have bought a different one.
I remember reading in a previous article a very disappointing quote from Uncle Steve saying that because he'd never heard of Smith, that he could not be important. I just hope he doesn't run Apple with that attitude.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Okay, we've got a classic case here of uninformed opinions.
I don't plan on explaining all of historic preservation or California environmental law, but suffice to say, nobody can render a judgment about the significance of a property based on one photo. This is a task completed by a professional and based on detailed information and actual knowledge of the subject matter.
Also, for the record, George Washington Smith is one of California's finest and most important architects, and the demolition of one of his buildings is no trivial matter. It's not unlike someone wanting to tear down a Frank Lloyd Wright house just because they don't like it. As someone said above, if Steve didn't like the house, maybe he should have bought a different one.
I remember reading in a previous article a very disappointing quote from Uncle Steve saying that because he'd never heard of Smith, that he could not be important. I just hope he doesn't run Apple with that attitude.
All good points. But there is also the property owner's rights to consider here. It gets trickier then if the property owner doesn't care about the building (as in this case) and more so if the building was NOT declared a historical building before it was purchased (which is not clear from what I have read). The property owner has rights too. Steve bought it for the land/view. If it was not designated as a "historical" building before he bought it, it also seems wrong for some outside party to now dictate what can/cannot be done with the property without properly compensating the property owner.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
All good points. But there is also the property owner's rights to consider here. It gets trickier then if the property owner doesn't care about the building (as in this case) and more so if the building was NOT declared a historical building before it was purchased (which is not clear from what I have read). The property owner has rights too. Steve bought it for the land/view. If it was not designated as a "historical" building before he bought it, it also seems wrong for some outside party to now dictate what can/cannot be done with the property without properly compensating the property owner.
Not so, and the "outside party" to whom you seem to be referring would be the city, which has every authority to order the preservation of the house, whether it was designated before Steve Jobs bought it or not. Again, I don't want to get into a big discussion about California environmental regulations or historic preservation (or land use regulations) unless somebody wants me to, but in fact "property rights" really isn't an issue here, at least not legally. A preservation order would not be considered a "taking." The Supreme Court decided this issue long ago, so it's not a subject up for debate.
To be honest, I'm pretty disappointed in Steve. He has enough dough to build whatever kind of house he wants just about wherever he wants, but he's got to tear down an architecturally significant building to do it. What he's doing is pretty boorish IMO.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Not so, and the "outside party" to whom you seem to be referring would be the city, which has every authority to order the preservation of the house, whether it was designated before Steve Jobs bought it or not. Again, I don't want to get into a big discussion about California environmental regulations or historic preservation (or land use regulations) unless somebody wants me to, but in fact "property rights" really isn't an issue here, at least not legally. A preservation order would not be considered a "taking." The Supreme Court decided this issue long ago, so it's not a subject up for debate.
This is all well and fine...and assume that the "law" (and governing authority) is about what is right and wrong. Not always.
All I'm saying is that if someone has the authority to limit the value of a property by making such a declaration...they own the land owners something to compensate for the difference in what they might have sold it for otherwise.
Steve being boorish? Perhaps...but irrelevant.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This is all well and fine...and assume that the "law" (and governing authority) is about what is right and wrong. Not always.
All I'm saying is that if someone has the authority to limit the value of a property by making such a declaration...they own the land owners something to compensate for the difference in what they might have sold it for otherwise.
Steve being boorish? Perhaps...but irrelevant.
No, they don't owe them any compensation. This is just a fact, and it pertains to all land use regulations, not just this one. I'm sorry, but this just isn't a debatable issue. I am only reporting a fact, which you can choose to believe or not. It's only a matter of whether you prefer to be accurate or not.
Steve's boorishness matters to me. I was quite annoyed when he claimed that George Washington Smith couldn't possibly be an important architect because he'd never heard of him. This is quite simply ignorance mixed with arrogance, which plays little better than outright stupidity. Steve runs my favorite company. I admire him for a lot of things, so I certainly don't want to see him making remarks that make him look like a numskull. What this little episode may say about the way he runs Apple also concerns me.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, they don't owe them any compensation. This is just a fact, and it pertains to all land use regulations, not just this one. I'm sorry, but this just isn't a debatable issue. I am only reporting a fact, which you can choose to believe or not. It's only a matter of whether you prefer to be accurate or not.
I am not debating you on the law (if you read my post, you'd see that). I don't have any knowledge of California law...let alone on this subject. I am stating my OPINION about what the right thing to do is...and that law (assuming you are right about that) isn't always about what is RIGHT or WRONG.
Steve's boorishness matters to me.
Fine...but not really relevant to the legal or moral or other issues related to what should/shouldn't/can/can't be done with the land/building.
FWIW, the key cases are US Supreme Court.
The "Steve issue" is entangled. It seems to me that we would not be discussing historic preservation and land uses questions here if it were not. In addition, this story told me something quite unflattering about Steve that I would honestly preferred not to know.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I did read your post, and you said the regulators owed them compensation.
Sorry, should have prefixed that with "it is my opinion that".
I'm saying they don't, as a legal
This may be true.
or a moral issue.
And this is your opinion.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Okay, we've got a classic case here of uninformed opinions.
I don't plan on explaining all of historic preservation or California environmental law, but suffice to say, nobody can render a judgment about the significance of a property based on one photo. This is a task completed by a professional and based on detailed information and actual knowledge of the subject matter.
The significance of a building has nothing to do with its aesthetic value. There's a historic building smack downtown here that's just as ugly as sin, but nobody's about to tear it down. You can't conflate one judgment with the other.
Also, for the record, George Washington Smith is one of California's finest and most important architects, and the demolition of one of his buildings is no trivial matter. It's not unlike someone wanting to tear down a Frank Lloyd Wright house just because they don't like it. As someone said above, if Steve didn't like the house, maybe he should have bought a different one.
He bought the property for the property, not for the house.
I remember reading in a previous article a very disappointing quote from Uncle Steve saying that because he'd never heard of Smith, that he could not be important. I just hope he doesn't run Apple with that attitude.
That quote doesn't surprise me. Steve is famously indifferent to history, and famously bullheaded about his opinions. At any rate, this latest decision shows that he's perfectly willing to let someone else find some value in the house; he just wants it gone one way or another.
If the City decides the mansion has to stay there and be restored, I'm sure he'll manage, since he only wanted to build a small house anyway.
Originally posted by Amorph
The significance of a building has nothing to do with its aesthetic value. There's a historic building smack downtown here that's just as ugly as sin, but nobody's about to tear it down. You can't conflate one judgment with the other.
Well I certainly don't have any problem sorting out the two issues, though keep in mind, the significance of his property is related to the architect. It could also be significant for its association with an historical event or individual, though I don't think this is the case here (at least from what I've read).
He bought the property for the property, not for the house.
That was his mistake. In fact, if he doesn't appreciate the architecture, he'd be far better off selling the property to someone who does and buying a vacant parcel or a real tear-down. GW Smith's career was relatively brief so his houses are fairly scarce, especially in Northern California. People who understand such things would delighted to find one. I'm sure Steve would get a great price for the house, even though he's apparently let it run down.
That quote doesn't surprise me. Steve is famously indifferent to history, and famously bullheaded about his opinions. At any rate, this latest decision shows that he's perfectly willing to let someone else find some value in the house; he just wants it gone one way or another.
If the City decides the mansion has to stay there and be restored, I'm sure he'll manage, since he only wanted to build a small house anyway.
Most cities would not stand idly by while a property owner allowed a house to deteriorate to that degree, not especially in Steve's tony neighborhood.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Funny thing is...the building is still on private property...so a) if Steve doesn't want to restore it, it won't be...and perhaps will simply fall down, and b) even if it is...it will be inaccessible to the general public. Oh well. Bunch of baloney me-thinks.
Accessibility is of no relevance. Nobody is asking him to put up velvet ropes and open a museum.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Accessibility is of no relevance. Nobody is asking him to put up velvet ropes and open a museum.
No...but it might illuminate the pointlessness of the exercise in this case.
Secondly, regarding your previous post...I'm wondering if they city will force him to not let it run down. How will they do this exactly? If they do this for him...why not for the slums found in many cities? There is (and ought to be) a limit to government intervention into private property matters.
Finally, you should appreciate Steve's offer to give the house away. Now someone...a preservationist group can put their money where their mouth is and pay for it to be relocated and restored.
Yes indeed, code enforcement is uneven at best, but I think you'll find that enforcement is the most aggressive in the wealthiest neighborhoods -- because these are the people who tend to complain. Yes, and inner city areas that need it the most often get it the least. This is changing too though. It's finally dawning on cities that they can improving the livability of urban areas overall by paying attention to the small stuff, like weeds and broken windows. Another discussion for another time, perhaps.
Steve's offer isn't quite as generous as it might seem. A house of that size costs tens of thousands to demolish and cart off, so if he found a taker, he'd be money ahead. If the house does get moved, it probably won't be by a preservation organization. More likely an individual with a nearby property will take it, if anyone does. But moving houses, especially large ones, is a major, major effort. They rarely work out under time pressure, and Steve does not have a reputation for patience.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It only seems like a pointless exercise to people who don't care about things like cultural heritage.
Wrong. What is the point of preserving something that no one (except one that doesn't care) will ever get to see or appreciate? Little if any.