Jobs to get another shot at demolishing "abomination" of a home

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
One of Apple chief Steve Jobs' longer personal struggles is returning to the limelight as a local town council is reviewing his request to demolish a historic house once described by the executive as an "abomination."



This next Tuesday, the Woodside Town Council will review the longstanding request from Jobs to scrap Jackling House in favor of a smaller, contemporary home.



The review would follow previously unmentioned dialogue between Jobs and the Town Council from last year where the Apple co-founder had made a more concerted effort to persuade local officials that scrapping the 1925-era building was more efficient than restoring it to a workable condition. A permit application attempt from 2008 broke down the costs and explained that it would take $13.3 million to restore Jackling House -- which sprawls over 17,250 square feet and hasn't been used for 10 years -- but only $8.2 million to build a completely new, 6,000-square-foot home in its place.



In September, Jobs also claimed through his lawyer Howard Ellman that he had made a "persistent and expensive effort" to offer the house to someone else rather than take on the work himself. Two are still considering a move but haven't made any tangible commitments, he said.



Even so, Jobs is still expected to face stiff opposition during the 2009 review process. The same Uphold Our Heritage organization that overturned Jobs' permit in 2007 disputes the claims made by Jobs. COH lawyer Doug Carstens insists that Jobs hasn't actively sought out a buyer in some time and claims that the CEO is exaggerating the costs by assuming that he would have to shoulder all the costs himself, rather than splitting them with a buyer.



The preservation society considers Jackling House too important to destroy as it reflects a Spanish Colonial Revival style that has few remaining examples left. Previously, COH accused Jobs of letting the building fall apart to make a new building easier to justify than maintaining an old building which he has openly disdained as an eyesore.



If Jobs is successful in a review of his request, though, it will bring to an end a municipal fight that has occupied much of the decade: Jobs had originally filed for a permit to demolish the building in 2001 and got the go-ahead in 2004, only to have it contested and rejected three years later.
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 144
    Torch it!
  • Reply 2 of 144
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,111member
    Quote:

    Jobs had originally filed for a permit to demolish the building in 2001 and got the go-ahead in 2004, only to have it contested and rejected three years later.



    And now it's 2009!!! Gosh, what a drag! C'mon 1925 shouldn't be considered "historic", Colonial architecture my ass it's a private house for God's sake. If Mr. Carstens thinks it's so easy to sell, then why doesn't he just buy it himself or find a buyer? There'll be no arguments then.



    I guess that's the cost of being wealthy. Sheesh!! how stressful can Steve's life get?
  • Reply 3 of 144
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    I understand why these historical society groups want to preserve historic architecture, but they should not be able to force a property owner to hold on to a money pit. If they want to preserve that house so badly, they should put their money where their mouths are and offer to buy it from Steve.
  • Reply 4 of 144
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Is it just me or does it seem like Jobs is more interested in winning than actually building on that site. I think he just likes the fight.
  • Reply 5 of 144
    What does this have to do with Macs or Apple? Maybe next week you can list the minutes at the council meeting.
  • Reply 6 of 144
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    And now it's 2009!!! Gosh, what a drag! C'mon 1925 shouldn't be considered "historic", Colonial architecture my ass it's a private house for God's sake. If Mr. Carstens thinks it's so easy to sell, then why doesn't he just buy it himself or find a buyer? There'll be no arguments then. ...



    I believe strongly in preserving historic buildings, but the fact that no one has expressed any interest in buying it for nine years or more is rather telling. If he hasn't tried it already, the obvious move is giving the house away to anyone who wants to haul it. If no one will take it even for free, then I don't see how anyone can oppose it's destruction.
  • Reply 7 of 144
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    I understand why these historical society groups want to preserve historic architecture, but they should not be able to force a property owner to hold on to a money pit. If they want to preserve that house so badly, they should put their money where their mouths are and offer to buy it from Steve.



    I do recall Jobs stating that he would sell the house for a $1 if the new owner would agree to move it at their cost. As for the comments above about torching the place, the amount of time that has passed since he house was built is not as important as the historical value the house represents. We loose our cultural past when worthy homes/building are destroyed by owners that just want the land they sit on to build some Mc Mansion.
  • Reply 8 of 144
    tsirkotsirko Posts: 11member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teslacoil6603 View Post


    What does this have to do with Macs or Apple? Maybe next week you can list the minutes at the council meeting.



    i agree with you mate!



    blame those stocks!
  • Reply 9 of 144
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teslacoil6603 View Post


    What does this have to do with Macs or Apple? Maybe next week you can list the minutes at the council meeting.



    Macs are the name of the PC from Apple » Apple was co-founded by and has a CEO named Steve Jobs » Steve Jobs is the one they are talking about in the article.



    This site also talks about products that may or not compete with Apple products in the future, like the Zune and Kindle.
  • Reply 10 of 144
    6000 sq feet is not a mansion.



    I really don't see why this home owner can't do what he wants with his own land. (IF) He tried selling it, no one took it! So why force him to keep it?
  • Reply 11 of 144
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    Then the council can pay to have it restored. What good is the house doing anyone just sitting there rotting?



    No one wants to pay to have it restored so either the council should cough up a good chunk of money or let it be demolished.
  • Reply 12 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    I understand why these historical society groups want to preserve historic architecture, but they should not be able to force a property owner to hold on to a money pit. If they want to preserve that house so badly, they should put their money where their mouths are and offer to buy it from Steve.



    exactly! I understand the need as well, but I do NOT agree that they can overrule a home owner on their private property..
  • Reply 13 of 144
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winterspan View Post


    exactly! I understand the need as well, but I do NOT agree that they can overrule a home owner on their private property..



    If the owner has the finally say over their property then that nullifies any potential effort of any historical society or home owners association. If Jobs bought the house knowing that there were certain requirements then he should abide by them, but if they were setup after the fact, which can happen with home owners associations, then it's a bit more convoluted.



    The argument that I should be able to do anything with my property is a bit weak. If you have a million dollar home in a nice neighborhood and your neighbor decides to let his home and yard go, has old broken down vehicles in the yard your property value can be hurt so I see a need for such regulation.



    But this home seems to be an eyesore because of the oversight. Perhaps there needs to be a built-in deadline for such things. If no one wants to remove the home for free and the society doesn't want to restore the home themselves they lose the right after x-many years.
  • Reply 14 of 144
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    I guess this falls under the concept of eminent domain, but if that is what the town

    council is claiming, they should be paying Mr. Jobs something.
  • Reply 15 of 144
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Steve Jobs spends his whole life promoting "California values" which is all communal and anti private property, so them not respecting his ownership is just his chickens coming home to roost.
  • Reply 16 of 144
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    I guess this falls under the concept of eminent domain, but if that is what the town

    council is claiming, they should be paying Mr. Jobs something.



    I was thinking it fell under Deed Restriction and/or Neighborhood Association...
  • Reply 17 of 144
    jerseymacjerseymac Posts: 408member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teslacoil6603 View Post


    What does this have to do with Macs or Apple? Maybe next week you can list the minutes at the council meeting.



    At least we know Steve is still alive. I keep expecting to see him on the cover of a magazine looking like poor patrick Swazey. I thing AI should keep an eye out for any Steve Sightings.
  • Reply 18 of 144
    Does anyone have a link to pictures of the abomination? I can only find one image of the interior.
  • Reply 19 of 144
    If this house was so important, they should've gave it historical status before Jobs bought it, or before he expressed an interest in changing/demolishing, not years later after he wanted to rebuild. Even then he was approved until moneyed lawyers sued him. To me, these things out weight the other considerations. Historical homes are important, but so is private property. Home owners associations can be real power nuts.
  • Reply 20 of 144
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I was thinking it fell under Deed Restriction and/or Neighborhood Association...



    Maybe. I have not kept up with this story all along, but the article says that the Woodside

    town council, a government entity, is involved. At least in my home town in California,

    the city council does not get involved in disputes related to homeowners associations.

    Rather they must be resolved in civil court among the private parties. I thing that is the

    difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.