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.
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.
So, next Wednesday morning - if he gets the "go-ahead" - he should dynamite the damn joint. Timing is everything... or was that "location, location, location...
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.
While certainly this building is of historical value, I don't see historical societies have established such a grip on local governments. I don't understand how you can have your property rights taken away because you own something "historical."
If you think about it, this house was a McMansion at the time it was built. I'm sure hundreds of other millionaires of the day built the exact same style of home.
And honestly a house from 1925 isn't all that historical when you consider the fact that it's probably newer than a large percentage of European, African, and Asian buildings.
If he can't even give the house away for free the historical society needs to back off. Not everything from the past is worth saving. And like others have said, if they can't put up the cash to save it, then it's the owner's choice (or it should be).
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.
What in the world are you talking about? Have you never been to Beverly Hills? It's not exactly a hippie commune.
I agree. I've seen photos of the place. It's boring Spanish Revival. It's not like it's a Neutra or a Wright home. It's a big monstrosity. Also 6000 square feet is small compared to say Bill Gate's home. The a nice 2 bedroom house is 2000 square feet. So Jobs only wants one that's 3 times bigger... probably with lots of open space and high ceilings. Imagine the amazing house that would replace that fake spanish villa.
Imagine the amazing house that would replace that fake spanish villa.
And imagine the tax income the Town of Woodside could gather from the new structure and improvements! What a bunch of Idiots. Steve should just deed the damn place over to them and let them suck on it.
I say bulldoze it now and ask for forgiveness later!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots
Best idea yet
i agree. what's the penalty for razing a "protected" property. i'm sure he can afford it. :-) i'm sure the backlash would be significant, though.
so, on a more serious note:
steve?s a *billionaire*. since preservationists would be happy to have the home moved elsewhere, why doesn?t he just buy another lot, have the house moved there, then build what he wants on the current lot? even if that were to cost $10 million, what?s that to someone who?s worth in excess of $5 billion? (remember, a billion is a THOUSAND million. i know for a fact that people forget that.)
in other words, he?s a millionaire 5 *thousand* times over! why not spend $10 million to move the house to another setting? (and i don't think it would actually cost that much.) then he could (a) put it on the market until a buyer comes along, and still (b) build his dream house on the current lot.
this seems so ridiculously simple, especially for someone as ultra-wealthy as he is. so, what?s the big deal?
because many of us own real estate and are very interested in this sort of thing. and, um -- it's apple-related. (what's the name of this blog, again?)
if you don't think it's newsworthy, why didn't you just skip to the next article, instead of wasting your precious time leaving a comment?
when will commenters on blogs stop assuming that everyone else's lives and interests are exactly like their own?
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.
so is there something missing from this story?
or why could Jobs not get it knocked down inside those 3 years?
When I saw it was the former owner of the property who was opposed to the house being knocked down my first reaction was - why didn't she write that into the deed?
I guess she didn't want deed restrictions reducing her selling price. So she wants the house to stay as long as it's someone else's loss, not hers.
Unless I'm missing something. Which I might be. I'm a bricklayer, not a Realtor®.
i agree. what's the penalty for razing a "protected" property. i'm sure he can afford it. :-) i'm sure the backlash would be significant, though.
so, on a more serious note:
steve’s a *billionaire*. since preservationists would be happy to have the home moved elsewhere, why doesn’t he just buy another lot, have the house moved there, then build what he wants on the current lot? even if that were to cost $10 million, what’s that to someone who’s worth in excess of $5 billion? (remember, a billion is a THOUSAND million. i know for a fact that people forget that.)
in other words, he’s a millionaire 5 *thousand* times over! why not spend $10 million to move the house to another setting? (and i don't think it would actually cost that much.) then he could (a) put it on the market until a buyer comes along, and still (b) build his dream house on the current lot.
this seems so ridiculously simple, especially for someone as ultra-wealthy as he is. so, what’s the big deal?
while i agree with most of that, I'd change it to "buy another lot, move the house there (numbered bricks or whatever) and leave the pile of rubble in a heap and also leave the rubble and new plot to the conservationists as a gift, with the caveat that if they don't raise the money to rebuild the house with in a set number of years, they forfeit any right to the land or property"
whats the big deal you ask?
its the principal of the thing, at this point Jobs is probably of the mind set that he WILL NOT LOSE! and after this length of time I can't say I blame him
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.
You guys spouting off about the council this or council that should go look up the information on this house (and legal battle)'s history. The council approved his request years ago and it was challenged in court TWICE and he lost.
You run an Apple website—and have for many years—yet you are unable to follow the rules of possessive proper nouns when writing Jobs' name. I assume it wasn't an accident, since you used "Job's" twice in this article.
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.
In what sense has Jobs spent his life promoting "California values", whatever those are?
The very obvious focus of Jobs' life has been to build enormously successful companies that employ lots of people, so are we to assume "California values" are those of aggressive entrepreneurialism?
I agree. I've seen photos of the place. It's boring Spanish Revival. It's not like it's a Neutra or a Wright home. It's a big monstrosity. Also 6000 square feet is small compared to say Bill Gate's home. The a nice 2 bedroom house is 2000 square feet. So Jobs only wants one that's 3 times bigger... probably with lots of open space and high ceilings. Imagine the amazing house that would replace that fake spanish villa.
The jackling house is 17,000 sqf... Steve wants to build 6,000 sqf... you have it flipped...
personally, i feel before steve leaves us... let him build his dream house... it would be a historic site, far more worthy 200 years from now than one from a copper magnate (jackling) that hardly anyone has heard of...
You run an Apple website?and have for many years?yet you are unable to follow the rules of possessive proper nouns when writing Jobs' name. I assume it wasn't an accident, since you used "Job's" twice in this article.
You have two options:
Jobs'
Jobs's
Never Job's
Same with there and their. They are frequently misused.
Comments
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.
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.
So, next Wednesday morning - if he gets the "go-ahead" - he should dynamite the damn joint. Timing is everything... or was that "location, location, location...
6000 sq feet is not a mansion.
It isn't?? How big is your mansion?
http://www.woodsidetown.org/current_issues_events.html
All private property right folks need to weigh in.
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.
While certainly this building is of historical value, I don't see historical societies have established such a grip on local governments. I don't understand how you can have your property rights taken away because you own something "historical."
If you think about it, this house was a McMansion at the time it was built. I'm sure hundreds of other millionaires of the day built the exact same style of home.
And honestly a house from 1925 isn't all that historical when you consider the fact that it's probably newer than a large percentage of European, African, and Asian buildings.
If he can't even give the house away for free the historical society needs to back off. Not everything from the past is worth saving. And like others have said, if they can't put up the cash to save it, then it's the owner's choice (or it should be).
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.
What in the world are you talking about? Have you never been to Beverly Hills? It's not exactly a hippie commune.
Imagine the amazing house that would replace that fake spanish villa.
And imagine the tax income the Town of Woodside could gather from the new structure and improvements! What a bunch of Idiots. Steve should just deed the damn place over to them and let them suck on it.
I say bulldoze it now and ask for forgiveness later!
Best idea yet
I say bulldoze it now and ask for forgiveness later!
Best idea yet
i agree. what's the penalty for razing a "protected" property. i'm sure he can afford it. :-) i'm sure the backlash would be significant, though.
so, on a more serious note:
steve?s a *billionaire*. since preservationists would be happy to have the home moved elsewhere, why doesn?t he just buy another lot, have the house moved there, then build what he wants on the current lot? even if that were to cost $10 million, what?s that to someone who?s worth in excess of $5 billion? (remember, a billion is a THOUSAND million. i know for a fact that people forget that.)
in other words, he?s a millionaire 5 *thousand* times over! why not spend $10 million to move the house to another setting? (and i don't think it would actually cost that much.) then he could (a) put it on the market until a buyer comes along, and still (b) build his dream house on the current lot.
this seems so ridiculously simple, especially for someone as ultra-wealthy as he is. so, what?s the big deal?
Why is this even considered new worthy?
because many of us own real estate and are very interested in this sort of thing. and, um -- it's apple-related. (what's the name of this blog, again?)
if you don't think it's newsworthy, why didn't you just skip to the next article, instead of wasting your precious time leaving a comment?
when will commenters on blogs stop assuming that everyone else's lives and interests are exactly like their own?
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.
so is there something missing from this story?
or why could Jobs not get it knocked down inside those 3 years?
I was thinking it fell under Deed Restriction and/or Neighborhood Association...
When I saw it was the former owner of the property who was opposed to the house being knocked down my first reaction was - why didn't she write that into the deed?
I guess she didn't want deed restrictions reducing her selling price. So she wants the house to stay as long as it's someone else's loss, not hers.
Unless I'm missing something. Which I might be. I'm a bricklayer, not a Realtor®.
i agree. what's the penalty for razing a "protected" property. i'm sure he can afford it. :-) i'm sure the backlash would be significant, though.
so, on a more serious note:
steve’s a *billionaire*. since preservationists would be happy to have the home moved elsewhere, why doesn’t he just buy another lot, have the house moved there, then build what he wants on the current lot? even if that were to cost $10 million, what’s that to someone who’s worth in excess of $5 billion? (remember, a billion is a THOUSAND million. i know for a fact that people forget that.)
in other words, he’s a millionaire 5 *thousand* times over! why not spend $10 million to move the house to another setting? (and i don't think it would actually cost that much.) then he could (a) put it on the market until a buyer comes along, and still (b) build his dream house on the current lot.
this seems so ridiculously simple, especially for someone as ultra-wealthy as he is. so, what’s the big deal?
while i agree with most of that, I'd change it to "buy another lot, move the house there (numbered bricks or whatever) and leave the pile of rubble in a heap and also leave the rubble and new plot to the conservationists as a gift, with the caveat that if they don't raise the money to rebuild the house with in a set number of years, they forfeit any right to the land or property"
whats the big deal you ask?
its the principal of the thing, at this point Jobs is probably of the mind set that he WILL NOT LOSE! and after this length of time I can't say I blame him
Get well soon Steve
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.
You guys spouting off about the council this or council that should go look up the information on this house (and legal battle)'s history. The council approved his request years ago and it was challenged in court TWICE and he lost.
You have two options:
Jobs'
Jobs's
Never Job's
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.
In what sense has Jobs spent his life promoting "California values", whatever those are?
The very obvious focus of Jobs' life has been to build enormously successful companies that employ lots of people, so are we to assume "California values" are those of aggressive entrepreneurialism?
I agree. I've seen photos of the place. It's boring Spanish Revival. It's not like it's a Neutra or a Wright home. It's a big monstrosity. Also 6000 square feet is small compared to say Bill Gate's home. The a nice 2 bedroom house is 2000 square feet. So Jobs only wants one that's 3 times bigger... probably with lots of open space and high ceilings. Imagine the amazing house that would replace that fake spanish villa.
The jackling house is 17,000 sqf... Steve wants to build 6,000 sqf... you have it flipped...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackling_House
personally, i feel before steve leaves us... let him build his dream house... it would be a historic site, far more worthy 200 years from now than one from a copper magnate (jackling) that hardly anyone has heard of...
You run an Apple website?and have for many years?yet you are unable to follow the rules of possessive proper nouns when writing Jobs' name. I assume it wasn't an accident, since you used "Job's" twice in this article.
You have two options:
Jobs'
Jobs's
Never Job's
Same with there and their. They are frequently misused.