I'm not sure, but speaking as an old British person, I always thought the 's' way was one of those crazy American language variations.
I've never seen or used anything but the simple s' ending myself and that's what I was taught in school (early 1970's). I had never heard of the 's' until this year in fact.
It's not 1970's. It's 1970s. That's one of my pet peeves, namely that the possessive form is used a lot when the writer really means to be talking about a plural of something. You would also be fine with using the 1970s' most amazing event was . . . Where you could use 1970's would be in referring to 1970's worst song was . . . If 1970's is used, as it often mistakenly is, to indicate all the years that make up that decade, what would be the way to refer to a possessive form of the year 1970 in isolation?
I just skipped most of this, but because this is the internet and I don't have to check my facts or read anything other than the initial article.... ( ) ...here goes...
"If it's so damn ugly, why the hell did he buy it?"
If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).
. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features)
"Objective" people don't write "historic assessments". They are written by people with an agenda (to save everything), thus they make stuff up. An objective person with credentials won't go near this when he or she finds what their up against. When my city tried this and spent $6,000 for a report from their usual vendor, I hired a well published (several books) architectural historian from a major university to write a counter report based on his verbal comments to me. After a couple of weeks my money was refunded. He had been contacted by the "objective" people and warned!
I just skipped most of this, but because this is the internet and I don't have to check my facts or read anything other than the initial article.... ( ) ...here goes...
"If it's so damn ugly, why the hell did he buy it?"
My experience is that when one declares that her or she is only joking, it means something like, "I'm going to behave very badly now and you should be a good sport and not disapprove of my poor behaviour (us Canucks still use the British u)."
I believe that it's a throwback to one's early years when it's realized that humour is effective in softening a parent's disapproval. If you don't outgrow that tendency then you don't outgrow it. It happens. We all have our weaknesses and, usually, it's the ones that we don't think afflict us specifically that we take pains to note in others.
Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.
Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)
He's not looking at furthuring his legacy, he's looking at living in a smaller, more efficient, and more comfortable house that will survive the next Earthquake. The current building does not do that, not only that, it isn't even a good looking house, it is an 85 year old "Spanish Revival" (see Taco Bell) It sits at the end of a Cul-de-sac in a meandering subdivision, those that say the design of this house is prominent in that area and is part of what you see all around that area obviosly didn't realize it is near an English Tudor Mansion, a Greek Revival Mansion, a newly built Post Modern building, and various others, in fact, you don't see anything relating to this building nearby at all. I'm an Architect too, and have done numerous renovations on numerous buildings in my area, and will look to reuse buildings whenever possible, but when a structural report comes back saying this building may not survive the next Earthquake that hits that area, I have to say, it is worth it. I can't see that it is. This building was built in the height of the Art Deco era, and really isn't a great example of Spanish Revival architecture anyway, it is a hodge podge of structures, mashed together with tile roof and stucco on it.
Oh God, how I can't begin to comprehend these type of organizations. In the 200,000 years of human existence, or even just the few thousand we have "recorded", to suggest something made in the last 100 is worthy of preservation - that it deserves the same effort as the pyramids of Giza, is nuts.
I'll explain it to you. This kind of organization exists for people who, bereft of any real vision and unable to accomplish anything, need to justify themselves by blocking those who ARE visionary and capable.
I cannot imagine a better example of this than the case in point. But this sort of thing is so sadly common. I recall when a similar group vehemently attempted to block an 'inappropriate, hideous' structure on 5th Avenue in NYC. It's known today as the Guggenheim Museum, designed by some know-nothing clown named Wright. And, in Paris - same kind of pompous clowns, different country - they tried to block the Eiffel Tower, too. Look it up.
Only if he tries to file an insurance claim on it.
That would be fraud. Arson is a crime and tearing down a house without a permit might be a crime too. I wouldn't do it in my city. These are wealthy towns that will prosecute to the max and then some. Also they aren't going to issue a permit to build a new house for many years, maybe ten, if you disobey. That's about the time you get out of jail, so maybe burning it down is a long term plan..
That would be fraud. Arson is a crime and tearing down a house without a permit might be a crime too. I wouldn't do it in my city. These are wealthy towns that will prosecute to the max and then some. Also they aren't going to issue a permit to build a new house for many years, maybe ten, if you disobey. That's about the time you get out of jail, so maybe burning it down is a long term plan..
Yes, you got me there, granted, he does have that demolition permit already. Actually, it it likely more dangerous not to tear it down now, since it's condition is deteriorating while he is forced to wait.
Yes, you got me there, granted, he does have that demolition permit already. Actually, it it likely more dangerous not to tear it down now, since it's condition is deteriorating while he is forced to wait.
Jobs need to do what it takes, such as shoring up any dangerous condition. He could go to jail for failing to do so.
I want Jobs to come design a 6,000 square foot house for me for his usual fee of $1.
I do not even know how many $Bs Steve Jobs has, but I can not believe he is wasting his time with town council over a shack. Life is too short for that. Dump the shack and find another lot or house that can be razed in a nice area. Then build his 6000 sq feet dream house and live in peace.
Yes, except that Jobs bought it knowing it was a historical house. Accordingly, he should have known that special rules apply to historical buildings. As such, he shouldn't have bought it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan
exactly! I understand the need as well, but I do NOT agree that they can overrule a home owner on their private property..
Actually under the original way arson was written in most states you couldn't commit arson on your own house. Many states later expanded that to include owners who are trying to collect an insurance claim. Some others may have modified it even further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by city
That would be fraud. Arson is a crime and tearing down a house without a permit might be a crime too. I wouldn't do it in my city. These are wealthy towns that will prosecute to the max and then some. Also they aren't going to issue a permit to build a new house for many years, maybe ten, if you disobey. That's about the time you get out of jail, so maybe burning it down is a long term plan..
Yes, except that Jobs bought it knowing it was a historical house. Accordingly, he should have known that special rules apply to historical buildings. As such, he shouldn't have bought it.
Show me where this house was deemed "historical" at the time he purchased it?
I do not even know how many $Bs Steve Jobs has, but I can not believe he is wasting his time with town council over a shack. Life is too short for that. Dump the shack and find another lot or house that can be razed in a nice area. Then build his 6000 sq feet dream house and live in peace.
So you think with the economy the way it is, he's going to have an easy time selling the place?
Comments
I'm not sure, but speaking as an old British person, I always thought the 's' way was one of those crazy American language variations.
I've never seen or used anything but the simple s' ending myself and that's what I was taught in school (early 1970's). I had never heard of the 's' until this year in fact.
It's not 1970's. It's 1970s. That's one of my pet peeves, namely that the possessive form is used a lot when the writer really means to be talking about a plural of something. You would also be fine with using the 1970s' most amazing event was . . . Where you could use 1970's would be in referring to 1970's worst song was . . . If 1970's is used, as it often mistakenly is, to indicate all the years that make up that decade, what would be the way to refer to a possessive form of the year 1970 in isolation?
It's not 1970's. It's 1970s. That's one of my pet peeves
thanks for that... and the discussion on Jobs, Jobs's, Jobs'... and in jest... can you find yourself here?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/16373...ne_forums.html
"If it's so damn ugly, why the hell did he buy it?"
"If it's so damn ugly, why the hell did he buy it?"
location, location, location...
he wanted the land, not the house...
...
If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).
. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features)
"Objective" people don't write "historic assessments". They are written by people with an agenda (to save everything), thus they make stuff up. An objective person with credentials won't go near this when he or she finds what their up against. When my city tried this and spent $6,000 for a report from their usual vendor, I hired a well published (several books) architectural historian from a major university to write a counter report based on his verbal comments to me. After a couple of weeks my money was refunded. He had been contacted by the "objective" people and warned!
Just tear down take smelly house!
Torch it!
And do the time in jail?
I just skipped most of this, but because this is the internet and I don't have to check my facts or read anything other than the initial article.... (
"If it's so damn ugly, why the hell did he buy it?"
Location, location, location.
And do the time in jail?
Only if he tries to file an insurance claim on it.
thanks for that... and the discussion on Jobs, Jobs's, Jobs'... and in jest... can you find yourself here?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/16373...ne_forums.html
My experience is that when one declares that her or she is only joking, it means something like, "I'm going to behave very badly now and you should be a good sport and not disapprove of my poor behaviour (us Canucks still use the British u)."
I believe that it's a throwback to one's early years when it's realized that humour is effective in softening a parent's disapproval. If you don't outgrow that tendency then you don't outgrow it. It happens. We all have our weaknesses and, usually, it's the ones that we don't think afflict us specifically that we take pains to note in others.
...
Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.
A current example in Europe:
http://deconarch.files.wordpress.com...-dresden-8.jpg
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/typo...565e0a224b.jpg
Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)
He's not looking at furthuring his legacy, he's looking at living in a smaller, more efficient, and more comfortable house that will survive the next Earthquake. The current building does not do that, not only that, it isn't even a good looking house, it is an 85 year old "Spanish Revival" (see Taco Bell) It sits at the end of a Cul-de-sac in a meandering subdivision, those that say the design of this house is prominent in that area and is part of what you see all around that area obviosly didn't realize it is near an English Tudor Mansion, a Greek Revival Mansion, a newly built Post Modern building, and various others, in fact, you don't see anything relating to this building nearby at all. I'm an Architect too, and have done numerous renovations on numerous buildings in my area, and will look to reuse buildings whenever possible, but when a structural report comes back saying this building may not survive the next Earthquake that hits that area, I have to say, it is worth it. I can't see that it is. This building was built in the height of the Art Deco era, and really isn't a great example of Spanish Revival architecture anyway, it is a hodge podge of structures, mashed together with tile roof and stucco on it.
"Uphold Our Heritage"
Oh God, how I can't begin to comprehend these type of organizations. In the 200,000 years of human existence, or even just the few thousand we have "recorded", to suggest something made in the last 100 is worthy of preservation - that it deserves the same effort as the pyramids of Giza, is nuts.
I'll explain it to you. This kind of organization exists for people who, bereft of any real vision and unable to accomplish anything, need to justify themselves by blocking those who ARE visionary and capable.
I cannot imagine a better example of this than the case in point. But this sort of thing is so sadly common. I recall when a similar group vehemently attempted to block an 'inappropriate, hideous' structure on 5th Avenue in NYC. It's known today as the Guggenheim Museum, designed by some know-nothing clown named Wright. And, in Paris - same kind of pompous clowns, different country - they tried to block the Eiffel Tower, too. Look it up.
Twas ever thus.
Only if he tries to file an insurance claim on it.
That would be fraud. Arson is a crime and tearing down a house without a permit might be a crime too. I wouldn't do it in my city. These are wealthy towns that will prosecute to the max and then some. Also they aren't going to issue a permit to build a new house for many years, maybe ten, if you disobey. That's about the time you get out of jail, so maybe burning it down is a long term plan..
That would be fraud. Arson is a crime and tearing down a house without a permit might be a crime too. I wouldn't do it in my city. These are wealthy towns that will prosecute to the max and then some. Also they aren't going to issue a permit to build a new house for many years, maybe ten, if you disobey. That's about the time you get out of jail, so maybe burning it down is a long term plan..
Yes, you got me there, granted, he does have that demolition permit already. Actually, it it likely more dangerous not to tear it down now, since it's condition is deteriorating while he is forced to wait.
Yes, you got me there, granted, he does have that demolition permit already. Actually, it it likely more dangerous not to tear it down now, since it's condition is deteriorating while he is forced to wait.
Jobs need to do what it takes, such as shoring up any dangerous condition. He could go to jail for failing to do so.
I want Jobs to come design a 6,000 square foot house for me for his usual fee of $1.
exactly! I understand the need as well, but I do NOT agree that they can overrule a home owner on their private property..
That would be fraud. Arson is a crime and tearing down a house without a permit might be a crime too. I wouldn't do it in my city. These are wealthy towns that will prosecute to the max and then some. Also they aren't going to issue a permit to build a new house for many years, maybe ten, if you disobey. That's about the time you get out of jail, so maybe burning it down is a long term plan..
Yes, except that Jobs bought it knowing it was a historical house. Accordingly, he should have known that special rules apply to historical buildings. As such, he shouldn't have bought it.
Show me where this house was deemed "historical" at the time he purchased it?
I do not even know how many $Bs Steve Jobs has, but I can not believe he is wasting his time with town council over a shack. Life is too short for that. Dump the shack and find another lot or house that can be razed in a nice area. Then build his 6000 sq feet dream house and live in peace.
So you think with the economy the way it is, he's going to have an easy time selling the place?