Inside Steve Jobs' abandoned Jackling mansion (photos)
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs stayed home last night to catch up on some much needed rest while his attorney made another go at convincing a local review board that he should be free to demolish a historic but abandoned mansion -- seen in these rare photos -- that has fallen into a state of disrepair.
Jobs has been petitioning for the right to raze the 14-room, 17,250-square-foot structure in California's Woodside woods for eight years so that he can erect a smaller, contemporary style home for his family.
The Jackling House, so it's called, was built back in 1925 for copper mining mogul Daniel Jackling. Preservationists have opposed Jobs' efforts, arguing that it represents one of the few remaining examples of a Spanish Colonial Revival style home and is therefore too historic to destroy. They also allege that Jobs, who reportedly lived in the house sometime between the 80's and 90's, intentionally let the house fall apart so that it would be easier to justify a case for tearing it down.
"I don't think he would be strong enough if we were here until 1 a.m., and I think there's a strong possibility of that," Jobs' attorney Howard Ellman told the Woodside Town Council on Tuesday, referring to the health issues that have forced the Apple co-founder into a temporary leave from his leadership role at the company through June.
Indeed, reports the Palo Alto Daily News, the review board was still hearing arguments at 10:30 in the evening from both preservationists like the Uphold Our Heritage organization, that has once overturned Jobs' permit to demolish the structure, as well as locals who side with his property rights.
As part of his latest effort to persuade the council on Jobs' behalf, Ellman presented a detailed cost analysis showing that it would take $13.3 million to restore the mansion, or more than $5 million more than it would cost Jobs to simply get rid of it and build a new one. An appeals board had previously suggested such a sum would be sufficient grounds for Jobs to move forward.
Still, preservationists and former residents maintained Tuesday that all resources to preserve the house haven't been exhausted. They're now proposing that Woodside commission an independent firm to draw up the costs of carefully dismantling the dilapidated structure so it can be relocated and then resurrected. A decision on the matter is expected at a later meeting.
A couple of years ago, photographer Jonathan Haeber stumbled upon the Jackling house to find its property gate ajar and the doors and broken windows to the house wide open. Below are a series of rare, and at times spooky, photos of the moldering mansion, which has now been abandoned for over a decade.Â*
Jobs has been petitioning for the right to raze the 14-room, 17,250-square-foot structure in California's Woodside woods for eight years so that he can erect a smaller, contemporary style home for his family.
The Jackling House, so it's called, was built back in 1925 for copper mining mogul Daniel Jackling. Preservationists have opposed Jobs' efforts, arguing that it represents one of the few remaining examples of a Spanish Colonial Revival style home and is therefore too historic to destroy. They also allege that Jobs, who reportedly lived in the house sometime between the 80's and 90's, intentionally let the house fall apart so that it would be easier to justify a case for tearing it down.
"I don't think he would be strong enough if we were here until 1 a.m., and I think there's a strong possibility of that," Jobs' attorney Howard Ellman told the Woodside Town Council on Tuesday, referring to the health issues that have forced the Apple co-founder into a temporary leave from his leadership role at the company through June.
Indeed, reports the Palo Alto Daily News, the review board was still hearing arguments at 10:30 in the evening from both preservationists like the Uphold Our Heritage organization, that has once overturned Jobs' permit to demolish the structure, as well as locals who side with his property rights.
As part of his latest effort to persuade the council on Jobs' behalf, Ellman presented a detailed cost analysis showing that it would take $13.3 million to restore the mansion, or more than $5 million more than it would cost Jobs to simply get rid of it and build a new one. An appeals board had previously suggested such a sum would be sufficient grounds for Jobs to move forward.
Still, preservationists and former residents maintained Tuesday that all resources to preserve the house haven't been exhausted. They're now proposing that Woodside commission an independent firm to draw up the costs of carefully dismantling the dilapidated structure so it can be relocated and then resurrected. A decision on the matter is expected at a later meeting.
A couple of years ago, photographer Jonathan Haeber stumbled upon the Jackling house to find its property gate ajar and the doors and broken windows to the house wide open. Below are a series of rare, and at times spooky, photos of the moldering mansion, which has now been abandoned for over a decade.Â*
Comments
"I don't think he would be strong enough if we were here until 1 a.m., and I think there's a strong possibility of that," Jobs' attorney Howard Ellman told the Woodside Town Council on Tuesday, referring to the health issues that have forced the Apple co-founder into a temporary leave from his leadership role at the company through June.
He can't stay up 'til 1am? That's sure to ignite speculation. He's supposed to be back
at work in a month . . .
About the photos of the house, wouldn't the wandering photographer be guilty of
breaking and entering?
I kind of like the place, though! It's got personality!
At least it comes with built-in house plants and creepy pipe organ.
About the photos of the house, wouldn't the wandering photographer be guilty of
breaking and entering?
Yeah, but the Calif. statute of limitations for this violation has since passed.
K
I think it is ugly and I have a big problem with this outside group stepping in and causing this delay. If they want to save it so badly pony up the bucks to move it. Otherwise fire up the bulldozers and let em rip!
i mean, historic and significant, but hideous.
I just love these people who think it is there mission to tell you what you can and can not do with your property. Another example of others dictating what they think is important. It is his damn property let him do with it as he likes, who cares it represents how someone built a house almost 100 yrs ago. If those people wanted to save it they should have bought it.
Yah, and while we are at it, we should be able to put our parents down when they get too old.
hahahahaha
in all seriousness though, it is a sweet pipe organ.
I just love these people who think it is there mission to tell you what you can and can not do with your property. Another example of others dictating what they think is important. It is his damn property let him do with it as he likes, who cares it represents how someone built a house almost 100 yrs ago. If those people wanted to save it they should have bought it.
There actually laws governing what you can and cannot do with your personal property - zoning laws, building codes, and such. And in condos or cluster homes there are home owners associations that limit your choices of exterior style and or color and mandate lawn care etc - of course in those cases you should know what you getting into before hand.
Since he got a legal permit to tear down that structure and build another one that should be the end of it. I had to laugh when I read that someone who once lived in that house was leading the charge against its destruction. It is these 11th hour folks who muck up the process - and are they really interested in saving that house or just getting free press for their cause.
I thought this country was founded on the belief that it is okay to have a difference of opinion and no one (or one group) can force its will on the population in general (ever heard of separation of church and state). But then of course we have bans on stem cell research and whatnot. I guess what we are best at now a days is preaching one thing and practicing another. A free market that is not free - separation of church and state that allows religious beliefs to dictate policy etc.
Yah, and while we are at it, we should be able to put our parents down when they get too old.
Not EVEN remotely the same thing. We are talking about private property that he rightly paid for. If they want to preserve it they should buy it from Jobs. Then they can do what ever they want with it.
Steve should "rent" it out to Hollywood for all their horror movies genres!
Yah, and while we are at it, we should be able to put our parents down when they get too old.
was that the most brain dead response you could think of? tearing down an old house has nothing to do with killing your parents when they are too old... put the paint chips down, you aren't supposed to be eating them.