I think what he's trying to get at is the property is not for sale and the window seems to be closed for that direction. I still feel that as property owners, as long as he isn't trying to re-zone or increase traffic to the neighborhood he shouldn't be dictated on historic preservation. If this is such a big deal the courts should be giving a premium over fair market value for the property and take the choice out of his hands (much like if the government needs to seize your land for environmental reasons). Catching a home owner in a catch 22 (it's yours, but you can't do anything you want with it, but it's yours...) like this is ridiculous and happens way to often. There are always a shortage of people to save something when the bill falls on them but they find a voice when it's someone else's problem.
No, he lived in it for a while and then rented it out for some time. It only fell into ruin when he decided not to rent it out.
That's stated with such certainty.
The only thing certain here is that none of us know what really went on nor the thought process involved. We don't know what kind of maintenance was needed upon purchase, while it was occupied, or what is needed now. We also don't know if renting it out was economically viable. It is quite likely that the rental income wasn't enough to cover insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc.
I agree, the style of the house in question is lovely, way better than my modest home, but this point I am trying to make is that it is HIS home. He should be able to do what he wants with it. My wife and I every once and a while play the "what if lottery" game, where we rhapsodize about what we would do if we cam in to some exorbitant amount of money and we have always said that since we love our area (filled with great shops, central location yet little traffic and streets canopied with beautiful Elm Trees) we would rather rebuild our home than move to a different location. Now, the houses in our area date back to the 20's and are considered character homes. We didn't buy the house with the intention to tear it down, but if it was feasible, we'd do it in a second and heaven help anyone who gets in my way. If Jobs was looking to tear it down when he purchased it, that would be one thing, but the house is his and he wants to change it. It really shouldn't be anyone else's business but his, especially since there seems to be many more examples existing of not only the style, but direct from the architects own design. If this was the last one or so, fine... I understand the last push for a preservation of a final piece, but that is not the case here.
Saw the pictures, the house has a lot of potential to be restored.
First off the structure is solid, it just has been neglected.
Lots of curves and shapes, rare things.
Steve should be ashamed of himself.
First off, how do you know the structure is solid, have you inspected it or are you guessing from photos? Curves and shapes are not rare things at all, the designer's name may be, that's all. Why should he be ashamed? For making HIS home his own? It's not like they're making any more land, especially in an area like this, with an neighborhood and view he's happy with.
Jeez, making it sound like he's taking a chainsaw to the Mona Lisa...
it's funny how people will fight an easy target like jobs on his place because of wealth and name recognition but we will never hear about this guy's hardship again. That was something to be protected. When something truly means something to the owner and has honest, one of a kind value.
Not all works of art survive, and not everyone should made to appreciate other's taste in design, especially if they have to actually live in it.
That's an odd statement. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. Are you saying that people who own historically significant properties should always be allowed to destroy them simply because they don't like them?
That's an odd statement. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. Are you saying that people who own historically significant properties should always be allowed to destroy them simply because they don't like them?
What I mean is that we all know that, regardless of the medium, art is subjective. When you deal in a medium that is more utilitarian than show piece you run the risk of it being subject to modification, or in this case deconstruction. If the owner truly appreciated it for the home it's self I think it would be fantastic that it be restored and appreciated, such as the examples in the links above. Just like an old painting restored to it's former glory. However, it's not a painting, nor a sculpture or any other form of art that can be moved, shown and displayed. It's a home with land and a neighborhood. It's location and view as well as design. Most importantly it's utilitarian purpose is for a family dwelling. And if the family dwelling in it wants to see it changed, then they should not have to appease anyone who doesn't live with in it.
I'm not arguing weather the home can be considered a work or art to some, that's no question, but since it has more purpose that just being admired, especial for those who live there/actually own it, it shouldn't held only to that trait when the owner places a higher value on other traits, such as location.
I think the "nice" thing to do is sell the house, sure, but to force someone to not build a home of their own design (that would undoubtedly pass all codes and regulations on any other plot of land) on a property they have owned for apparently quite some time underlines that no matter how much we succeed or how much money we put aside, we don't own what we own... regardless of the exorbitant amount of our livelihood we invest in it. That's a sad thing.
What I mean is that we all know that, regardless of the medium, art is subjective.
Got to stop you there. Accepted standards and methods are used for determining if a property is historically significant, and the determinations are made by people who understand the methods and standards as well as the data being used to make the determinations. It's not guesswork, nor is it a subjective process. I think what I'm hearing here in a variety of guises is that an uninformed opinion is just a good as an informed opinion. Not where I come from, anyway.
In terms of what is regulated, I see no reason, and no stated justification, for why historic preservation is so different than any other land use regulation. Hell, in many communities architectural review boards can tell you what color to paint your downspouts. If you don't like it, complain to your city council.
The other thing I'm hearing is that historic preservation regulations are being called an awful thing by people who probably never even thought about the subject before. Guess what, thousands of communities across the country protect their historic buildings, and they've been doing it for a long, long time. I didn't start with Steve Jobs and his house. And don't bother complaining bitterly on behalf of Steve -- it's pretty obvious that he and his lawyers can deal with it on their own.
I'm well aware of the methods used to back up preservation, I live in a city with many deeply historic communities deemed historical landmarks. Not just one or two structures, but districts. I know. I get it. I just think that, like many regulations, these are areas that go way beyond preservation towards property bullying. I specifically like the "If you don't like it, complain to your city council", that fits perfectly with the attitude of people I've had to deal with when helping associates restructuring buildings in our exchange district.
But none of this matters. I thought we were all having proper conversation but apparently my voice is just "complaining bitterly"... I must not be a intellectually elevated to have a view thats worthy to be head though I agreed to many points you mad.
Enjoy talking to yourself I guess... I hope the "big bad wolf" blows his own house down.
Sorry, it wasn't really directed at you. Take a look around -- lots of posts in this and the other threads on this subject take the form of bitter complaints, and it seems obvious to me at least that some of the complainers had never thought about historic preservation before. Now it matters deeply to them, since Steve Jobs is involved. A lot of the posts reflect not only a lack of knowledge on the issue, but an aggressive disinterest in gaining any.
Local government is what you make of it, and it isn't bad just because it doesn't always reflect your preferences and desires. It's not an "attitude," it's a fact.
I know he finally got approval to tear this down legally, but he should have just done it Chicago style years ago. Shine bright lights so the media can't film it, then bring in a wrecking crew.
I know he finally got approval to tear this down legally, but he should have just done it Chicago style years ago. Shine bright lights so the media can't film it, then bring in a wrecking crew.
How do you light it so it can't be filmed? Pro camcorders have neutral density filters and failing that, shutter and iris controls.
Sorry, it wasn't really directed at you. Take a look around -- lots of posts in this and the other threads on this subject take the form of bitter complaints, and it seems obvious to me at least that some of the complainers had never thought about historic preservation before. Now it matters deeply to them, since Steve Jobs is involved. A lot of the posts reflect not only a lack of knowledge on the issue, but an aggressive disinterest in gaining any.
Local government is what you make of it, and it isn't bad just because it doesn't always reflect your preferences and desires. It's not an "attitude," it's a fact.
In spite of Smith's notoriety and the architectural elements used, the house is still a monstrosity and certainly not his best work, IMO. Some of his creations are already on the National Registry and many others survive. Although it is romantic to think that all of his work should be preserved for all time, Smith is credited as the father of Spanish revival and that is his greatest contribution.
Stop lamenting the inevitable as time moves forward. Restoration and maintenance of a mansion is far more expensive than an oil painting, and only the best of the best should be registered and preserved. Let's look forward to the incredible creation that will be built in its place.
Comments
No, he lived in it for a while and then rented it out for some time. It only fell into ruin when he decided not to rent it out.
That's stated with such certainty.
The only thing certain here is that none of us know what really went on nor the thought process involved. We don't know what kind of maintenance was needed upon purchase, while it was occupied, or what is needed now. We also don't know if renting it out was economically viable. It is quite likely that the rental income wasn't enough to cover insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc.
What we can do is speculate.
So it's only historic preservation regulations you are against, all the others are fine?
Short answer, yes. Long answer, well that's depends on if it's the last example of the Designer's work, if it really is THAT influentially important.
First off the structure is solid, it just has been neglected.
Lots of curves and shapes, rare things.
Look at other restored George Washington Smith houses, fetch quite a bit of money too. Google images to see.
http://www.luxist.com/2006/02/14/mon...te-of-the-day/
http://periodhomes.blogspot.com/2008...one-of-my.html
(scroll down to see)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,1726739.story
Steve should be ashamed of himself.
I feel bad for the guy in the video though.
Saw the pictures, the house has a lot of potential to be restored.
First off the structure is solid, it just has been neglected.
Lots of curves and shapes, rare things.
Steve should be ashamed of himself.
First off, how do you know the structure is solid, have you inspected it or are you guessing from photos? Curves and shapes are not rare things at all, the designer's name may be, that's all. Why should he be ashamed? For making HIS home his own? It's not like they're making any more land, especially in an area like this, with an neighborhood and view he's happy with.
Jeez, making it sound like he's taking a chainsaw to the Mona Lisa...
Jeez, making it sound like he's taking a chainsaw to the Mona Lisa...
No, he's just demolishing a house designed by one of California's most important architects.
Perhaps Jobs can secretly hire this demolition company. CNN Video: House demolished by accident
I feel bad for the guy in the video though.
it's funny how people will fight an easy target like jobs on his place because of wealth and name recognition but we will never hear about this guy's hardship again. That was something to be protected. When something truly means something to the owner and has honest, one of a kind value.
No, he's just demolishing a house designed by one of California's most important architects.
Not all works of art survive, and not everyone should made to appreciate other's taste in design, especially if they have to actually live in it.
Not all works of art survive, and not everyone should made to appreciate other's taste in design, especially if they have to actually live in it.
That's an odd statement. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. Are you saying that people who own historically significant properties should always be allowed to destroy them simply because they don't like them?
That's an odd statement. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. Are you saying that people who own historically significant properties should always be allowed to destroy them simply because they don't like them?
What I mean is that we all know that, regardless of the medium, art is subjective. When you deal in a medium that is more utilitarian than show piece you run the risk of it being subject to modification, or in this case deconstruction. If the owner truly appreciated it for the home it's self I think it would be fantastic that it be restored and appreciated, such as the examples in the links above. Just like an old painting restored to it's former glory. However, it's not a painting, nor a sculpture or any other form of art that can be moved, shown and displayed. It's a home with land and a neighborhood. It's location and view as well as design. Most importantly it's utilitarian purpose is for a family dwelling. And if the family dwelling in it wants to see it changed, then they should not have to appease anyone who doesn't live with in it.
I'm not arguing weather the home can be considered a work or art to some, that's no question, but since it has more purpose that just being admired, especial for those who live there/actually own it, it shouldn't held only to that trait when the owner places a higher value on other traits, such as location.
I think the "nice" thing to do is sell the house, sure, but to force someone to not build a home of their own design (that would undoubtedly pass all codes and regulations on any other plot of land) on a property they have owned for apparently quite some time underlines that no matter how much we succeed or how much money we put aside, we don't own what we own... regardless of the exorbitant amount of our livelihood we invest in it. That's a sad thing.
What I mean is that we all know that, regardless of the medium, art is subjective.
Got to stop you there. Accepted standards and methods are used for determining if a property is historically significant, and the determinations are made by people who understand the methods and standards as well as the data being used to make the determinations. It's not guesswork, nor is it a subjective process. I think what I'm hearing here in a variety of guises is that an uninformed opinion is just a good as an informed opinion. Not where I come from, anyway.
In terms of what is regulated, I see no reason, and no stated justification, for why historic preservation is so different than any other land use regulation. Hell, in many communities architectural review boards can tell you what color to paint your downspouts. If you don't like it, complain to your city council.
The other thing I'm hearing is that historic preservation regulations are being called an awful thing by people who probably never even thought about the subject before. Guess what, thousands of communities across the country protect their historic buildings, and they've been doing it for a long, long time. I didn't start with Steve Jobs and his house. And don't bother complaining bitterly on behalf of Steve -- it's pretty obvious that he and his lawyers can deal with it on their own.
But none of this matters. I thought we were all having proper conversation but apparently my voice is just "complaining bitterly"... I must not be a intellectually elevated to have a view thats worthy to be head though I agreed to many points you mad.
Enjoy talking to yourself I guess... I hope the "big bad wolf" blows his own house down.
Local government is what you make of it, and it isn't bad just because it doesn't always reflect your preferences and desires. It's not an "attitude," it's a fact.
I know he finally got approval to tear this down legally, but he should have just done it Chicago style years ago. Shine bright lights so the media can't film it, then bring in a wrecking crew.
How do you light it so it can't be filmed? Pro camcorders have neutral density filters and failing that, shutter and iris controls.
Sorry, it wasn't really directed at you. Take a look around -- lots of posts in this and the other threads on this subject take the form of bitter complaints, and it seems obvious to me at least that some of the complainers had never thought about historic preservation before. Now it matters deeply to them, since Steve Jobs is involved. A lot of the posts reflect not only a lack of knowledge on the issue, but an aggressive disinterest in gaining any.
Local government is what you make of it, and it isn't bad just because it doesn't always reflect your preferences and desires. It's not an "attitude," it's a fact.
In spite of Smith's notoriety and the architectural elements used, the house is still a monstrosity and certainly not his best work, IMO. Some of his creations are already on the National Registry and many others survive. Although it is romantic to think that all of his work should be preserved for all time, Smith is credited as the father of Spanish revival and that is his greatest contribution.
Stop lamenting the inevitable as time moves forward. Restoration and maintenance of a mansion is far more expensive than an oil painting, and only the best of the best should be registered and preserved. Let's look forward to the incredible creation that will be built in its place.
BTW, there's no such thing as the "National Registry."