Yes, but also there is an older movement that says that everything that is new is good merely because it's new.
That's true. But I don't subscribe to that school of thought either. That movement has always been tempered by the idea that a building should be retained if it still holds practical or aesthetic value. Where something has historic or artistic merit, keep it. Where it does not, make way for something that does.
There's a reason we have many great buildings all over the world from all ages. It's because the ones that have lasted have done so because they're beautiful, historic, useful or all three.
I don't know why he's complaining. Its a lot nicer than my house. Sure, it needs some work, but he can afford the reno costs. Why tear down such a beautiful old place to make a smaller modern house.
If he doesn't like it, why not just sell, and buy a new house somewhere else?
I think he should have put the pipe organ up for sale then bulldozed the place. It's HIS PROPERTY..... not these bonehead nostalgic types. I'm actually surprised he didn't since the fine for doing the demolishion w/o a permit would probably be nothing. Steve was way too nice on this one. And this story illustrates why i would never live in California nor operate any of my businesses there. There's no respect for actual private property laws. Freaking liberals think what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine.
As a photographer, I think the photos are really wonderful, they have melancholy all their own and they reflect a sense of loss that is the house. It would be a shame to see it torn down, but it IS Steve's property and he should be allowed to do with his property what he wishes.
I agree that it is questionable whether or not the house is really worth saving, it has some nice details and it somewhat interesting in its history. But if Steve doesn't want to spend millions fixing the house up, it IS his money.
I commend the photographer, even if he did break the law - it was worth what he got out of it.
If it was me, I would have gotten out years ago and found something more reasonable. I mean look at Candy Spelling, she owns the most expensive residential listing in the U.S.$150 Million Dollars.
Who is going to buy that, why would some one buy it??
... limited knowledge. As an Architect (of European Nationality and having lived in the US for 10+ years) I would caution the overzealous posters wanting to tear down the building.
If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).
Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).
There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.
If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.
Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).
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 :-)
There is no merit at any level to keep such a disgusting piece of architecture - either aesthetically or historically. If you're going to use your classification for preservation - we might as well start a 'bell bottoms and platforms preservation society'.
The purpose of saving something is because it marks a certain moment within history; the buildings embodying that particular moment in the form of architectural expression. That horrible looking house has absolutely no historical merit to hold onto - again, it is a horrible looking house that was planned by some nuevo rich individual which has no historical element other than how a person can amass a fortune and lack taste.
As a photographer, I think the photos are really wonderful, they have melancholy all their own and they reflect a sense of loss that is the house. It would be a shame to see it torn down, but it IS Steve's property and he should be allowed to do with his property what he wishes.
I agree that it is questionable whether or not the house is really worth saving, it has some nice details and it somewhat interesting in its history. But if Steve doesn't want to spend millions fixing the house up, it IS his money.
I commend the photographer, even if he did break the law - it was worth what he got out of it.
If it was me, I would have gotten out years ago and found something more reasonable. I mean look at Candy Spelling, she owns the most expensive residential listing in the U.S.$150 Million Dollars.
Who is going to buy that, why would some one buy it??
What you don't see is the parts of the building that are falling apart or have fallen apart, because who would take pictures of that? There is 17,000 square feet of building here, we are not even seeing 10% of it.
I think the house that Steve would build in it's place would likely be far more unique and historic in the long run. They are missing out on that by keeping this one.
The significance of this house is primarily related to its architect, George Washington Smith, who was the acknowledged master of the Spanish Revival style. Some say he effectively invented it. This significance is not some sort of arbitrary judgement, it is fully established by professionals in architectural history.
Some time back, Uncle Steve make the remark that Smith could not possibly be important because he'd never heard of him. This makes Steve look like a knucklehead. He also looks like a dope for not moving on, and allowing this property to fall into ruin. That's just being stubborn and irresponsible.
Not to mention you just copied it from the post you put here yesterday.
Hence: It says "repost" in the title
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
First of all....THIS is no Eiffel Tower
I am talking about an example showing how people's tastes and opinions can be misguided. I am not judging the historic merit of the building one way or another, I am just explaining process. And I would hope that as a colleague you would be a little more objective and respectful. Yes, this is not the Eiffel Tower (d'oh).
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
Second of all....He's not looking to add to a legacy here, he just wants a house to live in.
Right, in the meantime he is living in a tent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
Third...a contemporary addition to the building to serve as a museum? The area is not zoned for that, the site would not support the additional parking required, this place is located at the end of a meandering Cul-de-Sac, hardly a place to put such a thing, not to mention Steve Jobs is a very private individual, so having a public entity attached to his residence is just, well, crazy.
Think Different, it was just a suggestion, not a decision to do this, but if you must argue: have you ever heard of rezoning? For an Architect you have very little imagination and creativity to offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
And why are we assuming what style building he's putting here?
Because that is what has been brought up in these posts over and over again and frankly it is a reasonable assumption, considering Apple's product design and their stores, which I am sure Steve Jobs has had some say in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
This building has spent a third of its life in Steve Jobs's possesion, that IS the only historical significance it has. Spanish Colonial Revival from 1925 is actually a revival of a revival, basically it's hollywood, no more authentic than Pottery Barn, and doesn't hold true to the style anyway, the only impressive thing about the house is the fact it has 13 bathrooms.
Have you conducted an assessment or where did you obtain all your "knowledge" and "wisdom"? I guess "Hollywood" has no historic significance to you? What about Mr. Jackling?
Again: Just because someone (in this case you) does not like (or appreciate) the Architectural style does not make it historically insignificant.
Would I design a new house in this style, no, my taste is probably quite similar to yours. Do I think we should tear everything down that does not align with my tastes? What sad a world would it be? All buildings of one (matching) design philosophy ... that sounds a lot like what Albert Speer did in Nazi Germany and the Socialists had accomplished in the former GDR.
Just to clarify once more: My intent was not to justify a solution one way or another, simply to explain what considerations should be given to any "deemed historic" structure.
There is no merit at any level to keep such a disgusting piece of architecture - either aesthetically or historically. If you're going to use your classification for preservation - we might as well start a 'bell bottoms and platforms preservation society'.
The purpose of saving something is because it marks a certain moment within history; the buildings embodying that particular moment in the form of architectural expression. That horrible looking house has absolutely no historical merit to hold onto - again, it is a horrible looking house that was planned by some nuevo rich individual which has no historical element other than how a person can amass a fortune and lack taste.
This may come as a surprise to you, but I am sure that "bell bottoms and platforms" are being maintained in a fashion museum somewhere (much like knight's armor and baroque costumes).
As far as Architecture goes: Just because you don't like the design of something does not distract from (or add to) its historic significance.
Wouldn't your comment about that "nouveau riche" person apply just as much to Steve Jobs :-) ?
George Washington Smith - one of the great architects of Spanish homes built this house for Daniel and Virginia Jackling in Woodside in 1925. There are many beautiful pictures of both the inside and outside of this house - complete with furnishings, extensive artwork, beautiful floors, ceilings, tile and brick work. What a beautiful home. To see these pictures, look at the book "Gabriel Moulin's San Francisco Peninsula" and you will just marvel at what a perfectly wonderful house this is.
The crime is that the present owner - who acquired the house in the 1980s has let it fall to poor condition. This house can be brought back to the pristine condition it was in = and deserves to be once again. Consider Filoli - nearby - and how it is used and loved today - as a National Trust for Historic Preservation property. What a crime if Filoli had been torn down in the 1970s. The Roth family generously gave the house to the National Trust, so it can now be viewed by scores of people from around the world - including historians, horticulturists, and those interested in architecture.
The Jackling house, which was called "La Casita Espanol" is as valuable a property as Filoli and should definitely be spared from the wrecker's ball. Mr. Jobs prevented the house from being a National Trust or historic property because he didn't want it preserved. Perhaps he should not have bought the house if he didn't care for it. I understand he did not even know who George Washington Smith was - - one of the most important architects of California history. What a shame. The best thing Mr. Jobs should do with his billions of dollars - is help us provide a new location for this home - and become a hero in the eyes of the country by helping preserve this treasured home. Anyone viewing the pictures of this terrific home before it was allowed to fall into disrepair will come away feeling this property should be preserved. The amount of money the restoration will cost could be recouped many times over with help from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Please Mr. Jobs - please reconsider!!
The reason, why Jobs didn't demolished it was that at the time, Apple computers were white plastic. Cheap toasters are made from plastic, not houses. But with aluminum and glass...
So expect super-glossy windows and some humming noise. And no Firewire, sorry! \
Comments
Yes, but also there is an older movement that says that everything that is new is good merely because it's new.
That's true. But I don't subscribe to that school of thought either. That movement has always been tempered by the idea that a building should be retained if it still holds practical or aesthetic value. Where something has historic or artistic merit, keep it. Where it does not, make way for something that does.
There's a reason we have many great buildings all over the world from all ages. It's because the ones that have lasted have done so because they're beautiful, historic, useful or all three.
Jobs's house is none of the above.
If he doesn't like it, why not just sell, and buy a new house somewhere else?
Z
I agree that it is questionable whether or not the house is really worth saving, it has some nice details and it somewhat interesting in its history. But if Steve doesn't want to spend millions fixing the house up, it IS his money.
I commend the photographer, even if he did break the law - it was worth what he got out of it.
If it was me, I would have gotten out years ago and found something more reasonable. I mean look at Candy Spelling, she owns the most expensive residential listing in the U.S.$150 Million Dollars.
Who is going to buy that, why would some one buy it??
... limited knowledge. As an Architect (of European Nationality and having lived in the US for 10+ years) I would caution the overzealous posters wanting to tear down the building.
If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).
Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).
There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.
If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.
Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).
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://www.architekten24.de/mediadb/news/9664/index.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Liebeskind.jpg
Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)
There is no merit at any level to keep such a disgusting piece of architecture - either aesthetically or historically. If you're going to use your classification for preservation - we might as well start a 'bell bottoms and platforms preservation society'.
The purpose of saving something is because it marks a certain moment within history; the buildings embodying that particular moment in the form of architectural expression. That horrible looking house has absolutely no historical merit to hold onto - again, it is a horrible looking house that was planned by some nuevo rich individual which has no historical element other than how a person can amass a fortune and lack taste.
As a photographer, I think the photos are really wonderful, they have melancholy all their own and they reflect a sense of loss that is the house. It would be a shame to see it torn down, but it IS Steve's property and he should be allowed to do with his property what he wishes.
I agree that it is questionable whether or not the house is really worth saving, it has some nice details and it somewhat interesting in its history. But if Steve doesn't want to spend millions fixing the house up, it IS his money.
I commend the photographer, even if he did break the law - it was worth what he got out of it.
If it was me, I would have gotten out years ago and found something more reasonable. I mean look at Candy Spelling, she owns the most expensive residential listing in the U.S.$150 Million Dollars.
Who is going to buy that, why would some one buy it??
What you don't see is the parts of the building that are falling apart or have fallen apart, because who would take pictures of that? There is 17,000 square feet of building here, we are not even seeing 10% of it.
Where something has historic or artistic merit, keep it. Where it does not, make way for something that does.
Sorry, but the problem is precisely what has historic or artistic merit and who stablish this. Every generation believes to have the absolute truth.
http://www.terrastories.com/bearings/albums/
Some time back, Uncle Steve make the remark that Smith could not possibly be important because he'd never heard of him. This makes Steve look like a knucklehead. He also looks like a dope for not moving on, and allowing this property to fall into ruin. That's just being stubborn and irresponsible.
Not to mention you just copied it from the post you put here yesterday.
Hence: It says "repost" in the title
First of all....THIS is no Eiffel Tower
I am talking about an example showing how people's tastes and opinions can be misguided. I am not judging the historic merit of the building one way or another, I am just explaining process. And I would hope that as a colleague you would be a little more objective and respectful. Yes, this is not the Eiffel Tower (d'oh).
Second of all....He's not looking to add to a legacy here, he just wants a house to live in.
Right, in the meantime he is living in a tent.
Third...a contemporary addition to the building to serve as a museum? The area is not zoned for that, the site would not support the additional parking required, this place is located at the end of a meandering Cul-de-Sac, hardly a place to put such a thing, not to mention Steve Jobs is a very private individual, so having a public entity attached to his residence is just, well, crazy.
Think Different, it was just a suggestion, not a decision to do this, but if you must argue: have you ever heard of rezoning? For an Architect you have very little imagination and creativity to offer.
And why are we assuming what style building he's putting here?
Because that is what has been brought up in these posts over and over again and frankly it is a reasonable assumption, considering Apple's product design and their stores, which I am sure Steve Jobs has had some say in.
This building has spent a third of its life in Steve Jobs's possesion, that IS the only historical significance it has. Spanish Colonial Revival from 1925 is actually a revival of a revival, basically it's hollywood, no more authentic than Pottery Barn, and doesn't hold true to the style anyway, the only impressive thing about the house is the fact it has 13 bathrooms.
Have you conducted an assessment or where did you obtain all your "knowledge" and "wisdom"? I guess "Hollywood" has no historic significance to you? What about Mr. Jackling?
Again: Just because someone (in this case you) does not like (or appreciate) the Architectural style does not make it historically insignificant.
Would I design a new house in this style, no, my taste is probably quite similar to yours. Do I think we should tear everything down that does not align with my tastes? What sad a world would it be? All buildings of one (matching) design philosophy ... that sounds a lot like what Albert Speer did in Nazi Germany and the Socialists had accomplished in the former GDR.
Just to clarify once more: My intent was not to justify a solution one way or another, simply to explain what considerations should be given to any "deemed historic" structure.
There is no merit at any level to keep such a disgusting piece of architecture - either aesthetically or historically. If you're going to use your classification for preservation - we might as well start a 'bell bottoms and platforms preservation society'.
The purpose of saving something is because it marks a certain moment within history; the buildings embodying that particular moment in the form of architectural expression. That horrible looking house has absolutely no historical merit to hold onto - again, it is a horrible looking house that was planned by some nuevo rich individual which has no historical element other than how a person can amass a fortune and lack taste.
This may come as a surprise to you, but I am sure that "bell bottoms and platforms" are being maintained in a fashion museum somewhere (much like knight's armor and baroque costumes).
As far as Architecture goes: Just because you don't like the design of something does not distract from (or add to) its historic significance.
Wouldn't your comment about that "nouveau riche" person apply just as much to Steve Jobs :-) ?
The crime is that the present owner - who acquired the house in the 1980s has let it fall to poor condition. This house can be brought back to the pristine condition it was in = and deserves to be once again. Consider Filoli - nearby - and how it is used and loved today - as a National Trust for Historic Preservation property. What a crime if Filoli had been torn down in the 1970s. The Roth family generously gave the house to the National Trust, so it can now be viewed by scores of people from around the world - including historians, horticulturists, and those interested in architecture.
The Jackling house, which was called "La Casita Espanol" is as valuable a property as Filoli and should definitely be spared from the wrecker's ball. Mr. Jobs prevented the house from being a National Trust or historic property because he didn't want it preserved. Perhaps he should not have bought the house if he didn't care for it. I understand he did not even know who George Washington Smith was - - one of the most important architects of California history. What a shame. The best thing Mr. Jobs should do with his billions of dollars - is help us provide a new location for this home - and become a hero in the eyes of the country by helping preserve this treasured home. Anyone viewing the pictures of this terrific home before it was allowed to fall into disrepair will come away feeling this property should be preserved. The amount of money the restoration will cost could be recouped many times over with help from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Please Mr. Jobs - please reconsider!!
As long as he gives me the organ.
And a place to put it.
---
Oh, how I tire of architecture and the art world.
The owner of the house can do what he wants to with it. He owns it.
This is a fundamentally untrue statement.
The mansion is far too PC, I guess.
The reason, why Jobs didn't demolished it was that at the time, Apple computers were white plastic. Cheap toasters are made from plastic, not houses. But with aluminum and glass...
So expect super-glossy windows and some humming noise. And no Firewire, sorry!