WOW that house is amazing! A musician's delight...so much charm and charactor. Is that blood splattered over that bottle/container of water softener! :P
As for Jobs' estimates on reno costs, well that is hardly an independent assessment. If it suits his argument then I'm sure he'll find a way to fix the prices to serve his cause.
I think heritage is something worth holding on to. Who's to say if Jobs gets his way that he won't rebuild it with something far more bland and hideous?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenSigns.biz
This place is CREEPY! No wonder he wants to get rid of it. I'll bet you it's frackin' HAUNTED.
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!!
It's a multi-million dollar piece of property. If you think it's worth it, you make a serious offer to buy it that doesn't include him footing your bills. If not, get out of the way.
Actually, the guy was tresspassing and could be prosecuted.
Actually, no he can't. Trespassing only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when instructed to do so by the property owner (or an authorized representative). Since the photographer left the premises on his own, there's no real legal recourse. He may be open to a civil action (i.e., a lawsuit), but unless there's some evidence that he caused damage to the property, it's probably unlikely that would be successful in court.
Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, but I worked as a private security guard when I was going to school and sometimes had assignments watching over places like this so I read up a bit on the rent-a-cop manual.
Actually, no he can't. Trespassing only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when instructed to do so by the property owner (or an authorized representative). Since the photographer left the premises on his own, there's no real legal recourse. He may be open to a civil action (i.e., a lawsuit), but unless there's some evidence that he caused damage to the property, it's probably unlikely that would be successful in court.
That doesn't apply to private property, only to (for example) a bookstore in a mall or a restaurant or some other place where the general public has an expectation they would be allowed in.
A couple previous posts were promoting hysteria over the mold seen in a few pictures. I would like to contribute a bit of sanity.
The mold seen in these pictures does not come remotely close to justifying the demolition of a building. The following addresses the subject from a health and safety perspective and isn't meant as commentary on what an owner should or should not be allowed to do with realestate.
It is important to consider a number of factors; climate, groundwater, building materials, and how those materials are used.
In this case we're dealing with a solid masonry structure, meaning no wall cavities and little timber in the walls themselves. Being built in the 20s, the walls probably contain portland cement but likely also have a large lime component. This is important because these types of walls will wick moisture from wet soil or roof leaks. This is actually a good thing when the building is well maintained. Any moisture that works its way into the walls will be able to evaporate instead of being trapped. However when buildings are abandoned, downspouts fall off, gutters start to leak, and moisture is drawn into the walls.
The good news is that these types of structures have existed for thousands of years. It is well known that mold can develop and well known how to get rid of it. Simply fix the roof leaks and make sure downspouts drain away from the foundation. Buildings like these have been neglected for centuries and yet can still be salvaged.
This differs drastically from modern construction. Modern construction is built completely differently. Instead of designing buildings to be permiable and to dry natural between rainfalls, modern building are designed to be almost completely air tight. Once water gets into the wall, it tends to stay there. Also modern building materials like dry wall, or even gypsum based plaster, do not hold up well to moisture. However lime plaster and masonry is quite different, it can get wet and dry out without being problematic. Oftentimes old house owners will clad their old home in siding and then insulate, not realizing that this will lead to moisture and mold problems. For instance, a home with leaking box gutters will quickly be ruined if it has been sealed up in the modern fashion during a remodel. Air tight homes and insulation fare much better with hanging gutters, which when leaking, leak onto the ground rather than the home's framing.
Also keep in mind that without wall cavities there isn't much mold lurking inside the walls like there would be in a modern home. It primarily exists on the surface. Most people in the US live in modern construction so the concept of a non-hollow wall is probably a bit foreign to some. Mold wasn't much of a problem at all before the invention of air-tight buildings with wall cavities filled with insulation.
Finally, the climate. Mold isn't as much of a problem in California as it is in some other. Low humidity, limited precipitation, and few cloudy days all mean that things dry out much quicker than say, New Orleans.
In summary, the mold seen in these pictures is completely trivial. It doesn't pose much of a health problem and remediation would be dead simple. The fact that the home is two stories tall (and has a stairs) is far more dangerous than would be living in the home after it has been fixed up a a bit for habitation. Yes the stairs are more dangerous than the mold.
If you couldn't tell by now, I'm an old house nut that couldn't resist stepping in to dispel the misinformation that was floating around about mold. My home had a far worse mold problem when I moved in. I fixed the gutters and downspouts and then sprayed the wall with chemicals... bam! No more mold. If the home was air-tight modern construction with impermeable materials, than sure, the mold would have been a problem.
After my lengthy post on mold... here's a stab at the topic from a different direction, discussing the merits of preserving historic homes.
I can't comment on how unique or significant this particular home is, but it can't be written off for the reasons mentioned by a few previous posts.
The fact that the home isn't embellished with lots of architectural detail does not make it not worth saving. Plain styles are historic too.
The fact that the home is considered ugly by some shouldn't be a factor either. Many historic structures have been considered ugly at some point in their existance. The Twin Towers and the Eiffel Tower were both considered ugly when first built. Impressive but ugly.
Lack of overall architectural coherence doesn't preclude historical significance either. The history of a home, including additions and alterations, are themselves of historical significance.
Living in Pittsburgh, I've gotten to see first hand what happens to old mansions. After the steel industry died, there wasn't enough wealth to keep the grand structures in good condition. Gradually, nearly all of the mansions became too costly to repair and only mid-sized and small homes remain. Nearly all the mansions have been sub-divided or torn down and replaced with rectangular apartment complexes of about the same square footage. A book by the name of "Pittsburgh Then and Now" is a fascinating chronicle of these changes. The author traveled the city with a camera and replicated old photographs by taking pictures from the exact same vantage point. In the book the old picture consumes the left page and the new pictures is always on the right page. The contrast is astounding. Nearly all of the solid stone mansions are gone forever. Whole neighborhoods erased from the face of the earth. The book doesn't even need words to prove a point. All that's necessary are the pictures. It only takes five minutes to realize what has been lost.
What is economically desirable in the short term for the owner of individual properties doesn't necessarily equate to the greatest good in the long run. During the hardest decades in Pittsburgh, the choice was to let these properties sit idle or to rip them down and build something profitable at that moment in time. But that moment in time was fleeting and the economic benefits not terribly widespread. Fast forward a few decades. Now that Pittsburgh has largely recovered, it would be to everyone's benefit if those old mansions still existed. But the short term benefit to a few was allowed to take precedence over the long-term benefit of many.
Or for instance, slum lords. They buy up big houses, sub-divide them, and then don't do any maintenance whatsoever. This became so endemic that sub-dividing is now prohibited. It turns out that allowing people that freedom results in certain decline of a neighborhood. In pittsburgh, rented houses bring down the value of nearby homes because landlords won't pay to have the victorian architecture maintained. Porch gutters leaking? Just tear down the porch, 2 foot diameter columns and all, and replace with a small concrete slab.
This doesn't mean I'm always on the side of preservation. Only that when completely ungoverned, the tendency is to error on the side of too little preservation. The key is balancing it with personal freedom. I'm glad that we no longer have the freedom to sub-divide homes here. On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to afford my home if it had to be maintained in a historic manner. I would be pissed if someone told me I had to install a slate roof because that's what my home had originally. A slate roof would cost more than the home is worth at this point!
Too often there seem to be knee-jerk reactions to this subject. Typically this is because someone has had a previous experience where the trade-off was made too far in one direction. From then on, they are on the opposite side, failing to consider any balance between personal freedom and building ordinances, including historic preservation.
After my lengthy post on mold... here's a stab at the topic from a different direction, discussing the merits of preserving historic homes.
I can't comment on how unique or significant this particular home is, but it can't be written off for the reasons mentioned by a few previous posts.
The fact that the home isn't embellished with lots of architectural detail does not make it not worth saving. Plain styles are historic too.
The fact that the home is considered ugly by some shouldn't be a factor either. Many historic structures have been considered ugly at some point in their existance. The Twin Towers and the Eiffel Tower were both considered ugly when first built. Impressive but ugly.
Lack of overall architectural coherence doesn't preclude historical significance either. The history of a home, including additions and alterations, are themselves of historical significance.
Agreed in general but you'd have a difficult time building a case that any design by George Washington Smith lacked architectural coherence. He was regarded as one of the top architects of his day, and is even more well-regarded today for his contributions towards the creation of a California style. The fact is, if a person doesn't know the first thing about architecture, we really don't need to spend much time entertaining their views on the subject.
The insidiousness of extreme wealth has been around since the dawn of civilization. These are great photos, and they illustrate to me the wealth of this mansion, cast off by Steve Jobs. Many of us would live here, as it is. A little paint, a couple of throw pillows...
The 1931 additions reduced the architectural coherence but an "expert" such as yourself should have known that.
I know about the additions. The significance of the property was established by a professional architectural historian, who took this into consideration. That is what matters.
Screw it, it's his house, he can tear it down if he likes. If you don't like it, make him an offer, I'm sure he'd be happy to get rid of it now at a little profit. However, the notion of prohibiting someone to do what they like to THEIR OWN Property is beyond ludicrous. We are talking Millions of dollars of personal wealth at stake being dictated by people with no right to the property, nor will they ever even step foot in it.
I would have "accidentally" driven through it with a bulldozer years ago.
Screw it, it's his house, he can tear it down if he likes. If you don't like it, make him an offer, I'm sure he'd be happy to get rid of it now at a little profit. However, the notion of prohibiting someone to do what they like to THEIR OWN Property is beyond ludicrous. We are talking Millions of dollars of personal wealth at stake being dictated by people with no right to the property, nor will they ever even step foot in it.
I would have "accidentally" driven through it with a bulldozer years ago.
So, you are totally against all land use regulations?
So, you are totally against all land use regulations?
I have nothing against regulations as long as it's not overtly imposing on one's personal rights to property and will prevent a detrimental impact to the neighbors lives and well being. It seems as this building has been an abandoned eyesore for many years and if it is as important as many are saying it should have been snapped up and restored by those causing commotion a long time ago, weather it be an individual, a historic society or the state. Not waiting for someone to purchase it and then forcing their hand.
As I designer, I understand the importance of the preserving of style and culture, but not all instances of design and culture can and should be kept by any and everyone against their will. Regulations should be for safety, not personal taste.
I have nothing against regulations as long as it's not overtly imposing on one's personal rights to property and will prevent a detrimental impact to the neighbors lives and well being. It seems as this building has been an abandoned eyesore for many years and if it is as important as many are saying it should have been snapped up and restored by those causing commotion a long time ago, weather it be an individual, a historic society or the state. Not waiting for someone to purchase it and then forcing their hand.
As I designer, I understand the importance of the preserving of style and culture, but not all instances of design and culture can and should be kept by any and everyone against their will. Regulations should be for safety, not personal taste.
You're certainly entitled to your own views, but I'm sure you know, land use regulations cover a wide variety of issues, many of which no doubt cross your own personal line of being "overly imposing." Long ago, the Supreme Court determined that governments can pass regulations which protect the health, safety and general welfare of communities. And yes, historic preservation is explicitly one of those issues. Disagree with it all you like, but these regulations are very very common.
As to this building, it's only an abandoned eyesore because the owner elected to abandon it and allow it to become an eyesore. So even by your own definition of when it is right and proper to regulate, Steve Jobs crossed that line simply by permitting his property to fall into decay.
Also, the house could not have been "snapped up" by anyone, since Jobs did not even try to sell it. As I have pointed out several times in this and other threads on this subject, homes by this architect are rare and desirable, and fetch a premium in the market. He could have sold it he'd wanted to, and probably at a tidy profit, but he did not want to.
I highly doubt it was an oasis when he bought it. How long has he ad it and in what condition did he purchase it in? It seem to have been laid in ruin for quite some time.
So, you are totally against all land use regulations?
Its one thing to say he can't build an apartment complex or strip mall at that location. Its another to say the old house has to stay for all eternity. If he (or anyone else OBTW) wants to build another house appropriate to the neighborhood, why on Earth would you get in the way of that? If the old house itself is that important, then start a fundraiser and make an offer on it yourself.
Here's the question that I keep coming back to: Does the abandoned monolith add value to the neighborhood as it stands, and would its replacement enhance the neighborhood?
I highly doubt it was an oasis when he bought it. How long has he ad it and in what condition did he purchase it in? It seem to have been laid in ruin for quite some time.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Its one thing to say he can't build an apartment complex or strip mall at that location. Its another to say the old house has to stay for all eternity. If he (or anyone else OBTW) wants to build another house appropriate to the neighborhood, why on Earth would you get in the way of that? If the old house itself is that important, then start a fundraiser and make an offer on it yourself.
So it's only historic preservation regulations you are against, all the others are fine?
Comments
As for Jobs' estimates on reno costs, well that is hardly an independent assessment. If it suits his argument then I'm sure he'll find a way to fix the prices to serve his cause.
I think heritage is something worth holding on to. Who's to say if Jobs gets his way that he won't rebuild it with something far more bland and hideous?
This place is CREEPY! No wonder he wants to get rid of it. I'll bet you it's frackin' HAUNTED.
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!!
It's a multi-million dollar piece of property. If you think it's worth it, you make a serious offer to buy it that doesn't include him footing your bills. If not, get out of the way.
Here are the coords:
37°24'59.08"N
122°15'29.25"W
Now I see that I drove by his mansion on many occasions, trying to escape the Silicon Valley. Nice area, really.
Actually, the guy was tresspassing and could be prosecuted.
Actually, no he can't. Trespassing only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when instructed to do so by the property owner (or an authorized representative). Since the photographer left the premises on his own, there's no real legal recourse. He may be open to a civil action (i.e., a lawsuit), but unless there's some evidence that he caused damage to the property, it's probably unlikely that would be successful in court.
Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, but I worked as a private security guard when I was going to school and sometimes had assignments watching over places like this so I read up a bit on the rent-a-cop manual.
Actually, no he can't. Trespassing only becomes a crime if you refuse to leave when instructed to do so by the property owner (or an authorized representative). Since the photographer left the premises on his own, there's no real legal recourse. He may be open to a civil action (i.e., a lawsuit), but unless there's some evidence that he caused damage to the property, it's probably unlikely that would be successful in court.
That doesn't apply to private property, only to (for example) a bookstore in a mall or a restaurant or some other place where the general public has an expectation they would be allowed in.
The mold seen in these pictures does not come remotely close to justifying the demolition of a building. The following addresses the subject from a health and safety perspective and isn't meant as commentary on what an owner should or should not be allowed to do with realestate.
It is important to consider a number of factors; climate, groundwater, building materials, and how those materials are used.
In this case we're dealing with a solid masonry structure, meaning no wall cavities and little timber in the walls themselves. Being built in the 20s, the walls probably contain portland cement but likely also have a large lime component. This is important because these types of walls will wick moisture from wet soil or roof leaks. This is actually a good thing when the building is well maintained. Any moisture that works its way into the walls will be able to evaporate instead of being trapped. However when buildings are abandoned, downspouts fall off, gutters start to leak, and moisture is drawn into the walls.
The good news is that these types of structures have existed for thousands of years. It is well known that mold can develop and well known how to get rid of it. Simply fix the roof leaks and make sure downspouts drain away from the foundation. Buildings like these have been neglected for centuries and yet can still be salvaged.
This differs drastically from modern construction. Modern construction is built completely differently. Instead of designing buildings to be permiable and to dry natural between rainfalls, modern building are designed to be almost completely air tight. Once water gets into the wall, it tends to stay there. Also modern building materials like dry wall, or even gypsum based plaster, do not hold up well to moisture. However lime plaster and masonry is quite different, it can get wet and dry out without being problematic. Oftentimes old house owners will clad their old home in siding and then insulate, not realizing that this will lead to moisture and mold problems. For instance, a home with leaking box gutters will quickly be ruined if it has been sealed up in the modern fashion during a remodel. Air tight homes and insulation fare much better with hanging gutters, which when leaking, leak onto the ground rather than the home's framing.
Also keep in mind that without wall cavities there isn't much mold lurking inside the walls like there would be in a modern home. It primarily exists on the surface. Most people in the US live in modern construction so the concept of a non-hollow wall is probably a bit foreign to some. Mold wasn't much of a problem at all before the invention of air-tight buildings with wall cavities filled with insulation.
Finally, the climate. Mold isn't as much of a problem in California as it is in some other. Low humidity, limited precipitation, and few cloudy days all mean that things dry out much quicker than say, New Orleans.
In summary, the mold seen in these pictures is completely trivial. It doesn't pose much of a health problem and remediation would be dead simple. The fact that the home is two stories tall (and has a stairs) is far more dangerous than would be living in the home after it has been fixed up a a bit for habitation. Yes the stairs are more dangerous than the mold.
If you couldn't tell by now, I'm an old house nut that couldn't resist stepping in to dispel the misinformation that was floating around about mold. My home had a far worse mold problem when I moved in. I fixed the gutters and downspouts and then sprayed the wall with chemicals... bam! No more mold. If the home was air-tight modern construction with impermeable materials, than sure, the mold would have been a problem.
I can't comment on how unique or significant this particular home is, but it can't be written off for the reasons mentioned by a few previous posts.
The fact that the home isn't embellished with lots of architectural detail does not make it not worth saving. Plain styles are historic too.
The fact that the home is considered ugly by some shouldn't be a factor either. Many historic structures have been considered ugly at some point in their existance. The Twin Towers and the Eiffel Tower were both considered ugly when first built. Impressive but ugly.
Lack of overall architectural coherence doesn't preclude historical significance either. The history of a home, including additions and alterations, are themselves of historical significance.
Living in Pittsburgh, I've gotten to see first hand what happens to old mansions. After the steel industry died, there wasn't enough wealth to keep the grand structures in good condition. Gradually, nearly all of the mansions became too costly to repair and only mid-sized and small homes remain. Nearly all the mansions have been sub-divided or torn down and replaced with rectangular apartment complexes of about the same square footage. A book by the name of "Pittsburgh Then and Now" is a fascinating chronicle of these changes. The author traveled the city with a camera and replicated old photographs by taking pictures from the exact same vantage point. In the book the old picture consumes the left page and the new pictures is always on the right page. The contrast is astounding. Nearly all of the solid stone mansions are gone forever. Whole neighborhoods erased from the face of the earth. The book doesn't even need words to prove a point. All that's necessary are the pictures. It only takes five minutes to realize what has been lost.
What is economically desirable in the short term for the owner of individual properties doesn't necessarily equate to the greatest good in the long run. During the hardest decades in Pittsburgh, the choice was to let these properties sit idle or to rip them down and build something profitable at that moment in time. But that moment in time was fleeting and the economic benefits not terribly widespread. Fast forward a few decades. Now that Pittsburgh has largely recovered, it would be to everyone's benefit if those old mansions still existed. But the short term benefit to a few was allowed to take precedence over the long-term benefit of many.
Or for instance, slum lords. They buy up big houses, sub-divide them, and then don't do any maintenance whatsoever. This became so endemic that sub-dividing is now prohibited. It turns out that allowing people that freedom results in certain decline of a neighborhood. In pittsburgh, rented houses bring down the value of nearby homes because landlords won't pay to have the victorian architecture maintained. Porch gutters leaking? Just tear down the porch, 2 foot diameter columns and all, and replace with a small concrete slab.
This doesn't mean I'm always on the side of preservation. Only that when completely ungoverned, the tendency is to error on the side of too little preservation. The key is balancing it with personal freedom. I'm glad that we no longer have the freedom to sub-divide homes here. On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to afford my home if it had to be maintained in a historic manner. I would be pissed if someone told me I had to install a slate roof because that's what my home had originally. A slate roof would cost more than the home is worth at this point!
Too often there seem to be knee-jerk reactions to this subject. Typically this is because someone has had a previous experience where the trade-off was made too far in one direction. From then on, they are on the opposite side, failing to consider any balance between personal freedom and building ordinances, including historic preservation.
After my lengthy post on mold... here's a stab at the topic from a different direction, discussing the merits of preserving historic homes.
I can't comment on how unique or significant this particular home is, but it can't be written off for the reasons mentioned by a few previous posts.
The fact that the home isn't embellished with lots of architectural detail does not make it not worth saving. Plain styles are historic too.
The fact that the home is considered ugly by some shouldn't be a factor either. Many historic structures have been considered ugly at some point in their existance. The Twin Towers and the Eiffel Tower were both considered ugly when first built. Impressive but ugly.
Lack of overall architectural coherence doesn't preclude historical significance either. The history of a home, including additions and alterations, are themselves of historical significance.
Agreed in general but you'd have a difficult time building a case that any design by George Washington Smith lacked architectural coherence. He was regarded as one of the top architects of his day, and is even more well-regarded today for his contributions towards the creation of a California style. The fact is, if a person doesn't know the first thing about architecture, we really don't need to spend much time entertaining their views on the subject.
Agreed in general but you'd have a difficult time building a case that any design by George Washington Smith lacked architectural coherence.
The 1931 additions reduced the architectural coherence but an "expert" such as yourself should have known that.
The 1931 additions reduced the architectural coherence but an "expert" such as yourself should have known that.
I know about the additions. The significance of the property was established by a professional architectural historian, who took this into consideration. That is what matters.
I would have "accidentally" driven through it with a bulldozer years ago.
Screw it, it's his house, he can tear it down if he likes. If you don't like it, make him an offer, I'm sure he'd be happy to get rid of it now at a little profit. However, the notion of prohibiting someone to do what they like to THEIR OWN Property is beyond ludicrous. We are talking Millions of dollars of personal wealth at stake being dictated by people with no right to the property, nor will they ever even step foot in it.
I would have "accidentally" driven through it with a bulldozer years ago.
So, you are totally against all land use regulations?
So, you are totally against all land use regulations?
I have nothing against regulations as long as it's not overtly imposing on one's personal rights to property and will prevent a detrimental impact to the neighbors lives and well being. It seems as this building has been an abandoned eyesore for many years and if it is as important as many are saying it should have been snapped up and restored by those causing commotion a long time ago, weather it be an individual, a historic society or the state. Not waiting for someone to purchase it and then forcing their hand.
As I designer, I understand the importance of the preserving of style and culture, but not all instances of design and culture can and should be kept by any and everyone against their will. Regulations should be for safety, not personal taste.
I have nothing against regulations as long as it's not overtly imposing on one's personal rights to property and will prevent a detrimental impact to the neighbors lives and well being. It seems as this building has been an abandoned eyesore for many years and if it is as important as many are saying it should have been snapped up and restored by those causing commotion a long time ago, weather it be an individual, a historic society or the state. Not waiting for someone to purchase it and then forcing their hand.
As I designer, I understand the importance of the preserving of style and culture, but not all instances of design and culture can and should be kept by any and everyone against their will. Regulations should be for safety, not personal taste.
You're certainly entitled to your own views, but I'm sure you know, land use regulations cover a wide variety of issues, many of which no doubt cross your own personal line of being "overly imposing." Long ago, the Supreme Court determined that governments can pass regulations which protect the health, safety and general welfare of communities. And yes, historic preservation is explicitly one of those issues. Disagree with it all you like, but these regulations are very very common.
As to this building, it's only an abandoned eyesore because the owner elected to abandon it and allow it to become an eyesore. So even by your own definition of when it is right and proper to regulate, Steve Jobs crossed that line simply by permitting his property to fall into decay.
Also, the house could not have been "snapped up" by anyone, since Jobs did not even try to sell it. As I have pointed out several times in this and other threads on this subject, homes by this architect are rare and desirable, and fetch a premium in the market. He could have sold it he'd wanted to, and probably at a tidy profit, but he did not want to.
So, you are totally against all land use regulations?
Its one thing to say he can't build an apartment complex or strip mall at that location. Its another to say the old house has to stay for all eternity. If he (or anyone else OBTW) wants to build another house appropriate to the neighborhood, why on Earth would you get in the way of that? If the old house itself is that important, then start a fundraiser and make an offer on it yourself.
Here's the question that I keep coming back to: Does the abandoned monolith add value to the neighborhood as it stands, and would its replacement enhance the neighborhood?
I highly doubt it was an oasis when he bought it. How long has he ad it and in what condition did he purchase it in? It seem to have been laid in ruin for quite some time.
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.
Its one thing to say he can't build an apartment complex or strip mall at that location. Its another to say the old house has to stay for all eternity. If he (or anyone else OBTW) wants to build another house appropriate to the neighborhood, why on Earth would you get in the way of that? If the old house itself is that important, then start a fundraiser and make an offer on it yourself.
So it's only historic preservation regulations you are against, all the others are fine?