BS. YOu can only be a domain squatter is you are violating somebody's trademark. Here he is not. Further, he doesn't even have Google ads installed, which is a sure mark of the domain squatter.
What Google ads has anything to do with only you know that. But let's be under no illusions here this guy bought the name to ultimately profit from it. In the end he got Ive's attention but the offer he had in his head didn't come to fruition. Granted he won his case and he did put a lot of effort in the content, which is par for the course, but i'm still not convinced by his reasoning behind buying it.
If I remember correctly, the house was not labeled "historic" when Steve bought it. In fact, one of the reason Steve bought it was because he was assured that it could be torn down. It wasn't until some years later, when he was ready to tear it down, that they slapped the "Historic Landmark " label on it. And they told him he couldn't tear it down. (I think it was more due to the famous person that owned it before rather than for it's architectural value.) And once they slapped the "Historical Landmark" on the it, he couldn't sell it because no one wants to buy it and go through the red tape of owning an "Historical Landmark" that is in needs of repair.
This was when Steve decided to not live in the house anymore. It was cheaper to tear it down and build the house he wants rather than to restore it. Abestos removal is not cheap. And you don't want to be around when they're removing it. It doesn't matter how "historic" a building is. If it contains abestos that can pose a health hazard, it's deemed uninhabitable and it's condemed.
Exactly, at the time he bought the house it was no more historically significant than a Taco Bell, It may be 75 years old now, but when he bought it, and planned to tear it down it was a 50 year old building.
Exactly, at the time he bought the house it was no more historically significant than a Taco Bell, It may be 75 years old now, but when he bought it, and planned to tear it down it was a 50 year old building.
First, you don't know whether the house was historic when he bought it, so you are simply guessing about that on the basis of no information or knowledge; second, it wasn't an issue until he decided that he wanted to tear it down. Even if it wasn't historically significant when he bought it, and no matter what plans he had for the house at that time, what is relevant is the facts which were present and what laws were in effect at the time he decided to request the demolition.
All of which pretty much amounts to nothing, since in the end, he got his way.
Not the city council, the city. The city was sued over the issuance of the permit because they failed to follow the law in doing so. That forced the preparation of the EIR, which they should have done in the first place, and the ensuing debate about the feasibility of preservation.
1925, but yes, it certainly can.
No, that's just an opinion without foundation in fact.
No. The historical society sued the city to stop the permit because Steve did not properly showed that it would cost more to restore the house than it would to tear it down and build a new one. The EIR was done before the city gave him the permit on 2004. It was the historical society the stopped the permit. Not the EIR. Like you stated eariler. The EIR does not determine or recommend whether a building should or shouldn't be torn down. It's just information that the city can use to jusify giving or denying some one the permit. Even though the EIR stated the house was of some "historical" value, that didn't stop the city from giving Steve the permit (back in 2004) to tear down his house. And it's not stopping it now. Obvioulsy it's not that "historical" from the city stand point.
All Steve did recently, to get his permit re-instated, was to file that report. He showed that the restoration would cost $13 million and his new house would cost $8 million. What these numbers would look like back in 2004, I don't know. Why didn't he get his paperwork done earlier? I don't know. But maybe his cancer had something to do it. He was diagnosed with cancer back in October of 2003.
"My reputation has been established by the work I do, not through self-publicity. I do not usually give interviews ? I seek to avoid publicity," he said, noting that the few pieces of notable work he's done outside Apple included "designing a character in a Pixar/Disney computer animated movie ?Wall-e? and designing a book cover."
For those interested, the Wall-e character conceived by Ive was Wall-e's girl pal Eve.
No. The historical society sued the city to stop the permit because Steve did not properly showed that it would cost more to restore the house than it would to tear it down and build a new one. The EIR was done before the city gave him the permit on 2004. It was the historical society the stopped the permit. Not the EIR. Like you stated eariler. The EIR does not determine or recommend whether a building should or shouldn't be torn down. It's just information that the city can use to jusify giving or denying some one the permit. Even though the EIR stated the house was of some "historical" value, that didn't stop the city from giving Steve the permit (back in 2004) to tear down his house. And it's not stopping it now. Obvioulsy it's not that "historical" from the city stand point.
All Steve did recently, to get his permit re-instated, was to file that report. He showed that the restoration would cost $13 million and his new house would cost $8 million. What these numbers would look like back in 2004, I don't know. Why didn't he get his paperwork done earlier? I don't know. But maybe his cancer had something to do it. He was diagnosed with cancer back in October of 2003.
The litigant wasn't the historical society, it was an ad-hoc group, "Friends of the Jackling House" I believe they call themselves. Anyway, they sued over the adequacy of the EIR, and the courts agreed that it wasn't adequate. The EIR didn't state that the house was "of some historical value," it stated that it was eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, which makes its demolition an adverse environmental impact, by definition under California environmental law. You are correct (and as I have already said) that this finding didn't prevent the city allowing the demolition, only that they consider the impacts and investigate the feasibility of alternatives. It was in the latter that the EIR was found by the courts to be inadequate. So the city had to do that part over before they made their decision.
Incidentally, for an alternative to considered infeasible, it's not really enough for it to be more expensive. There's no fixed definition for economically infeasible that I know about, so generally rationales other than economic are used to back up findings on the feasibility of alternatives.
The bottom line: California environmental law is an extremely complicated beast, defined as much by litigation as by the law, but in the end, cities are rarely prevented from doing what they want to do on that account -- if they get their procedures right. Woodside finally did in their second attempt, and let Steve have his way. None of which means that Steve Jobs isn't an architectural vandal, because he is.
I'm kind of startled by the number of people who are willing to declare the Jackling House undistinguished or tacky, dispute its status as an historical structure (or insist on using scare quotes around "historical"), or have somehow come to the conclusion that being "merely" 85 years old means that it can't possibly be considered a part of our architectural heritage.
The significance of the career of George Washington Smith cannot be disputed. The significance of his signature style, Spanish-Colonial Revival, in the history of American architecture cannot be disputed. The fact that the Jackling House is a fine example of his work in this style cannot be disputed, whether or not that style particularly floats the boat of anyone posting here. Making deeply uninformed claims to the contrary are, to use Dr. Millmoss's term "boorish."
It wasn't that long ago that the buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright had fallen out of favor and were regarded as insignificant or ugly. Even in Oak Park, Illinois, where Wright worked for many years and with the largest concentration of his buildings in the world, many of his homes had fallen into disrepair, had been indifferently carved up for apartments, or crudely remodeled, or torn down.
I'm not saying Smith is in the same category as Wright, just that "historical significance" isn't some kind of modern sensibility curb appeal contest. If that were the case there probably wouldn't be a single structure older than twenty to thirty years still standing in America.
Which, I realize, would be just fine with some folks, but such folks are to be shunned.
What Google ads has anything to do with only you know that. But let's be under no illusions here this guy bought the name to ultimately profit from it. In the end he got Ive's attention but the offer he had in his head didn't come to fruition. Granted he won his case and he did put a lot of effort in the content, which is par for the course, but i'm still not convinced by his reasoning behind buying it.
Still very creepy either way you look at it.
For all his purported intelligence, Mr. Ivy was extremely ignorant to not make sure that domain was owned by him years prior. When you know you are going to be working in a high profile position, get the domain control in your hands.
Then you don't have this fiasco. Mr. Ivy was not very intelligent. You can chalk it up to inexperience. I chalk it up to him not seeing any potential downside of his fame.
which happens to share some of the concrete construction techniques of the Jackling House (at one time concrete was considered a very cutting edge and forward looking material for residential properties).
Imagine it in disrepair, with peeling paint and overgrown grounds. How many people here would dismiss it as ugly and worthless and fully deserving of being demolished?
To the modern eye it looks a bit awkward, poised between a familiar unadorned modernist idiom and an earlier style (or perhaps even a different culture), with its cross hipped roof and exaggerated eaves.
But it is among the most significant residential buildings in the country, and its destruction would be a great loss.
Judging the past through the lens of modern taste is senseless and dangerous.
Incidentally GW Smith is often regarded as the father of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in California (the currently favored terminology being Spanish Revival). The Jackling House was one of the largest he had the opportunity to design, and one of the few he designed outside of the Santa Barbara area. Anybody who was anyone in the Santa Barbara area during the 1920s wanted a house designed by Smith, and today they fetch a big premium when they come up for sale. Nobody in their right mind in the Santa Barbara area would even think of demolishing one, and they probably wouldn't be allowed to if they tried. It would be something like trying to demolish a Wright house in Oak Park, or anywhere, for that matter.
I had a chance to visit Oak Park in the early 80's. I was startled to find that the Wright Foundation was basically begging for money to purchase/restore his buildings in the area, many of which were being treated as undistinguished tract homes.
I remember being amazed that his Unity Temple was accorded no special consideration (no tours or informational material), and when I wandered in to visit I saw folks using his (now near priceless!) ladder-back chairs like they were "just part of the furniture"-- to prop open doors or as step ladders or a place to pile stuff.
Can't blame a neighborhood church for using its building like a neighborhood church, I guess, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that architectural significance, in a public building, can be a burden.
Still, what kind of country are we that that same church is even now falling apart?
Wright was famous for designing buildings with leaky roofs. A number of quotes are attributed to him on the subject, the most well-known of which is "if the roof doesn't leak, the architect hasn't been creative enough." He was also supposed to have told a client, or perhaps more than one, that the solution was to move the furniture.
If the house is so significantly historical, then why doesn't the city or the Historical Society buy it from Jobs and refurbish it themselves? Why were they silent for the 10 years it sat empty and falling into disrepair?
If the house is so significantly historical, then why doesn't the city or the Historical Society buy it from Jobs and refurbish it themselves? Why were they silent for the 10 years it sat empty and falling into disrepair?
Nothing lasts forever.
Who said they were silent? And it was Steve Jobs who let it sit empty and allowed it to fall into disrepair. Is it really your opinion that nobody should ever be prohibited from demolishing a historic building?
Wright was famous for designing buildings with leaky roofs. A number of quotes are attributed to him on the subject, the most well-known of which is "if the roof doesn't leak, the architect hasn't been creative enough." He was also supposed to have told a client, or perhaps more than one, that the solution was to move the furniture.
Yeah. Apparently Falling Water is a nightmare to maintain, but it would still be privilege to live there-- not that you could, since it's now operated as a museum.
Who said they were silent? And it was Steve Jobs who let it sit empty and allowed it to fall into disrepair. Is it really your opinion that nobody should ever be prohibited from demolishing a historic building?
Comments
BS. YOu can only be a domain squatter is you are violating somebody's trademark. Here he is not. Further, he doesn't even have Google ads installed, which is a sure mark of the domain squatter.
What Google ads has anything to do with only you know that. But let's be under no illusions here this guy bought the name to ultimately profit from it. In the end he got Ive's attention but the offer he had in his head didn't come to fruition. Granted he won his case and he did put a lot of effort in the content, which is par for the course, but i'm still not convinced by his reasoning behind buying it.
Still very creepy either way you look at it.
I am sure it wasn't in that condition when he bought it in 1985, and lived in it.
Did the rooms get smaller over time. That is the only way I can see somehting becoming more Claustrophibic.
If I remember correctly, the house was not labeled "historic" when Steve bought it. In fact, one of the reason Steve bought it was because he was assured that it could be torn down. It wasn't until some years later, when he was ready to tear it down, that they slapped the "Historic Landmark " label on it. And they told him he couldn't tear it down. (I think it was more due to the famous person that owned it before rather than for it's architectural value.) And once they slapped the "Historical Landmark" on the it, he couldn't sell it because no one wants to buy it and go through the red tape of owning an "Historical Landmark" that is in needs of repair.
This was when Steve decided to not live in the house anymore. It was cheaper to tear it down and build the house he wants rather than to restore it. Abestos removal is not cheap. And you don't want to be around when they're removing it. It doesn't matter how "historic" a building is. If it contains abestos that can pose a health hazard, it's deemed uninhabitable and it's condemed.
Exactly, at the time he bought the house it was no more historically significant than a Taco Bell, It may be 75 years old now, but when he bought it, and planned to tear it down it was a 50 year old building.
Exactly, at the time he bought the house it was no more historically significant than a Taco Bell, It may be 75 years old now, but when he bought it, and planned to tear it down it was a 50 year old building.
First, you don't know whether the house was historic when he bought it, so you are simply guessing about that on the basis of no information or knowledge; second, it wasn't an issue until he decided that he wanted to tear it down. Even if it wasn't historically significant when he bought it, and no matter what plans he had for the house at that time, what is relevant is the facts which were present and what laws were in effect at the time he decided to request the demolition.
All of which pretty much amounts to nothing, since in the end, he got his way.
Not the city council, the city. The city was sued over the issuance of the permit because they failed to follow the law in doing so. That forced the preparation of the EIR, which they should have done in the first place, and the ensuing debate about the feasibility of preservation.
1925, but yes, it certainly can.
No, that's just an opinion without foundation in fact.
No. The historical society sued the city to stop the permit because Steve did not properly showed that it would cost more to restore the house than it would to tear it down and build a new one. The EIR was done before the city gave him the permit on 2004. It was the historical society the stopped the permit. Not the EIR. Like you stated eariler. The EIR does not determine or recommend whether a building should or shouldn't be torn down. It's just information that the city can use to jusify giving or denying some one the permit. Even though the EIR stated the house was of some "historical" value, that didn't stop the city from giving Steve the permit (back in 2004) to tear down his house. And it's not stopping it now. Obvioulsy it's not that "historical" from the city stand point.
All Steve did recently, to get his permit re-instated, was to file that report. He showed that the restoration would cost $13 million and his new house would cost $8 million. What these numbers would look like back in 2004, I don't know. Why didn't he get his paperwork done earlier? I don't know. But maybe his cancer had something to do it. He was diagnosed with cancer back in October of 2003.
"My reputation has been established by the work I do, not through self-publicity. I do not usually give interviews ? I seek to avoid publicity," he said, noting that the few pieces of notable work he's done outside Apple included "designing a character in a Pixar/Disney computer animated movie ?Wall-e? and designing a book cover."
For those interested, the Wall-e character conceived by Ive was Wall-e's girl pal Eve.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Why am I not surprised?
What's the book cover?
No. The historical society sued the city to stop the permit because Steve did not properly showed that it would cost more to restore the house than it would to tear it down and build a new one. The EIR was done before the city gave him the permit on 2004. It was the historical society the stopped the permit. Not the EIR. Like you stated eariler. The EIR does not determine or recommend whether a building should or shouldn't be torn down. It's just information that the city can use to jusify giving or denying some one the permit. Even though the EIR stated the house was of some "historical" value, that didn't stop the city from giving Steve the permit (back in 2004) to tear down his house. And it's not stopping it now. Obvioulsy it's not that "historical" from the city stand point.
All Steve did recently, to get his permit re-instated, was to file that report. He showed that the restoration would cost $13 million and his new house would cost $8 million. What these numbers would look like back in 2004, I don't know. Why didn't he get his paperwork done earlier? I don't know. But maybe his cancer had something to do it. He was diagnosed with cancer back in October of 2003.
The litigant wasn't the historical society, it was an ad-hoc group, "Friends of the Jackling House" I believe they call themselves. Anyway, they sued over the adequacy of the EIR, and the courts agreed that it wasn't adequate. The EIR didn't state that the house was "of some historical value," it stated that it was eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, which makes its demolition an adverse environmental impact, by definition under California environmental law. You are correct (and as I have already said) that this finding didn't prevent the city allowing the demolition, only that they consider the impacts and investigate the feasibility of alternatives. It was in the latter that the EIR was found by the courts to be inadequate. So the city had to do that part over before they made their decision.
Incidentally, for an alternative to considered infeasible, it's not really enough for it to be more expensive. There's no fixed definition for economically infeasible that I know about, so generally rationales other than economic are used to back up findings on the feasibility of alternatives.
The bottom line: California environmental law is an extremely complicated beast, defined as much by litigation as by the law, but in the end, cities are rarely prevented from doing what they want to do on that account -- if they get their procedures right. Woodside finally did in their second attempt, and let Steve have his way. None of which means that Steve Jobs isn't an architectural vandal, because he is.
Language fans will know that this is one of a handful of words in English with a homophone which is also an antonym.
I'll see your homophone and raise you the only word in the English language which is its own antonym.
I'll see your homophone and raise you the only word in the English language which is its own antonym.
That would probably be "cleave" (though the second definition is a bit archaic).
The significance of the career of George Washington Smith cannot be disputed. The significance of his signature style, Spanish-Colonial Revival, in the history of American architecture cannot be disputed. The fact that the Jackling House is a fine example of his work in this style cannot be disputed, whether or not that style particularly floats the boat of anyone posting here. Making deeply uninformed claims to the contrary are, to use Dr. Millmoss's term "boorish."
It wasn't that long ago that the buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright had fallen out of favor and were regarded as insignificant or ugly. Even in Oak Park, Illinois, where Wright worked for many years and with the largest concentration of his buildings in the world, many of his homes had fallen into disrepair, had been indifferently carved up for apartments, or crudely remodeled, or torn down.
I'm not saying Smith is in the same category as Wright, just that "historical significance" isn't some kind of modern sensibility curb appeal contest. If that were the case there probably wouldn't be a single structure older than twenty to thirty years still standing in America.
Which, I realize, would be just fine with some folks, but such folks are to be shunned.
That would probably be "cleave" (though the second definition is a bit archaic).
I figured you'd know that. Have a cookie.
What Google ads has anything to do with only you know that. But let's be under no illusions here this guy bought the name to ultimately profit from it. In the end he got Ive's attention but the offer he had in his head didn't come to fruition. Granted he won his case and he did put a lot of effort in the content, which is par for the course, but i'm still not convinced by his reasoning behind buying it.
Still very creepy either way you look at it.
For all his purported intelligence, Mr. Ivy was extremely ignorant to not make sure that domain was owned by him years prior. When you know you are going to be working in a high profile position, get the domain control in your hands.
Then you don't have this fiasco. Mr. Ivy was not very intelligent. You can chalk it up to inexperience. I chalk it up to him not seeing any potential downside of his fame.
which happens to share some of the concrete construction techniques of the Jackling House (at one time concrete was considered a very cutting edge and forward looking material for residential properties).
Imagine it in disrepair, with peeling paint and overgrown grounds. How many people here would dismiss it as ugly and worthless and fully deserving of being demolished?
To the modern eye it looks a bit awkward, poised between a familiar unadorned modernist idiom and an earlier style (or perhaps even a different culture), with its cross hipped roof and exaggerated eaves.
But it is among the most significant residential buildings in the country, and its destruction would be a great loss.
Judging the past through the lens of modern taste is senseless and dangerous.
I figured you'd know that. Have a cookie.
Thank you, don't mind if I do.
Incidentally GW Smith is often regarded as the father of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in California (the currently favored terminology being Spanish Revival). The Jackling House was one of the largest he had the opportunity to design, and one of the few he designed outside of the Santa Barbara area. Anybody who was anyone in the Santa Barbara area during the 1920s wanted a house designed by Smith, and today they fetch a big premium when they come up for sale. Nobody in their right mind in the Santa Barbara area would even think of demolishing one, and they probably wouldn't be allowed to if they tried. It would be something like trying to demolish a Wright house in Oak Park, or anywhere, for that matter.
I remember being amazed that his Unity Temple was accorded no special consideration (no tours or informational material), and when I wandered in to visit I saw folks using his (now near priceless!) ladder-back chairs like they were "just part of the furniture"-- to prop open doors or as step ladders or a place to pile stuff.
Can't blame a neighborhood church for using its building like a neighborhood church, I guess, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that architectural significance, in a public building, can be a burden.
Still, what kind of country are we that that same church is even now falling apart?
Nothing lasts forever.
If the house is so significantly historical, then why doesn't the city or the Historical Society buy it from Jobs and refurbish it themselves? Why were they silent for the 10 years it sat empty and falling into disrepair?
Nothing lasts forever.
Who said they were silent? And it was Steve Jobs who let it sit empty and allowed it to fall into disrepair. Is it really your opinion that nobody should ever be prohibited from demolishing a historic building?
Wright was famous for designing buildings with leaky roofs. A number of quotes are attributed to him on the subject, the most well-known of which is "if the roof doesn't leak, the architect hasn't been creative enough." He was also supposed to have told a client, or perhaps more than one, that the solution was to move the furniture.
Yeah. Apparently Falling Water is a nightmare to maintain, but it would still be privilege to live there-- not that you could, since it's now operated as a museum.
Who said they were silent? And it was Steve Jobs who let it sit empty and allowed it to fall into disrepair. Is it really your opinion that nobody should ever be prohibited from demolishing a historic building?
"Historic" is relative.