You're joking, right? Please tell me you are joking.
I was about to ask you the same question, in case you came back with some sort of defense of the idea behind historical preservation, what I take this as.
It is his property and for the most part, he should be able to do as he pleases with it.
Steve should just sell it cheap and let someone else renovate it. .
Maybe he likes the area?
I have an uncle who hates his house, absolutely hates his house, but he doesn't have the money to build something in its place or do any real remodeling. Not far from him there are nice new homes twice the size of his house that he can afford.
Well I might be seen as the devils advocate here...
...but restored this house would be worth quite a bit of money. Most likely could be among one of the most expensive houses in the country.
As I've pointed out in the other threads on this topic, a house by George Washington Smith is worth a premium. The significance of the house is not based on whether Steve, or someone on these boards, likes it. Its amusing in a sad sort of way that so many are prepared to defend Steve's architectural vandalism because, well, you know, it's Steve -- and he could never be a Philistine, or an arrogant jerk.
I was about to ask you the same question, in case you came back with some sort of defense of the idea behind historical preservation, what I take this as.
It is his property and for the most part, he should be able to do as he pleases with it.
Ah, so you are one of those people who believes that all land use and environmental regulations are immoral?
As I've pointed out in the other threads on this topic, a house by George Washington Smith is worth a premium. The significance of the house is not based on whether Steve, or someone on these boards, likes it. Its amusing in a sad sort of way that so many are prepared to defend Steve's architectural vandalism because, well, you know, it's Steve -- and he could never be a Philistine, or an arrogant jerk.
So get some investors and make Jobs an offer already! It would put a nail in the "more expensive to renovate" argument and likely kill the demolition permit. Otherwise, butt out of his life.
As I've pointed out in the other threads on this topic, a house by George Washington Smith is worth a premium. The significance of the house is not based on whether Steve, or someone on these boards, likes it. Its amusing in a sad sort of way that so many are prepared to defend Steve's architectural vandalism because, well, you know, it's Steve -- and he could never be a Philistine, or an arrogant jerk.
Architectural vandalism is the name you give his wanting to build a new home for his family, on his property because it will knock down a house that you get off to.
You're being selfish, as is this historical society in his way, not he. That it being his is not a factor to you or they should say a lot to the folks here.
So get some investors and make Jobs an offer already! It would put a nail in the "more expensive to renovate" argument and likely kill the demolition permit. Otherwise, butt out of his life.
Exactly, although Jobs should have every right to refuse.
wonder how these apple boards would react if say the ape dancer Ballmer wanted to do something similar. double standards ftw, eh?
Doesn't matter to me one bit that it is Jobs.
When it comes to things that have withstood the test of time for a thousand years or more, I'm all for governments spending whatever necessary to preserve them and putting the legal framework in place with that aim.
But when it comes to something obscure built in the last one or two hundred years that the owner wants to wipe out, I'm all for his right to do it.
Take a picture and move on. It's about looking forward - it's about progress!
If someone admires a particular architectural style, they should recreate it in their own backyard - not force it upon their neighbor.
Wow, has anyone looked at the other houses around this one? Someone has their own private baseball diamond. Another person has their own private par 3 golf hole. Lots of swimming pools and tennis courts also. Boy, that's some neighborhood.
There HAS to be a great spot he could built a new home, that he won't have to deal with this bullshiet!
It's not that he'll be giving in, it's just that sometimes it's time to get on. I think we would all agree, he has more then enough on his mind, to not have to deal with this!
I'd love to think it's not "I'm Steve Jobs" and damn it, this is what I want, and I'm not backing down or giving up! It is after-all, just a piece of land ? go get another chuck somewhere else?
Hell, sell it to the folks that want to preserve it, for say ? $2.5 million dollars. When they can't write the check, say "Oh well, I gave you a chance"!
No, and I am insulted that you would try to paint me this way.
There is a significant difference between:
1. I'm knocking down this piece of crap house and building something modern for my family.
and
2. I am dumping this oil into my creek because I like how it shimmers in the sunlight, forget that it kills everything downstream.
Oh, I see. If you personally approve of the regulation, it's okay. Otherwise it isn't. And naturally you get to decide this for every state and local government. Get back to me when you are God.
Oh, I see. If you personally approve of the regulation, it's okay. Otherwise it isn't. And naturally you get to decide this for every state and local government. Get back to me when you are God.
How does your response make the least bit of sense or are you so blind with rage that I, and most of us here, don't give a crap about the architectural style George Washington Smith preferred that you don't see that you're making no sense? Or are you beginning to agree and is that scaring you?
Even the least educated man could upon a glance understand that what I was communicating is that one should be able to do as they wish with their property so long as they are not harming the property of another. That would be a violation of another's property rights!
Hell, sell it to the folks that want to preserve it, for say ? $2.5 million dollars. When they can't write the check, say "Oh well, I gave you a chance"!
The huge irony is that if he hadn't deliberately allowed the house to fall into ruin, it would be worth far, far more than $2.5 million to a whole lot of people. Even in its current state it would be. Houses by George Washington Smith are rare and desirable. They sell for premiums. It was never an issue of whether anyone else would have wanted the property. Jobs never offered it for sale.
How does your response make the least bit of sense or are you so blind with rage that I don't give a crap about the architectural style George Washington Smith preferred that you don't see that you're making no sense?
Even the least educated man could upon a glance understand that what I was communicating is that one should be able to do as they wish with their property so long as they are not harming the property of another.
The huge irony is that if he hadn't deliberately allowed the house to fall into ruin, it would be worth far, far more than $2.5 million to a whole lot of people. Even in its current state it would be. Houses by George Washington Smith are rare and desirable. They sell for premiums. It was never an issue of whether anyone else would have wanted the property. Jobs never offered it for sale.
Comments
You're joking, right? Please tell me you are joking.
I was about to ask you the same question, in case you came back with some sort of defense of the idea behind historical preservation, what I take this as.
It is his property and for the most part, he should be able to do as he pleases with it.
Steve should just sell it cheap and let someone else renovate it. .
Maybe he likes the area?
I have an uncle who hates his house, absolutely hates his house, but he doesn't have the money to build something in its place or do any real remodeling. Not far from him there are nice new homes twice the size of his house that he can afford.
Problem is, he loves the area. Always has.
Anyone think Jobs might be the same way?
Well I might be seen as the devils advocate here...
...but restored this house would be worth quite a bit of money. Most likely could be among one of the most expensive houses in the country.
As I've pointed out in the other threads on this topic, a house by George Washington Smith is worth a premium. The significance of the house is not based on whether Steve, or someone on these boards, likes it. Its amusing in a sad sort of way that so many are prepared to defend Steve's architectural vandalism because, well, you know, it's Steve -- and he could never be a Philistine, or an arrogant jerk.
I was about to ask you the same question, in case you came back with some sort of defense of the idea behind historical preservation, what I take this as.
It is his property and for the most part, he should be able to do as he pleases with it.
Ah, so you are one of those people who believes that all land use and environmental regulations are immoral?
As I've pointed out in the other threads on this topic, a house by George Washington Smith is worth a premium. The significance of the house is not based on whether Steve, or someone on these boards, likes it. Its amusing in a sad sort of way that so many are prepared to defend Steve's architectural vandalism because, well, you know, it's Steve -- and he could never be a Philistine, or an arrogant jerk.
So get some investors and make Jobs an offer already! It would put a nail in the "more expensive to renovate" argument and likely kill the demolition permit. Otherwise, butt out of his life.
As I've pointed out in the other threads on this topic, a house by George Washington Smith is worth a premium. The significance of the house is not based on whether Steve, or someone on these boards, likes it. Its amusing in a sad sort of way that so many are prepared to defend Steve's architectural vandalism because, well, you know, it's Steve -- and he could never be a Philistine, or an arrogant jerk.
Architectural vandalism is the name you give his wanting to build a new home for his family, on his property because it will knock down a house that you get off to.
You're being selfish, as is this historical society in his way, not he. That it being his is not a factor to you or they should say a lot to the folks here.
Ah, so you are one of those people who believes that all land use and environmental regulations are immoral?
No, and I am insulted that you would try to paint me this way.
There is a significant difference between:
1. I'm knocking down this piece of crap house and building something modern for my family.
and
2. I am dumping this oil into my creek because I like how it shimmers in the sunlight, forget that it kills everything downstream.
So get some investors and make Jobs an offer already! It would put a nail in the "more expensive to renovate" argument and likely kill the demolition permit. Otherwise, butt out of his life.
Exactly, although Jobs should have every right to refuse.
wonder how these apple boards would react if say the ape dancer Ballmer wanted to do something similar. double standards ftw, eh?
Doesn't matter to me one bit that it is Jobs.
When it comes to things that have withstood the test of time for a thousand years or more, I'm all for governments spending whatever necessary to preserve them and putting the legal framework in place with that aim.
But when it comes to something obscure built in the last one or two hundred years that the owner wants to wipe out, I'm all for his right to do it.
Take a picture and move on. It's about looking forward - it's about progress!
If someone admires a particular architectural style, they should recreate it in their own backyard - not force it upon their neighbor.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...01207&t=h&z=20
Wow, has anyone looked at the other houses around this one? Someone has their own private baseball diamond. Another person has their own private par 3 golf hole. Lots of swimming pools and tennis courts also. Boy, that's some neighborhood.
Nightmare? My heart bleeds for billionaires and their troubles.
True, I'd trade my own troubles for his in this regard any day.
There HAS to be a great spot he could built a new home, that he won't have to deal with this bullshiet!
It's not that he'll be giving in, it's just that sometimes it's time to get on. I think we would all agree, he has more then enough on his mind, to not have to deal with this!
I'd love to think it's not "I'm Steve Jobs" and damn it, this is what I want, and I'm not backing down or giving up! It is after-all, just a piece of land ? go get another chuck somewhere else?
Hell, sell it to the folks that want to preserve it, for say ? $2.5 million dollars. When they can't write the check, say "Oh well, I gave you a chance"!
Skip
No, and I am insulted that you would try to paint me this way.
There is a significant difference between:
1. I'm knocking down this piece of crap house and building something modern for my family.
and
2. I am dumping this oil into my creek because I like how it shimmers in the sunlight, forget that it kills everything downstream.
Oh, I see. If you personally approve of the regulation, it's okay. Otherwise it isn't. And naturally you get to decide this for every state and local government. Get back to me when you are God.
Oh, I see. If you personally approve of the regulation, it's okay. Otherwise it isn't. And naturally you get to decide this for every state and local government. Get back to me when you are God.
How does your response make the least bit of sense or are you so blind with rage that I, and most of us here, don't give a crap about the architectural style George Washington Smith preferred that you don't see that you're making no sense? Or are you beginning to agree and is that scaring you?
Even the least educated man could upon a glance understand that what I was communicating is that one should be able to do as they wish with their property so long as they are not harming the property of another. That would be a violation of another's property rights!
Why would you have it any other way?
Hell, sell it to the folks that want to preserve it, for say ? $2.5 million dollars. When they can't write the check, say "Oh well, I gave you a chance"!
The huge irony is that if he hadn't deliberately allowed the house to fall into ruin, it would be worth far, far more than $2.5 million to a whole lot of people. Even in its current state it would be. Houses by George Washington Smith are rare and desirable. They sell for premiums. It was never an issue of whether anyone else would have wanted the property. Jobs never offered it for sale.
How does your response make the least bit of sense or are you so blind with rage that I don't give a crap about the architectural style George Washington Smith preferred that you don't see that you're making no sense?
Even the least educated man could upon a glance understand that what I was communicating is that one should be able to do as they wish with their property so long as they are not harming the property of another.
Why would you have it any other way?
Just answer the question. It's a simple one.
The huge irony is that if he hadn't deliberately allowed the house to fall into ruin, it would be worth far, far more than $2.5 million to a whole lot of people. Even in its current state it would be. Houses by George Washington Smith are rare and desirable. They sell for premiums. It was never an issue of whether anyone else would have wanted the property. Jobs never offered it for sale.
Because he doesn't want to sell.