You posed none new. Perhaps one should question your reading comprehension if you can't understand that I've already answered the question previous? Do you not recall the word "No" beginning the comment that followed?
... 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"!
Not to pick on you guys specifically because there are always several comments of this type when the subject comes up, but in Steve Jobs' defence, the idea that he should "give it to someone else" to preserve, "find somewhere else" to live or build etc. and the worth of the house as a historical monument have been poured over for years and so far:
- no one else wants it at any price
- no one else seems interested in "saving it"
- no one wants to move it to another lot.
In short, no one wants to have much of anything to do with it and hasn't for many years now, except the actual owner, Steve Jobs. He actually had (one) deal going with some guy who was interested in moving the house to another lot (he would get it for free typically in a scenario like that), and thus save it, but after several years he couldn't get the wherewithal together to do it. Perhaps there are facts we don't know, but on the surface of it Jobs has already done the "try to give it away" and "try to save it" thing for years. No one seems to want this thing.
Some of the fixtures are pretty neat, but overall, it's a rather tacky and tasteless design (famous or not). It looks like something that belongs in an old Western TV show or a Playboy mansion special. I find it highly ironic that this piece of collapsing gaudy nonsense has been the bane of Steve Jobs, one of the main arbiters of good taste for so long.
Let the guy who doesn't realize when a question has been answered take the floor and rant on about how we don't understand how violating property rights to preserve a random old building is for the greater good of all humanity.
Here's my original April '09 comment on the subject:
"Uphold Our Heritage"
Oh God, how I can't begin to comprehend these type of organizations. In the 200,000 years of human existence, or even just the few thousand we have "recorded", to suggest something made in the last 100 is worthy of preservation - that it deserves the same effort as the pyramids of Giza, is nuts.
That's the appropriate catch-all word for that type of thinking, nuts. They're crazy, certifiable!
We have books, photographs and museums. Our towns and cities cannot fall to eras long over, they must rise to today! Or should we take out some more forest instead? For heaven's sakes, just let the man have his house!
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"!
Not to pick on you guys specifically because there are always several comments of this type when the subject comes up, but in Steve Jobs' defence, the idea that he should "give it to someone else" to preserve, "find somewhere else" to live or build etc. and the worth of the house as a historical monument have been poured over for years and so far:
- no one else wants it at any price
- no one else seems interested in "saving it"
- no one wants to move it to another lot.
In short, no one wants to have much of anything to do with it and hasn't for many years now, except the actual owner, Steve Jobs. He actually had (one) deal going with some guy who was interested in moving the house to another lot (he would get it for free typically in a scenario like that), and thus save it, but after several years he couldn't get the wherewithal together to do it. Perhaps there are facts we don't know, but on the surface of it Jobs has already done the "try to give it away" and "try to save it" thing for years. No one seems to want this thing.
Some of the fixtures are pretty neat, but overall, it's a rather tacky and tasteless design (famous or not). It looks like something that belongs in an old Western TV show or a Playboy mansion special. I find it highly ironic that this piece of collapsing gaudy nonsense has been the bane of Steve Jobs, one of the main arbiters of good taste for so long.
Most of this is factually incorrect. It is not correct that nobody wants it for any price. It hasn't been for sale, so we don't know what it would be worth on the open market. An organization dedicated to saving it has been formed, so obviously the second statement is untrue. Moving a 25,000 square foot house is a virtual impossibility. Moving one 1/10 that size is hard enough. So that's a red herring argument.
Your final paragraph is pure baloney. The architectural significance of the house in not in dispute. I don't know why this is difficult for some to fathom, but significance is not a function of how you "feel" about something -- and not especially when you know nothing about it but what you feel. Try applying that argument to anything else and see how far you get.
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.
Not necessarily true. I myself bought and live in an 1895 Victorian-style home that I put a lot of money and resources to restore. I've even had permission to demolish it as it was a wreck. I appreciated the architecture of the time and decided for myself (and my neighborhood) to do what I can to restore it.
That being said, another owner up the street with another Victorian after years of fighting with the city, finally got permission to demolish the place. I'm sure before the ink was dry on the papers, the owner had a crew come and basically implode it. I was a happy camper to see that eyesore go down. It truly did not deserve to be saved.
Based on photos of SJ's house, he should be allowed to demolish it. Whether on purpose or not, it's an eyesore. As much as I care about history, it's a white elepehant and no person in their right mind would want to spend the kind of money it would take to restore that home. It's ugly (yes it is), and in time, the continued neglect will take care of it.
It's not vandalism as you say it is. You are so over-glorifying your cause. Some houses should get a second chance. This one is not one of them. Move along now. I'll swing the first wrecking-ball if asked and have a fun time doing it.
What are they going to do, arrest him? Give me a break. At most, he'd be fined. I say... tear it down and feign mock horror.
This thing is still in court so it's not a good idea to piss off the judge. The reality is, once the judge is satisfied that all the previously established requirements are fulfilled, he gets to demolish the house. No reason for him to do anything stupider than he's already done for the last several years, where this house is concerned. Not especially when he's so close to getting his way.
Not necessarily true. I myself bought and live in an 1895 Victorian-style home that I put a lot of money and resources to restore. I've even had permission to demolish it as it was a wreck. I appreciated the architecture of the time and decided for myself (and my neighborhood) to do what I can to restore it.
That being said, another owner up the street with another Victorian after years of fighting with the city, finally got permission to demolish the place. I'm sure before the ink was dry on the papers, the owner had a crew come and basically implode it. I was a happy camper to see that eyesore go down. It truly did not deserve to be saved.
Based on photos of SJ's house, he should be allowed to demolish it. Whether on purpose or not, it's an eyesore. As much as I care about history, it's a white elepehant and no person in their right mind would want to spend the kind of money it would take to restore that home. It's ugly (yes it is), and in time, the continued neglect will take care of it.
It's not vandalism as you say it is. You are so over-glorifying your cause. Some houses should get a second chance. This one is not one of them. Move along now. I'll swing the first wrecking-ball if asked and have a fun time doing it.
It's true, unless you believe that compliance with land use regulations should be voluntary, or maybe that nobody should be required to preserve a building that you don't personally like. If that's not the argument you are making, then I honestly don't know what it is.
The reality is that every community gets to decide on their land use regulations, including historic preservation. That's the way it works in this country anyway.
Really? Are you an expert on these matters? Do you have any knowledge about them whatsoever?
This is not nothing more than a few so-called preservationists trying to save that which is not salvageable. Jobs already said he would sell the bloody place, and these so-called preservationists have had more than enough time to save this supposed example of lacking architecture. What they could not achieve is enough funds to do their bidding (Jackling would be ashamed that there were none among them who could strip the earth in an unconscionable means as he to make their fortune). Jobs could well rebuild with a residence worthy of being called architecture.
This is not nothing more than a few so-called preservationists trying to save that which is not salvageable. Jobs already said he would sell the bloody place, and these so-called preservationists have had more than enough time to save this supposed example of lacking architecture. What they could not achieve is enough funds to do their bidding (Jackling would be ashamed that there were none among them who could strip the earth in an unconscionable means as he to make their fortune). Jobs could well rebuild with a residence worthy of being called architecture.
Really? How do you know this? Are you an expert on these matters? Do you know anything about them whatsoever?
Jobs never offered to sell this property, so you are wrong on the facts. The architectural significance is not in dispute, so you are wrong on the facts.
Sigh. I guess one doesn't have to know anything at all about a subject to have an opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREB
Man, are you lost. This country has rarely, if ever, worked the way it should. There is sooooo much more that California can take pride in preserving.
A generic critique of nothing in particular and everything in general. But if makes you happy, I will note how "lost" I am.
It's true, unless you believe that compliance with land use regulations should be voluntary, or maybe that nobody should be required to preserve a building that you don't personally like. If that's not the argument you are making, then I honestly don't know what it is.
The reality is that every community gets to decide on their land use regulations, including historic preservation. That's the way it works in this country anyway.
My belief is that you live in some suburbia cookie-cutter house lacking of any true charm and historical significance. You feel that this is your way of making a statement about someone else's house and their significance to architecture. I'm certainly not an expert in the field of historical preservation. However my entire lifetime of living an a city surrounded in history and architecture, including the fact I happen to live in a beautifully self-restored victorian does grant me a little bit of leeway to say - you are wrong. That house needs to go. It is as simple as that. No one wants it, it's been offered. No takers. I say let it fall, no love lost. It's ridiculous it went this far.
My belief is that you live in some suburbia cookie-cutter house lacking of any true charm and historical significance. You feel that this is your way of making a statement about someone else's house and their significance to architecture. I'm certainly not an expert in the field of historical preservation. However my entire lifetime of living an a city surrounded in history and architecture, including the fact I happen to live in a beautifully self-restored victorian does grant me a little bit of leeway to say - you are wrong. That house needs to go. It is as simple as that. No one wants it, it's been offered. No takers. I say let it fall, no love lost. It's ridiculous it went this far.
So, now you know where I live, and in what kind of house? Amazing. Simply amazing. Let me ask you this: does this sort of undiluted hokum justify your opinions? Is it better than knowing and understanding facts? Just wondering, because I can see how well it seems to work for you.
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.
First, any architect can produce a dog - even GWS. It's the owners view that is important in rating the quality of the design. It Jobs' house was that great in terms of designing for day-to-day living then he would simply upgrade it.
The simple fact is that it isn't a good design for the owner. The owner lived there for years then gave up. Rented it out, for goodness sake!
I believe that Steve Jobs has every right to replace the house on his property. He was kind enough to offer it to anyone free - as long as they trucked it off. I'm sure he'll let the lovers of old, great stuff to come in and take the bits they want, All the wrought iron and tiles you can carry can be yours.
But at some point it has to be his property.
And, knowing Jobs, there will probably be more focus on the design than there was in the old house. And in 50 years the preservationists will be screaming to save it. Especially if the family donates it to them.
First, any architect can produce a dog - even GWS. It's the owners view that is important in rating the quality of the design. It Jobs' house was that great in terms of designing for day-to-day living then he would simply upgrade it.
The simple fact is that it isn't a good design for the owner. The owner lived there for years then gave up. Rented it out, for goodness sake!
I believe that Steve Jobs has every right to replace the house on his property. He was kind enough to offer it to anyone free - as long as they trucked it off. I'm sure he'll let the lovers of old, great stuff to come in and take the bits they want, All the wrought iron and tiles you can carry can be yours.
But at some point it has to be his property.
And, knowing Jobs, there will probably be more focus on the design than there was in the old house. And in 50 years the preservationists will be screaming to save it. Especially if the family donates it to them.
On what basis are you saying that this building is a "dog?" Do you actually know something about historic architecture, George Washington Smith, and this house -- or are you just spouting off (like so many in this thread)?
For the third time (at least), the significance of the property is not in dispute. Not, as in not.
And again, offering a 25,000 square foot house for moving is a red herring. It's a virtually impossible task. He might as well have offered to allow Scotty to beam it up to the Enterprise.
Finally (one would hope) it is perfectly legal and acceptable for communities to require the preservation historic buildings. It is also very common. I can't get a handle on why some think the world should change just because Steve Jobs happens to be involved. I mean, we know that's what Steve believes, but come on...
Comments
Just answer the question. It's a simple one.
You posed none new. Perhaps one should question your reading comprehension if you can't understand that I've already answered the question previous? Do you not recall the word "No" beginning the comment that followed?
You posed none.
Yes, I did, a very simple and straight-forward question -- but you talked around it. I'll give you one more chance.
You seem to be telling us that only land use and environmental regulations with which you agree are moral. Yes or no?
... 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"!
Not to pick on you guys specifically because there are always several comments of this type when the subject comes up, but in Steve Jobs' defence, the idea that he should "give it to someone else" to preserve, "find somewhere else" to live or build etc. and the worth of the house as a historical monument have been poured over for years and so far:
- no one else wants it at any price
- no one else seems interested in "saving it"
- no one wants to move it to another lot.
In short, no one wants to have much of anything to do with it and hasn't for many years now, except the actual owner, Steve Jobs. He actually had (one) deal going with some guy who was interested in moving the house to another lot (he would get it for free typically in a scenario like that), and thus save it, but after several years he couldn't get the wherewithal together to do it. Perhaps there are facts we don't know, but on the surface of it Jobs has already done the "try to give it away" and "try to save it" thing for years. No one seems to want this thing.
Some of the fixtures are pretty neat, but overall, it's a rather tacky and tasteless design (famous or not). It looks like something that belongs in an old Western TV show or a Playboy mansion special. I find it highly ironic that this piece of collapsing gaudy nonsense has been the bane of Steve Jobs, one of the main arbiters of good taste for so long.
Let the guy who doesn't realize when a question has been answered take the floor and rant on about how we don't understand how violating property rights to preserve a random old building is for the greater good of all humanity.
Here's my original April '09 comment on the subject:
"Uphold Our Heritage"
Oh God, how I can't begin to comprehend these type of organizations. In the 200,000 years of human existence, or even just the few thousand we have "recorded", to suggest something made in the last 100 is worthy of preservation - that it deserves the same effort as the pyramids of Giza, is nuts.
That's the appropriate catch-all word for that type of thinking, nuts. They're crazy, certifiable!
We have books, photographs and museums. Our towns and cities cannot fall to eras long over, they must rise to today! Or should we take out some more forest instead? For heaven's sakes, just let the man have his house!
AND FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO DO!
EVER TRY HELPING CHILDREN READ?
Yes, I did, a very simple and straight-forward question -- but you talked around it. I'll give you one more chance.
You seem to be telling us that only land use and environmental regulations with which you agree are moral. Yes or no?
No, I didn't talk around it. I answered.
Everyone else will see.
Have a nice day.
Buh-bye.
Sometimes it's not worth the trouble.
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
I would pay $3.5 million and tear it down!
Not to pick on you guys specifically because there are always several comments of this type when the subject comes up, but in Steve Jobs' defence, the idea that he should "give it to someone else" to preserve, "find somewhere else" to live or build etc. and the worth of the house as a historical monument have been poured over for years and so far:
- no one else wants it at any price
- no one else seems interested in "saving it"
- no one wants to move it to another lot.
In short, no one wants to have much of anything to do with it and hasn't for many years now, except the actual owner, Steve Jobs. He actually had (one) deal going with some guy who was interested in moving the house to another lot (he would get it for free typically in a scenario like that), and thus save it, but after several years he couldn't get the wherewithal together to do it. Perhaps there are facts we don't know, but on the surface of it Jobs has already done the "try to give it away" and "try to save it" thing for years. No one seems to want this thing.
Some of the fixtures are pretty neat, but overall, it's a rather tacky and tasteless design (famous or not). It looks like something that belongs in an old Western TV show or a Playboy mansion special. I find it highly ironic that this piece of collapsing gaudy nonsense has been the bane of Steve Jobs, one of the main arbiters of good taste for so long.
Most of this is factually incorrect. It is not correct that nobody wants it for any price. It hasn't been for sale, so we don't know what it would be worth on the open market. An organization dedicated to saving it has been formed, so obviously the second statement is untrue. Moving a 25,000 square foot house is a virtual impossibility. Moving one 1/10 that size is hard enough. So that's a red herring argument.
Your final paragraph is pure baloney. The architectural significance of the house in not in dispute. I don't know why this is difficult for some to fathom, but significance is not a function of how you "feel" about something -- and not especially when you know nothing about it but what you feel. Try applying that argument to anything else and see how far you get.
Now, there's some really dumb advice.
What are they going to do, arrest him? Give me a break. At most, he'd be fined. I say... tear it down and feign mock horror.
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.
Not necessarily true. I myself bought and live in an 1895 Victorian-style home that I put a lot of money and resources to restore. I've even had permission to demolish it as it was a wreck. I appreciated the architecture of the time and decided for myself (and my neighborhood) to do what I can to restore it.
That being said, another owner up the street with another Victorian after years of fighting with the city, finally got permission to demolish the place. I'm sure before the ink was dry on the papers, the owner had a crew come and basically implode it. I was a happy camper to see that eyesore go down. It truly did not deserve to be saved.
Based on photos of SJ's house, he should be allowed to demolish it. Whether on purpose or not, it's an eyesore. As much as I care about history, it's a white elepehant and no person in their right mind would want to spend the kind of money it would take to restore that home. It's ugly (yes it is), and in time, the continued neglect will take care of it.
It's not vandalism as you say it is. You are so over-glorifying your cause. Some houses should get a second chance. This one is not one of them. Move along now. I'll swing the first wrecking-ball if asked and have a fun time doing it.
What are they going to do, arrest him? Give me a break. At most, he'd be fined. I say... tear it down and feign mock horror.
This thing is still in court so it's not a good idea to piss off the judge. The reality is, once the judge is satisfied that all the previously established requirements are fulfilled, he gets to demolish the house. No reason for him to do anything stupider than he's already done for the last several years, where this house is concerned. Not especially when he's so close to getting his way.
Not necessarily true. I myself bought and live in an 1895 Victorian-style home that I put a lot of money and resources to restore. I've even had permission to demolish it as it was a wreck. I appreciated the architecture of the time and decided for myself (and my neighborhood) to do what I can to restore it.
That being said, another owner up the street with another Victorian after years of fighting with the city, finally got permission to demolish the place. I'm sure before the ink was dry on the papers, the owner had a crew come and basically implode it. I was a happy camper to see that eyesore go down. It truly did not deserve to be saved.
Based on photos of SJ's house, he should be allowed to demolish it. Whether on purpose or not, it's an eyesore. As much as I care about history, it's a white elepehant and no person in their right mind would want to spend the kind of money it would take to restore that home. It's ugly (yes it is), and in time, the continued neglect will take care of it.
It's not vandalism as you say it is. You are so over-glorifying your cause. Some houses should get a second chance. This one is not one of them. Move along now. I'll swing the first wrecking-ball if asked and have a fun time doing it.
It's true, unless you believe that compliance with land use regulations should be voluntary, or maybe that nobody should be required to preserve a building that you don't personally like. If that's not the argument you are making, then I honestly don't know what it is.
The reality is that every community gets to decide on their land use regulations, including historic preservation. That's the way it works in this country anyway.
Really? Are you an expert on these matters? Do you have any knowledge about them whatsoever?
This is not nothing more than a few so-called preservationists trying to save that which is not salvageable. Jobs already said he would sell the bloody place, and these so-called preservationists have had more than enough time to save this supposed example of lacking architecture. What they could not achieve is enough funds to do their bidding (Jackling would be ashamed that there were none among them who could strip the earth in an unconscionable means as he to make their fortune). Jobs could well rebuild with a residence worthy of being called architecture.
That's the way it works in this country anyway.
Man, are you lost. This country has rarely, if ever, worked the way it should. There is sooooo much more that California can take pride in preserving.
Nothing five gallons of gas and a match wouldn't cure!
You seem to have insight in the subject of burning houses...
This is not nothing more than a few so-called preservationists trying to save that which is not salvageable. Jobs already said he would sell the bloody place, and these so-called preservationists have had more than enough time to save this supposed example of lacking architecture. What they could not achieve is enough funds to do their bidding (Jackling would be ashamed that there were none among them who could strip the earth in an unconscionable means as he to make their fortune). Jobs could well rebuild with a residence worthy of being called architecture.
Really? How do you know this? Are you an expert on these matters? Do you know anything about them whatsoever?
Jobs never offered to sell this property, so you are wrong on the facts. The architectural significance is not in dispute, so you are wrong on the facts.
Sigh. I guess one doesn't have to know anything at all about a subject to have an opinion
Man, are you lost. This country has rarely, if ever, worked the way it should. There is sooooo much more that California can take pride in preserving.
A generic critique of nothing in particular and everything in general. But if makes you happy, I will note how "lost" I am.
It's true, unless you believe that compliance with land use regulations should be voluntary, or maybe that nobody should be required to preserve a building that you don't personally like. If that's not the argument you are making, then I honestly don't know what it is.
The reality is that every community gets to decide on their land use regulations, including historic preservation. That's the way it works in this country anyway.
My belief is that you live in some suburbia cookie-cutter house lacking of any true charm and historical significance. You feel that this is your way of making a statement about someone else's house and their significance to architecture. I'm certainly not an expert in the field of historical preservation. However my entire lifetime of living an a city surrounded in history and architecture, including the fact I happen to live in a beautifully self-restored victorian does grant me a little bit of leeway to say - you are wrong. That house needs to go. It is as simple as that. No one wants it, it's been offered. No takers. I say let it fall, no love lost. It's ridiculous it went this far.
My belief is that you live in some suburbia cookie-cutter house lacking of any true charm and historical significance. You feel that this is your way of making a statement about someone else's house and their significance to architecture. I'm certainly not an expert in the field of historical preservation. However my entire lifetime of living an a city surrounded in history and architecture, including the fact I happen to live in a beautifully self-restored victorian does grant me a little bit of leeway to say - you are wrong. That house needs to go. It is as simple as that. No one wants it, it's been offered. No takers. I say let it fall, no love lost. It's ridiculous it went this far.
So, now you know where I live, and in what kind of house? Amazing. Simply amazing. Let me ask you this: does this sort of undiluted hokum justify your opinions? Is it better than knowing and understanding facts? Just wondering, because I can see how well it seems to work for you.
It's as simple as that! Who knew?
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.
First, any architect can produce a dog - even GWS. It's the owners view that is important in rating the quality of the design. It Jobs' house was that great in terms of designing for day-to-day living then he would simply upgrade it.
The simple fact is that it isn't a good design for the owner. The owner lived there for years then gave up. Rented it out, for goodness sake!
I believe that Steve Jobs has every right to replace the house on his property. He was kind enough to offer it to anyone free - as long as they trucked it off. I'm sure he'll let the lovers of old, great stuff to come in and take the bits they want, All the wrought iron and tiles you can carry can be yours.
But at some point it has to be his property.
And, knowing Jobs, there will probably be more focus on the design than there was in the old house. And in 50 years the preservationists will be screaming to save it. Especially if the family donates it to them.
First, any architect can produce a dog - even GWS. It's the owners view that is important in rating the quality of the design. It Jobs' house was that great in terms of designing for day-to-day living then he would simply upgrade it.
The simple fact is that it isn't a good design for the owner. The owner lived there for years then gave up. Rented it out, for goodness sake!
I believe that Steve Jobs has every right to replace the house on his property. He was kind enough to offer it to anyone free - as long as they trucked it off. I'm sure he'll let the lovers of old, great stuff to come in and take the bits they want, All the wrought iron and tiles you can carry can be yours.
But at some point it has to be his property.
And, knowing Jobs, there will probably be more focus on the design than there was in the old house. And in 50 years the preservationists will be screaming to save it. Especially if the family donates it to them.
On what basis are you saying that this building is a "dog?" Do you actually know something about historic architecture, George Washington Smith, and this house -- or are you just spouting off (like so many in this thread)?
For the third time (at least), the significance of the property is not in dispute. Not, as in not.
And again, offering a 25,000 square foot house for moving is a red herring. It's a virtually impossible task. He might as well have offered to allow Scotty to beam it up to the Enterprise.
Finally (one would hope) it is perfectly legal and acceptable for communities to require the preservation historic buildings. It is also very common. I can't get a handle on why some think the world should change just because Steve Jobs happens to be involved. I mean, we know that's what Steve believes, but come on...