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...
It's simple. Jobs paid for it, it's his and he must be allowed to do with it what he wishes. Just because intrusive neighbors and/or hysterical historical societies are able to petition the courts in a shameless attempt to manipulate Jobs into ponying up funds to do something he doesn't want to do... does not make it right!
It's simple. Jobs paid for it, it's his and he must be allowed to do with it what he wishes. Just because intrusive neighbors and/or hysterical historical societies are able to petition the courts in a shameless attempt to manipulate Jobs into ponying up funds to do something he doesn't want to do... does not make it right!
Really? So, what other land use regulations are wrong, for no other reason than you don't approve of them? If this one bugs you so much, I'm sure you must have a long list of others.
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.
Jobs want's the land and location, being its on top of the hill in a very desirable area.
He had someone that was willing to come take the house, but he died in a plane accident (I think it was Steve Fosset, the timing was very close).
There was also a crackpot lady from NC that wanted to live in the house and demo it herself from the inside and ship the pieces off.
Note: I'm not with the hysterical society, just read some of the notes from the city meetings on the subject.
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.
The value in the house is in who owns it. He has offered to give it to the preservation groups for the cost of moving it and they couldn't come up with the cash.
Case closed. Put your money where your mouth is. If it's that important, buy it and move it.
Otherwise it's jut another group of busybodies trying to dictate what someone can do with his/her property.
the significance of the property is not in dispute. Not, as in not.
Just because you say it isn't in dispute doesn't magically make it true
The last time this issue came up, there were several articles referenced where experts called it a poor example.
I've dealt with hysterical societies in the past - many times they can do good work, but every once in a while they run amok. That's exactly what is going on with this house.
I hope if he hasn't already, he does the last little things that are required and then demolishes it - if nothing else to just shut people up about it.
If this one bugs you so much, I'm sure you must have a long list of others.
Wow, for a guy who berates others saying, quote: "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......" unquote, you might well be accused of doing the same thing.
It's obvious that you know something about, and care deeply about the work of some guy called George Washington Smith, but please give it a break. Or, explain to the rest of us heathens why this guy's work is so worth preserving.
There was no question mark, only a rude quip that wraithofwonder is acting as God, when you made a very lame and arrogant argument that someone building a new home after tearing down a previous house is akin to dumping toxic waste into the river.
You should talk about God, seeing as how you: 1. want to tell someone else what they can do with their property, that 2. does not harm the environment, and 3. insult people on this board after they call you out on your arguments and point out the flaws in your thinking and how arrogant and immoral your arguments are.
Come back when you have evidence that Steve Jobs wants to dump toxic waste into the water from his property.
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?
It was a bullshit question by a bullshit poster. Reductio ad Absurdum is no more valid here than anywhere else.
Besides...Spanish freaking revival isn't that big a deal. It's one minor period style that was mostly limited to the Southwest in a period where modernism hadn't completely beaten "inspirations from the past" into the ground yet.
The Steedman House is there as a museum anyway. It's not like the Jackling house is all that significant as the last of it's kind or something.
There was no question mark, only a rude quip that wraithofwonder is acting as God, when you made a very lame and arrogant argument that someone building a new home after tearing down a previous house is akin to dumping toxic waste into the river.
Reread. That was his analogy, not mine. I thought it was a ridiculous analogy.
Quote:
You should talk about God, seeing as how you: 1. want to tell someone else what they can do with their property, that 2. does not harm the environment, and 3. insult people on this board after they call you out on your arguments and point out the flaws in your thinking and how arrogant and immoral your arguments are.
Reread. Land use regulations tell people what they can do with their property in many and various ways, and they do it in virtually every square inch of the county. I have to be surprised when people don't seem to know that. So in reality (sorry for imposing reality), people are constantly being told "what they can do with their property" in a whole variety of ways. So the exception in this case, is...? I've been trying to find out where people who seem to distain the entire concept of historic preservation draw the line on land use regulations, with a notable lack of success. It's not a confusing question, or so I would have thought.
Quote:
Come back when you have evidence that Steve Jobs wants to dump toxic waste into the water from his property.
Otherwise go troll somewhere else.
Sigh. It's always slightly depressing to be essentially the only person in a thread with actual knowledge of a situation, and is stating actual facts instead of how they "feel," and have someone drop the "t" word.
Sigh.
BTW, if anyone has the idea that they can disprove the significance of George Washington Smith, the old phrase "Google is your friend" comes to mind.
Which is it? Save an inefficient, old building that no one can see unless they are invited to come take a look at it (you cannot see the house from the end of the Cul-De-Sac.) Or build a more environmentally friendly, efficient building that will have a much smaller carbon footprint?
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.
Why pay for upkeep on a building you intend to tear down? And how do you know he didn't offer it for sale, I've read the affidavits that have offered the house moved, in each case the person looking to buy the house wanted Mr. Jobs to put forth over 75% of the cost.
I hate when people tell others what to do with their money.
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...
Then I guess it is a good thing this house is 17,200 Square Feet and not 25,000, must have been a huge miracle the London Bridge was moved to Arizona.
I would agree that the community has a right to protest tearing down a building because it doesn't fit the vernacular of the neighborhood, however, in this case, it is not the neighbors that are complaining, in fact, in that neighborhood you don't even see another house of the same style near by.
y depressing to be essentially the only person in a thread with actual knowledge of a situation, and is stating actual facts instead of how they "feel," and have someone drop the "t" word.
Sigh.
I'll use your own words to prove my point:
"Ah, so you are one of those people who believes that all land use and environmental regulations are immoral?"
"Land use, and historical preservation regulations": fine.
Bring up "environmentalism" to argue that someone cannot tear down an old inefficient environmentally unfriendly old building?: trolling.
Plus whether you know more than God (to use your own words) about this subject, you seem to have no respect for Job's property rights, and yes a lot of "historical preservation" regulations are bullshit. This is not a building open to the public, nor is it even visible to the public. Losing it only effects the owner and people he choses to invite onto his property.
You want to argue for preservations of buildings that the public can at least see and interact with? Fine, maybe you can make a case for that. You want to take the same rules and keep people from building on their own private residential property in an area where you can't even see the results without permission? Explain why this should happen.
The land underneath this very run down and ugly building is very valuable. The building itself is not. People who don't own the property are getting their jollies telling Jobs what to do with his property. It's about power and about abuse of it, not about preserving anything valuable. This happens all the time when people with no power are suddenly given some and abuse it. Nothing new to see here.
Leave Jobs alone, let him build his house already for the love of God.
Comments
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...
It's simple. Jobs paid for it, it's his and he must be allowed to do with it what he wishes. Just because intrusive neighbors and/or hysterical historical societies are able to petition the courts in a shameless attempt to manipulate Jobs into ponying up funds to do something he doesn't want to do... does not make it right!
It's simple. Jobs paid for it, it's his and he must be allowed to do with it what he wishes. Just because intrusive neighbors and/or hysterical historical societies are able to petition the courts in a shameless attempt to manipulate Jobs into ponying up funds to do something he doesn't want to do... does not make it right!
Really? So, what other land use regulations are wrong, for no other reason than you don't approve of them? If this one bugs you so much, I'm sure you must have a long list of others.
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.
Jobs want's the land and location, being its on top of the hill in a very desirable area.
He had someone that was willing to come take the house, but he died in a plane accident (I think it was Steve Fosset, the timing was very close).
There was also a crackpot lady from NC that wanted to live in the house and demo it herself from the inside and ship the pieces off.
Note: I'm not with the hysterical society, just read some of the notes from the city meetings on the subject.
...well, you know, it's Steve -- and he could never be a Philistine, or an arrogant jerk.
Not on this site, but I had this argument before elsewhere and cleverly added that last line in my post.
It's not like anything we say or do can change his mind about it anyway. shit's gonna happen.
if Steve wants to go down in history as the 'Antilla the Hun of historical houses', that's his choice obviously.
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.
The value in the house is in who owns it. He has offered to give it to the preservation groups for the cost of moving it and they couldn't come up with the cash.
Case closed. Put your money where your mouth is. If it's that important, buy it and move it.
Otherwise it's jut another group of busybodies trying to dictate what someone can do with his/her property.
An organization dedicated to saving it has been formed
A collection of busybodies who wish to dictate what others can do with their property.
If it was so valuable, where were these people when Steve bought it? Why weren't they there first?
the significance of the property is not in dispute. Not, as in not.
Just because you say it isn't in dispute doesn't magically make it true
The last time this issue came up, there were several articles referenced where experts called it a poor example.
I've dealt with hysterical societies in the past - many times they can do good work, but every once in a while they run amok. That's exactly what is going on with this house.
I hope if he hasn't already, he does the last little things that are required and then demolishes it - if nothing else to just shut people up about it.
If this one bugs you so much, I'm sure you must have a long list of others.
Wow, for a guy who berates others saying, quote: "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......" unquote, you might well be accused of doing the same thing.
It's obvious that you know something about, and care deeply about the work of some guy called George Washington Smith, but please give it a break. Or, explain to the rest of us heathens why this guy's work is so worth preserving.
SNIP...
Or, explain to the rest of us heathens why this guy's work is so worth preserving.
no. please. don't.
Just answer the question. It's a simple one.
There was no question mark, only a rude quip that wraithofwonder is acting as God, when you made a very lame and arrogant argument that someone building a new home after tearing down a previous house is akin to dumping toxic waste into the river.
You should talk about God, seeing as how you: 1. want to tell someone else what they can do with their property, that 2. does not harm the environment, and 3. insult people on this board after they call you out on your arguments and point out the flaws in your thinking and how arrogant and immoral your arguments are.
Come back when you have evidence that Steve Jobs wants to dump toxic waste into the water from his property.
Otherwise go troll somewhere else.
no. please. don't.
/signed.
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?
It was a bullshit question by a bullshit poster. Reductio ad Absurdum is no more valid here than anywhere else.
Besides...Spanish freaking revival isn't that big a deal. It's one minor period style that was mostly limited to the Southwest in a period where modernism hadn't completely beaten "inspirations from the past" into the ground yet.
The Steedman House is there as a museum anyway. It's not like the Jackling house is all that significant as the last of it's kind or something.
There was no question mark, only a rude quip that wraithofwonder is acting as God, when you made a very lame and arrogant argument that someone building a new home after tearing down a previous house is akin to dumping toxic waste into the river.
Reread. That was his analogy, not mine. I thought it was a ridiculous analogy.
You should talk about God, seeing as how you: 1. want to tell someone else what they can do with their property, that 2. does not harm the environment, and 3. insult people on this board after they call you out on your arguments and point out the flaws in your thinking and how arrogant and immoral your arguments are.
Reread. Land use regulations tell people what they can do with their property in many and various ways, and they do it in virtually every square inch of the county. I have to be surprised when people don't seem to know that. So in reality (sorry for imposing reality), people are constantly being told "what they can do with their property" in a whole variety of ways. So the exception in this case, is...? I've been trying to find out where people who seem to distain the entire concept of historic preservation draw the line on land use regulations, with a notable lack of success. It's not a confusing question, or so I would have thought.
Come back when you have evidence that Steve Jobs wants to dump toxic waste into the water from his property.
Otherwise go troll somewhere else.
Sigh. It's always slightly depressing to be essentially the only person in a thread with actual knowledge of a situation, and is stating actual facts instead of how they "feel," and have someone drop the "t" word.
Sigh.
BTW, if anyone has the idea that they can disprove the significance of George Washington Smith, the old phrase "Google is your friend" comes to mind.
Really? Are you an expert on these matters? Do you have any knowledge about them whatsoever?
Are you?
yeah, if you're twelve maybe.
Uh, no, I see business decisions made like this all the time from all over the place.
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.
Why pay for upkeep on a building you intend to tear down? And how do you know he didn't offer it for sale, I've read the affidavits that have offered the house moved, in each case the person looking to buy the house wanted Mr. Jobs to put forth over 75% of the cost.
I hate when people tell others what to do with their money.
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...
Then I guess it is a good thing this house is 17,200 Square Feet and not 25,000, must have been a huge miracle the London Bridge was moved to Arizona.
I would agree that the community has a right to protest tearing down a building because it doesn't fit the vernacular of the neighborhood, however, in this case, it is not the neighbors that are complaining, in fact, in that neighborhood you don't even see another house of the same style near by.
y depressing to be essentially the only person in a thread with actual knowledge of a situation, and is stating actual facts instead of how they "feel," and have someone drop the "t" word.
Sigh.
I'll use your own words to prove my point:
"Ah, so you are one of those people who believes that all land use and environmental regulations are immoral?"
"Land use, and historical preservation regulations": fine.
Bring up "environmentalism" to argue that someone cannot tear down an old inefficient environmentally unfriendly old building?: trolling.
Plus whether you know more than God (to use your own words) about this subject, you seem to have no respect for Job's property rights, and yes a lot of "historical preservation" regulations are bullshit. This is not a building open to the public, nor is it even visible to the public. Losing it only effects the owner and people he choses to invite onto his property.
You want to argue for preservations of buildings that the public can at least see and interact with? Fine, maybe you can make a case for that. You want to take the same rules and keep people from building on their own private residential property in an area where you can't even see the results without permission? Explain why this should happen.
The land underneath this very run down and ugly building is very valuable. The building itself is not. People who don't own the property are getting their jollies telling Jobs what to do with his property. It's about power and about abuse of it, not about preserving anything valuable. This happens all the time when people with no power are suddenly given some and abuse it. Nothing new to see here.
Leave Jobs alone, let him build his house already for the love of God.
Are you?
He is a self-proclaimed expert. On the internet.
Yah...that's really compelling.