To be charged with Breaking & Entering, there has to be some actual "breaking." Merely walking into an open house is trespass, but not B&E. If, as the photog claims, the doors were "wide open," then The Steve would have to sue him for trespass. No criminal act has been committed.
Anyhow, now he can claim historical record, get those photos archived and pull the house down.
He's right- that is an ugly-ass house! "Spanish Revivalism?" So some rich dude in the 20s built a house to look like a Spanish house- in California? It's not like JP Morgan guilt it in Massachusetts or something- it truly looks like shit. Let him demo the thing!
This house is as much Spanish Colonial Revival as Taco Bell, it has 13 bathrooms for crying out loud, not exactly what I could call a meritable representation of the style.
It seems to me that Steve really likes the location.
The preservationists want to save the building.
Deadlock.
So, why not dismantle the building and rebuild it somewhere the preservationists will be happy with . . . part of a theme park ghost ride maybe!
It might make some money there as "The House that Steve couldn't love".
After all, London Bridge was moved to America . . .
By moving the historic house it would leave a nice spot for Steve to build something that is actually cool. You'd figure that a great American visionary deserves to have some consideration
The London Bridge wasn't made of dilapidated wood and stucco. Moving a stone structure is much easier. I also only cost 9 million to move the London Bridge, this will cost far more.
I'm thinking Shigeru Ban would make a pretty good iHouse
Mies Van Der Rohe ripoff....this is an International Style building. Actually this style was prevelant during the 20's and 30's, ironically the time the current house was built that is sitting on the site now, and had this style house been built instead, I would have been in line fighting to save it.
Mies Van Der Rohe ripoff....this is an International Style building. Actually this style was prevelant during the 20's and 30's, ironically the time the current house was built that is sitting on the site now, and had this style house been built instead, I would have been in line fighting to save it.
I chose Ban because his use of materials and colour palette echos Apple's but actually you're right and that coincidental choice of house reinforces my earlier point; the construction of a never-realised Van Der Rohe design would have exactly the sort of architectural merit that the current monstrosity lacks.
Incidentally, I wouldn't say it's a rip-off. Ban is quite clear that it's a Van Der Rohe design on his site. I think it's more of a modern tribute, if anything. Rip-offs don't usually acknowledge their sources.
I chose Ban because his use of materials and colour palette echos Apple's but actually you're right and that coincidental choice of house reinforces my earlier point; the construction of a never-realised Van Der Rohe design would have exactly the sort of architectural merit that the current monstrosity lacks.
Incidentally, I wouldn't say it's a rip-off. Ban is quite clear that it's a Van Der Rohe design on his site. I think it's more of a modern tribute, if anything. Rip-offs don't usually acknowledge their sources.
Yeah, ripoff is a little harsh. Phillip Johnson's Glass house would work too. Actually, I'm sure the house he is building there is likely designed, I'm guessing it is probably pretty understated, and will likely surprise everyone on how much it probably won't look like an Apple Store.... and not the monstrosity of Xanadu 2.0
Hope you're not including the 5th avenue store that was turned down. I used to live 2 blocks from the location. They refused the designs... which were very understated, because it didn't "fit" in between to other buldings.
... limited knowledge. As an Architect (of European Nationality and having lived in the US for 10+ years) I would caution the overzealous posters wanting to tear down the building.
If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).
Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).
There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.
If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.
Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).
Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.
Were those restorations you did 17,000 square feet with structural problems in an Earthquake zone? Did those restorations cost in excess of 20 million dollars?
20 million dollars, no. Structural problems yes. Have you ever done a restoration yourself? Bet not. If Jobs didn't want to restore the home, he should have let someone who appreciates these old homes and let them do it! He's allowing the structure to fall apart so that it will need to be torn down. That's the problem with Americans... most have no pride in our history.
20 million dollars, no. Structural problems yes. Have you ever done a restoration yourself? Bet not. If Jobs didn't want to restore the home, he should have let someone who appreciates these old homes and let them do it! He's allowing the structure to fall apart so that it will need to be torn down. That's the problem with Americans... most have no pride in our history.
Uh, yeah..never, that architecture degree I have just hangs on the wall to cover a hole.
Currently working on a 50,000 sq ft. factory built in 1825. Where our office is relocating to.
He's letting the home fall apart because he got a demolition permit on it 8 years ago, why would you maintain a building that was suppossed to be gone by now. And he has had 3 offers for someone else to move/restore the house. All of which were not very serious if they want him to foot over 85% of the cost....
Building assesments have been made stating that the building has substantial structural damage due to earthquakes. Building would need to be brought up to current earthquake code. That cost alone is more than the total cost of his new building.
He's not interested in living in this style house. I don't blame him, he's wanting to build a more efficient 6,000 square foot house, almost 1/3 of the size of this one. Has anyone considered he just doesn't like the building? "He could sell it" people say, so far he's gotten 3 pathetic offers, so obviously he can't sell it.
... limited knowledge. As an Architect (of European Nationality and having lived in the US for 10+ years) I would caution the overzealous posters wanting to tear down the building.
If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).
Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).
There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.
If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.
Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).
Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.
Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)
Not to mention you just copied it from the post you put here yesterday.
First of all....THIS is no Eiffel Tower
Second of all....He's not looking to add to a legacy here, he just wants a house to live in.
Third...a contemporary addition to the building to serve as a museum? The area is not zoned for that, the site would not support the additional parking required, this place is located at the end of a meandering Cul-de-Sac, hardly a place to put such a thing, not to mention Steve Jobs is a very private individual, so having a public entity attached to his residence is just, well, crazy.
And why are we assuming what style building he's putting here?
This building has spent a third of its life in Steve Jobs's possesion, that IS the only historical significance it has. Spanish Colonial Revival from 1925 is actually a revival of a revival, basically it's hollywood, no more authentic than Pottery Barn, and doesn't hold true to the style anyway, the only impressive thing about the house is the fact it has 13 bathrooms.
1) Steve Sell it or give it away to the first person willing to buy or take it off your hands (moving it, so you can build there)
2) Have some contractors go in and give it a real good looks-see for a few days (and heck, leave that heater plugged in - who knows, maybe it will burn down)
3) Do what in hell you want with the building ; it's yours!
4) Sell it, move on, be the bigger man - not the one who HAS to get his way all of the time. Life is short, don't be a dick about it. Sometimes you just can't have it your way!
I'm sure it is one hell of a feeling, having folks bow to your every word and want, but come on now, at this rate that house will still be there, when you are dead and gone, then what did you accomplish?
It is, for all intensive purposes - just a house, and not even one you are living in?
Steve, you CAN afford a house ANYWHERE in the world, I can't believe this is the only place you want to live?
Comments
To be charged with Breaking & Entering, there has to be some actual "breaking." Merely walking into an open house is trespass, but not B&E. If, as the photog claims, the doors were "wide open," then The Steve would have to sue him for trespass. No criminal act has been committed.
Anyhow, now he can claim historical record, get those photos archived and pull the house down.
He's right- that is an ugly-ass house! "Spanish Revivalism?" So some rich dude in the 20s built a house to look like a Spanish house- in California? It's not like JP Morgan guilt it in Massachusetts or something- it truly looks like shit. Let him demo the thing!
This house is as much Spanish Colonial Revival as Taco Bell, it has 13 bathrooms for crying out loud, not exactly what I could call a meritable representation of the style.
Anyhow, now he can claim historical record, get those photos archived and pull the house down.
Actually, the guy was tresspassing and could be prosecuted.
And..
A Theater Organ?!!
Nice photos Jonathan!
It seems to me that Steve really likes the location.
The preservationists want to save the building.
Deadlock.
So, why not dismantle the building and rebuild it somewhere the preservationists will be happy with . . . part of a theme park ghost ride maybe!
It might make some money there as "The House that Steve couldn't love".
After all, London Bridge was moved to America . . .
By moving the historic house it would leave a nice spot for Steve to build something that is actually cool. You'd figure that a great American visionary deserves to have some consideration
for all his endeavours.
Just a thought
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
[/QUOTE]
The London Bridge wasn't made of dilapidated wood and stucco. Moving a stone structure is much easier. I also only cost 9 million to move the London Bridge, this will cost far more.
Look at all those facades. Steve Jobs must really hate that sh*t.
Is that Godfather tape his? I thought part 2 was roundly despised. Maybe that is his sense of humor, i.e. the movie fits the house.
The house was rented to someone else for years, and it is Part III that is the bad one...not Part II.
This brings up the question what the architecture of the new place would be like? Glass and metal like the Apple stores
I'm thinking Shigeru Ban would make a pretty good iHouse
I'm thinking Shigeru Ban would make a pretty good iHouse
Mies Van Der Rohe ripoff....this is an International Style building. Actually this style was prevelant during the 20's and 30's, ironically the time the current house was built that is sitting on the site now, and had this style house been built instead, I would have been in line fighting to save it.
Mies Van Der Rohe ripoff....this is an International Style building. Actually this style was prevelant during the 20's and 30's, ironically the time the current house was built that is sitting on the site now, and had this style house been built instead, I would have been in line fighting to save it.
I chose Ban because his use of materials and colour palette echos Apple's but actually you're right and that coincidental choice of house reinforces my earlier point; the construction of a never-realised Van Der Rohe design would have exactly the sort of architectural merit that the current monstrosity lacks.
Incidentally, I wouldn't say it's a rip-off. Ban is quite clear that it's a Van Der Rohe design on his site. I think it's more of a modern tribute, if anything. Rip-offs don't usually acknowledge their sources.
I chose Ban because his use of materials and colour palette echos Apple's but actually you're right and that coincidental choice of house reinforces my earlier point; the construction of a never-realised Van Der Rohe design would have exactly the sort of architectural merit that the current monstrosity lacks.
Incidentally, I wouldn't say it's a rip-off. Ban is quite clear that it's a Van Der Rohe design on his site. I think it's more of a modern tribute, if anything. Rip-offs don't usually acknowledge their sources.
Yeah, ripoff is a little harsh. Phillip Johnson's Glass house would work too. Actually, I'm sure the house he is building there is likely designed, I'm guessing it is probably pretty understated, and will likely surprise everyone on how much it probably won't look like an Apple Store.... and not the monstrosity of Xanadu 2.0
The house is falling apart but it still has a pretty damn nice lawn (4th pic down)....
I can see some idiot trying to sell Steve's videotape on ebay...and some idiot would probably buy it....
Like Apple telling you not to jailbreak your iPhone?
Top post on AI.
If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).
Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).
There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.
If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.
Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).
Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.
A current example in Europe:
http://www.architekten24.de/mediadb/news/9664/index.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Liebeskind.jpg
Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)
Were those restorations you did 17,000 square feet with structural problems in an Earthquake zone? Did those restorations cost in excess of 20 million dollars?
20 million dollars, no. Structural problems yes. Have you ever done a restoration yourself? Bet not. If Jobs didn't want to restore the home, he should have let someone who appreciates these old homes and let them do it! He's allowing the structure to fall apart so that it will need to be torn down. That's the problem with Americans... most have no pride in our history.
20 million dollars, no. Structural problems yes. Have you ever done a restoration yourself? Bet not. If Jobs didn't want to restore the home, he should have let someone who appreciates these old homes and let them do it! He's allowing the structure to fall apart so that it will need to be torn down. That's the problem with Americans... most have no pride in our history.
Uh, yeah..never, that architecture degree I have just hangs on the wall to cover a hole.
Here's a couple.
http://www.shp.com/portfolio/project...7§ion_id=2
http://www.shp.com/portfolio/project...0§ion_id=2
Worked on this:
http://www.darwinmartinhouse.org/
and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinn...Union_Terminal
Currently working on a 50,000 sq ft. factory built in 1825. Where our office is relocating to.
He's letting the home fall apart because he got a demolition permit on it 8 years ago, why would you maintain a building that was suppossed to be gone by now. And he has had 3 offers for someone else to move/restore the house. All of which were not very serious if they want him to foot over 85% of the cost....
Building assesments have been made stating that the building has substantial structural damage due to earthquakes. Building would need to be brought up to current earthquake code. That cost alone is more than the total cost of his new building.
He's not interested in living in this style house. I don't blame him, he's wanting to build a more efficient 6,000 square foot house, almost 1/3 of the size of this one. Has anyone considered he just doesn't like the building? "He could sell it" people say, so far he's gotten 3 pathetic offers, so obviously he can't sell it.
... limited knowledge. As an Architect (of European Nationality and having lived in the US for 10+ years) I would caution the overzealous posters wanting to tear down the building.
If the masses always got their will there would not be an Eiffel Tower today (for example).
Historic value has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is deemed aesthetically pleasing by someone ( Currently we are struggling to convince many people of merit of certain modernist buildings, just because they do not like the aesthetics).
There are secretary of the interior's standards and not knowing who all (for example, as it matters in regards to historic significance) has come and gone in this house (aside from the copper baron who was mentioned) we can not pass judgment without further investigation.
If indeed it is true that Steve Jobs has owned the house for 25 years (as another poster mentioned) I would say that adds to it's historic significance and also makes me think: Shame on him for not maintaining it better.
Further: I would mistrust a General Contractor's report on the condition of the house and - reading between the lines - the condition seems to be still quite suitable for renovation. The fact that the contractor claims it would have to be brought up to current seismic codes and have all windows replaced shows lack of experience in historic renovation on his part. (Also: Relocating a house from its original site greatly diminishes its historic significance).
Finally: I would not trust claims from a former owner and other politically motivated interests. A good solution would be to retain out-of-state, uninvolved expertise to generate a "historic structure assessment" which would objectively identify historic merit and specific features, as well as potential use suggestions, a basic renovation strategy, and rough budget numbers. Maybe Steve Jobs could hire an Architect to design a 6,000 sf contemporary addition and turn the existing building into a museum or foundation headquarters? I think he could further his legacy here.
A current example in Europe:
http://www.architekten24.de/mediadb/news/9664/index.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Liebeskind.jpg
Sorry for the long post ... I am passionate about these things :-)
Not to mention you just copied it from the post you put here yesterday.
First of all....THIS is no Eiffel Tower
Second of all....He's not looking to add to a legacy here, he just wants a house to live in.
Third...a contemporary addition to the building to serve as a museum? The area is not zoned for that, the site would not support the additional parking required, this place is located at the end of a meandering Cul-de-Sac, hardly a place to put such a thing, not to mention Steve Jobs is a very private individual, so having a public entity attached to his residence is just, well, crazy.
And why are we assuming what style building he's putting here?
This building has spent a third of its life in Steve Jobs's possesion, that IS the only historical significance it has. Spanish Colonial Revival from 1925 is actually a revival of a revival, basically it's hollywood, no more authentic than Pottery Barn, and doesn't hold true to the style anyway, the only impressive thing about the house is the fact it has 13 bathrooms.
1) Steve Sell it or give it away to the first person willing to buy or take it off your hands (moving it, so you can build there)
2) Have some contractors go in and give it a real good looks-see for a few days (and heck, leave that heater plugged in - who knows, maybe it will burn down)
3) Do what in hell you want with the building ; it's yours!
4) Sell it, move on, be the bigger man - not the one who HAS to get his way all of the time. Life is short, don't be a dick about it. Sometimes you just can't have it your way!
I'm sure it is one hell of a feeling, having folks bow to your every word and want, but come on now, at this rate that house will still be there, when you are dead and gone, then what did you accomplish?
It is, for all intensive purposes - just a house, and not even one you are living in?
Steve, you CAN afford a house ANYWHERE in the world, I can't believe this is the only place you want to live?
Skip
I love history and historic buildings but I disapprove of the movement that says that everything that is old is good merely because it's old.
Yes, but also there is an older movement that says that everything that is new is good merely because it's new.