I think Appleinsider should be careful about calling the fan crazed. That seems like a libel suit waiting to happen.
It's extremely difficult to sue successfully for libel in a U.S. court. The plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant is wrong, knew they were wrong, intended to cause harm, and actually caused harm. That's why libel lawsuits are so rare in the U.S. -- it's a First Amendment thing.
I'm glad he's being able to raze the house. I've read about the house, and there's little about it that really seams significant. Sure, there are things that would be nice to have, such as the tiling and so forth, but it doesn't look much different from many houses between Palo Alto and Woodside, and very little seems to have gone on there. It's not even that old of a house.
If this house had some major significance, it would've been worth buying as such, but it didn't, so it's a shame to lock the owner into keeping it. This is especially true since he bought the house in the 1980s, when the house had even less history. Heck, *Jobs* is the most significant thing about the house.
Right, exactly. It's also a George Washington Smith design, which are much sought after and sell for big premiums over more ordinary houses of the period and style. Steve could have sold the house for a huge profit, and bought any other piece of property on the face of the planet for his house. It staggers the imagination why someone with an infinity of options would be so insistent about being an architectural vandal. I guess I learned something about Steve I wish I hadn't.
Anyone who even vaguely knows the mind of Steve Jobs should be advised that he holds no love for keeping things the same as they are, he wants everything 'improved' as he sees fit. It's not surprising that he would like to destroy the past in favor of a bright here and now.
Which sort of begs the question why buy in the first place. If you buy a George Washington Smith house with the idea of tearing it down, you're going to be facing preservationists.
Right, exactly. It's also a George Washington Smith design, which are much sought after and sell for big premiums over more ordinary houses of the period and style. Steve could have sold the house for a huge profit, and bought any other piece of property on the face of the planet for his house. It staggers the imagination why someone with an infinity of options would be so insistent about being an architectural vandal. I guess I learned something about Steve I wish I hadn't.
This is all just wild speculation on your part. You overstate your case.
Last I heard, he tried several times to sell it to some guy who wanted to tow it somewhere else and restore it, this was the only offer he had received (despite all the publicity), and it fell through after much negotiation. I could be wrong about some of those details of course, it's just what I heard. But I bet it's based on at least as much fact as your story, if not more.
If Steve Jobs wasn't as wealthy as he is, it wouldn't be an issue at all. Just because he can afford to spend millions of his own money moving and restoring the house, doesn't mean the law should force him to or even that he has any moral obligation to give away so much money. If he wasn't famous, no one would care much either. These kinds of properties get pulled down all the time, you just don't hear about them because the people involved aren't in the news.
If it was me, I would do exactly as you suggest. It's kind of a low-brow style but one that is historical and deserves to have examples of it endure.
However, to imply that Steve Jobs is some kind of nasty or immoral man just because he doesn't like tacky Spanish architecture and doesn't want to spend millions of his own money preserving it is a bit much.
He doesn't like it, and it doesn't seem like anyone else wants to pay to preserve it, so why should he?
Ive is hardly a recluse. He hasn't been anonymous in those promo videos they've run at Apple product intros the last few years.
Quote:
"My reputation has been established by the work I do, not through self-publicity. I do not usually give interviews ? I seek to avoid publicity," [Ives] said
BS. YOu can only be a domain squatter is you are violating somebody's trademark. Here he is not. Further, he doesn't even have Google ads installed, which is a sure mark of the domain squatter.
I only looked at one of the sites, and I don't think it would fit well under any reasonable definition of domain squatter, but I don't think WIPO's definition of domain squatter is the only legitimate one.
Steve walked away from the house. He never liked the house from the very start, so it was never a question of keeping it up. This is actually one of the more common dirty tricks used by people who waste historic buildings. They let it become such an eyesore that nobody cares anymore, or wait for a vagrant to burn it down. Happens all the time.
The story was played out in the press in detail. Those of us who were interested followed it pretty closely.
The house was historic. This was never the issue. The issue was whether the city would allow him to tear it down anyway.
If I remember correctly, the house was not labeled "historic" when Steve bought it. In fact, one of the reason Steve bought it was because he was assured that it could be torn down. It wasn't until some years later, when he was ready to tear it down, that they slapped the "Historic Landmark " label on it. And they told him he couldn't tear it down. (I think it was more due to the famous person that owned it before rather than for it's architectural value.) And once they slapped the "Historical Landmark" on the it, he couldn't sell it because no one wants to buy it and go through the red tape of owning an "Historical Landmark" that is in needs of repair.
This was when Steve decided to not live in the house anymore. It was cheaper to tear it down and build the house he wants rather than to restore it. Abestos removal is not cheap. And you don't want to be around when they're removing it. It doesn't matter how "historic" a building is. If it contains abestos that can pose a health hazard, it's deemed uninhabitable and it's condemed.
Anyone who even vaguely knows the mind of Steve Jobs should be advised that he holds no love for keeping things the same as they are, he wants everything 'improved' as he sees fit. It's not surprising that he would like to destroy the past in favor of a bright here and now.
Or more the point, expects to have his way all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
This is all just wild speculation on your part. You overstate your case.
Not at all. Everything I've said is perfectly accurate.
Quote:
[Last I heard, he tried several times to sell it to some guy who wanted to tow it somewhere else and restore it, this was the only offer he had received (despite all the publicity), and it fell through after much negotiation. I could be wrong about some of those details of course, it's just what I heard. But I bet it's based on at least as much fact as your story, if not more.
It was made available for relocation, but that's hardly the point. Moving a house, especially one of that size, is extremely difficult. That is another fact, not speculation.
Quote:
If Steve Jobs wasn't as wealthy as he is, it wouldn't be an issue at all. Just because he can afford to spend millions of his own money moving and restoring the house, doesn't mean the law should force him to or even that he has any moral obligation to give away so much money. If he wasn't famous, no one would care much either. These kinds of properties get pulled down all the time, you just don't hear about them because the people involved aren't in the news.
Quite the opposite, more like. If this had been anyone other that Steve Jobs, I doubt he'd have gotten his way in the end.
Quote:
If it was me, I would do exactly as you suggest. It's kind of a low-brow style but one that is historical and deserves to have examples of it endure.
Low brow? And where do you get your knowledge of architectural history?
Quote:
However, to imply that Steve Jobs is some kind of nasty or immoral man just because he doesn't like tacky Spanish architecture and doesn't want to spend millions of his own money preserving it is a bit much.
He doesn't like it, and it doesn't seem like anyone else wants to pay to preserve it, so why should he?
He behaved like an arrogant jerk, and that is the long and short of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbansprawl
Come now, I admire Steve Jobs a lot too, but there's no denying he's an a$$hole sometimes.
This is my point exactly. We can admire his contributions to the world of technology and at the same time acknowledge that about some things, he's a complete boor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
If I remember correctly, the house was not labeled "historic" when Steve bought it. In fact, one of the reason Steve bought it was because he was assured that it could be torn down. It wasn't until some years later, when he was ready to tear it down, that they slapped the "Historic Landmark " label on it. And they told him he couldn't tear it down. (I think it was more due to the famous person that owned it before rather than for it's architectural value.) And once they slapped the "Historical Landmark" on the it, he couldn't sell it because no one wants to buy it and go through the red tape of owning an "Historical Landmark" that is in needs of repair.
Without getting into pages of detail, that's not really an accurate accounting of how this works. Because his project was subject to California's environmental laws, it was required for him to hire a professional to determine if the property was historically significant before moving forward. The verdict was that the property was in fact significant (given the architect, a virtual slam-dunk), and an Environmental Impact Report prepared. The EIR doesn't dictate what the city must do, it simply informs the decision makers and the public about the environmental impacts of their decisions. In this case, the City Council in Woodland decided to let him demolish in spite of the impacts.
Quote:
This was when Steve decided to not live in the house anymore. It was cheaper to tear it down and build the house he wants rather than to restore it. Abestos removal is not cheap. And you don't want to be around when they're removing it. It doesn't matter how "historic" a building is. If it contains abestos that can pose a health hazard, it's deemed uninhabitable and it's condemed.
You mean, when Steve decided to no longer rent it and allow it to fall into ruin? Sorry, no free pass on that one. It really is one of the oldest tricks in the historic building ransacking business. In fact, it's got a name -- it's called demolition by neglect.
Without getting into pages of detail, that's not really an accurate accounting of how this works. Because his project was subject to California's environmental laws, it was required for him to hire a professional to determine if the property was historically significant before moving forward. The verdict was that the property was in fact significant (given the architect, a virtual slam-dunk), and an Environmental Impact Report prepared. The EIR doesn't dictate what the city must do, it simply informs the decision makers and the public about the environmental impacts of their decisions. In this case, the City Council in Woodland decided to let him demolish in spite of the impacts.
You mean, when Steve decided to no longer rent it and allow it to fall into ruin? Sorry, no free pass on that one. It really is one of the oldest tricks in the historic building ransacking business. In fact, it's got a name -- it's called demolition by neglect.
But the city council gave him the permit to tear down the house in 2004. After the EIR. It wasn't that big of a deal then. (And it's not one now.) He was blocked by some historical preservation society after he got the permit. And who was the most vocal person in this society.....the person who sold him the house. The very same person who told Steve that he would have no problem tearing it dowm when he bought it. If that person wanted to perserve the house, he shouldn't have sold it to Steve. Knowning full well that Steve wanted to tear it down. He should have waited for a buyer that wanted to restore it.
But the city council gave him the permit to tear down the house in 2004. After the EIR. It wasn't that big of a deal then. (And it's not one now.) He was blocked by some historical preservation society after he got the permit. And who was the most vocal person in this society.....the person who sold him the house. The very same person who told Steve that he would have no problem tearing it dowm when he bought it. If that person wanted to perserve the house, he shouldn't have sold it to Steve. Knowning full well that Steve wanted to tear it down. He should have waited for a buyer that wanted to restore it.
Not the city council, the city. The city was sued over the issuance of the permit because they failed to follow the law in doing so. That forced the preparation of the EIR, which they should have done in the first place, and the ensuing debate about the feasibility of preservation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masklinn
can a house built in 1929 be considered an historic resource.
1925, but yes, it certainly can.
Quote:
Unless something (or someone) very special happened there, in most of the world it'd be considered tacky at best.
No, that's just an opinion without foundation in fact.
Without getting into pages of detail, that's not really an accurate accounting of how this works. Because his project was subject to California's environmental laws, it was required for him to hire a professional to determine if the property was historically significant before moving forward. The verdict was that the property was in fact significant (given the architect, a virtual slam-dunk), and an Environmental Impact Report prepared. The EIR doesn't dictate what the city must do, it simply informs the decision makers and the public about the environmental impacts of their decisions. In this case, the City Council in Woodland decided to let him demolish in spite of the impacts.
Woodland is up by Davis, about a two-hour drive from the mansion. Your posts are no longer
It was a direct response to your fallacious argument of the form "you are wrong because
you disagree with me and I am always right".
Which is not what I said, so this response makes no sense.
You are more than welcome to check me on my knowledge of architectural history, environmental laws in California, and the specifics of how they applied to this particular case. If you're not willing to do that, then please dispense with the specious arguments.
Comments
I think Appleinsider should be careful about calling the fan crazed. That seems like a libel suit waiting to happen.
It's extremely difficult to sue successfully for libel in a U.S. court. The plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant is wrong, knew they were wrong, intended to cause harm, and actually caused harm. That's why libel lawsuits are so rare in the U.S. -- it's a First Amendment thing.
If this house had some major significance, it would've been worth buying as such, but it didn't, so it's a shame to lock the owner into keeping it. This is especially true since he bought the house in the 1980s, when the house had even less history. Heck, *Jobs* is the most significant thing about the house.
he doesn't even have Google ads installed, which is a sure mark of the domain squatter.
Yeah he does, so by your definition he is a squatter.
Right, exactly. It's also a George Washington Smith design, which are much sought after and sell for big premiums over more ordinary houses of the period and style. Steve could have sold the house for a huge profit, and bought any other piece of property on the face of the planet for his house. It staggers the imagination why someone with an infinity of options would be so insistent about being an architectural vandal. I guess I learned something about Steve I wish I hadn't.
Anyone who even vaguely knows the mind of Steve Jobs should be advised that he holds no love for keeping things the same as they are, he wants everything 'improved' as he sees fit. It's not surprising that he would like to destroy the past in favor of a bright here and now.
Which sort of begs the question why buy in the first place. If you buy a George Washington Smith house with the idea of tearing it down, you're going to be facing preservationists.
Maybe in California, but not most states.
Right, exactly. It's also a George Washington Smith design, which are much sought after and sell for big premiums over more ordinary houses of the period and style. Steve could have sold the house for a huge profit, and bought any other piece of property on the face of the planet for his house. It staggers the imagination why someone with an infinity of options would be so insistent about being an architectural vandal. I guess I learned something about Steve I wish I hadn't.
This is all just wild speculation on your part. You overstate your case.
Last I heard, he tried several times to sell it to some guy who wanted to tow it somewhere else and restore it, this was the only offer he had received (despite all the publicity), and it fell through after much negotiation. I could be wrong about some of those details of course, it's just what I heard. But I bet it's based on at least as much fact as your story, if not more.
If Steve Jobs wasn't as wealthy as he is, it wouldn't be an issue at all. Just because he can afford to spend millions of his own money moving and restoring the house, doesn't mean the law should force him to or even that he has any moral obligation to give away so much money. If he wasn't famous, no one would care much either. These kinds of properties get pulled down all the time, you just don't hear about them because the people involved aren't in the news.
If it was me, I would do exactly as you suggest. It's kind of a low-brow style but one that is historical and deserves to have examples of it endure.
However, to imply that Steve Jobs is some kind of nasty or immoral man just because he doesn't like tacky Spanish architecture and doesn't want to spend millions of his own money preserving it is a bit much.
He doesn't like it, and it doesn't seem like anyone else wants to pay to preserve it, so why should he?
I guess I learned something about Steve I wish I hadn't.
Come now, I admire Steve Jobs a lot too, but there's no denying he's an a$$hole sometimes.
"My reputation has been established by the work I do, not through self-publicity. I do not usually give interviews ? I seek to avoid publicity," [Ives] said
Except the interviews he gave here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00flx59
and here:
http://www.objectifiedfilm.com/about/
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOONhFutsrg
and here:
http://ncarson.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/jonathan-ive/
and here:
http://www.designmuseum.org/design/jonathan-ive
and here:
http://utalam.wordpress.com/2008/05/...ntchinese-ver/
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCYhrt_PF7Q (at 1:10)
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOnCRWUsSGA
BS. YOu can only be a domain squatter is you are violating somebody's trademark. Here he is not. Further, he doesn't even have Google ads installed, which is a sure mark of the domain squatter.
I only looked at one of the sites, and I don't think it would fit well under any reasonable definition of domain squatter, but I don't think WIPO's definition of domain squatter is the only legitimate one.
Steve walked away from the house. He never liked the house from the very start, so it was never a question of keeping it up. This is actually one of the more common dirty tricks used by people who waste historic buildings. They let it become such an eyesore that nobody cares anymore, or wait for a vagrant to burn it down. Happens all the time.
The story was played out in the press in detail. Those of us who were interested followed it pretty closely.
The house was historic. This was never the issue. The issue was whether the city would allow him to tear it down anyway.
If I remember correctly, the house was not labeled "historic" when Steve bought it. In fact, one of the reason Steve bought it was because he was assured that it could be torn down. It wasn't until some years later, when he was ready to tear it down, that they slapped the "Historic Landmark " label on it. And they told him he couldn't tear it down. (I think it was more due to the famous person that owned it before rather than for it's architectural value.) And once they slapped the "Historical Landmark" on the it, he couldn't sell it because no one wants to buy it and go through the red tape of owning an "Historical Landmark" that is in needs of repair.
This was when Steve decided to not live in the house anymore. It was cheaper to tear it down and build the house he wants rather than to restore it. Abestos removal is not cheap. And you don't want to be around when they're removing it. It doesn't matter how "historic" a building is. If it contains abestos that can pose a health hazard, it's deemed uninhabitable and it's condemed.
Anyone who even vaguely knows the mind of Steve Jobs should be advised that he holds no love for keeping things the same as they are, he wants everything 'improved' as he sees fit. It's not surprising that he would like to destroy the past in favor of a bright here and now.
Or more the point, expects to have his way all the time.
This is all just wild speculation on your part. You overstate your case.
Not at all. Everything I've said is perfectly accurate.
[Last I heard, he tried several times to sell it to some guy who wanted to tow it somewhere else and restore it, this was the only offer he had received (despite all the publicity), and it fell through after much negotiation. I could be wrong about some of those details of course, it's just what I heard. But I bet it's based on at least as much fact as your story, if not more.
It was made available for relocation, but that's hardly the point. Moving a house, especially one of that size, is extremely difficult. That is another fact, not speculation.
If Steve Jobs wasn't as wealthy as he is, it wouldn't be an issue at all. Just because he can afford to spend millions of his own money moving and restoring the house, doesn't mean the law should force him to or even that he has any moral obligation to give away so much money. If he wasn't famous, no one would care much either. These kinds of properties get pulled down all the time, you just don't hear about them because the people involved aren't in the news.
Quite the opposite, more like. If this had been anyone other that Steve Jobs, I doubt he'd have gotten his way in the end.
If it was me, I would do exactly as you suggest. It's kind of a low-brow style but one that is historical and deserves to have examples of it endure.
Low brow? And where do you get your knowledge of architectural history?
However, to imply that Steve Jobs is some kind of nasty or immoral man just because he doesn't like tacky Spanish architecture and doesn't want to spend millions of his own money preserving it is a bit much.
He doesn't like it, and it doesn't seem like anyone else wants to pay to preserve it, so why should he?
He behaved like an arrogant jerk, and that is the long and short of it.
Come now, I admire Steve Jobs a lot too, but there's no denying he's an a$$hole sometimes.
This is my point exactly. We can admire his contributions to the world of technology and at the same time acknowledge that about some things, he's a complete boor.
If I remember correctly, the house was not labeled "historic" when Steve bought it. In fact, one of the reason Steve bought it was because he was assured that it could be torn down. It wasn't until some years later, when he was ready to tear it down, that they slapped the "Historic Landmark " label on it. And they told him he couldn't tear it down. (I think it was more due to the famous person that owned it before rather than for it's architectural value.) And once they slapped the "Historical Landmark" on the it, he couldn't sell it because no one wants to buy it and go through the red tape of owning an "Historical Landmark" that is in needs of repair.
Without getting into pages of detail, that's not really an accurate accounting of how this works. Because his project was subject to California's environmental laws, it was required for him to hire a professional to determine if the property was historically significant before moving forward. The verdict was that the property was in fact significant (given the architect, a virtual slam-dunk), and an Environmental Impact Report prepared. The EIR doesn't dictate what the city must do, it simply informs the decision makers and the public about the environmental impacts of their decisions. In this case, the City Council in Woodland decided to let him demolish in spite of the impacts.
This was when Steve decided to not live in the house anymore. It was cheaper to tear it down and build the house he wants rather than to restore it. Abestos removal is not cheap. And you don't want to be around when they're removing it. It doesn't matter how "historic" a building is. If it contains abestos that can pose a health hazard, it's deemed uninhabitable and it's condemed.
You mean, when Steve decided to no longer rent it and allow it to fall into ruin? Sorry, no free pass on that one. It really is one of the oldest tricks in the historic building ransacking business. In fact, it's got a name -- it's called demolition by neglect.
Without getting into pages of detail, that's not really an accurate accounting of how this works. Because his project was subject to California's environmental laws, it was required for him to hire a professional to determine if the property was historically significant before moving forward. The verdict was that the property was in fact significant (given the architect, a virtual slam-dunk), and an Environmental Impact Report prepared. The EIR doesn't dictate what the city must do, it simply informs the decision makers and the public about the environmental impacts of their decisions. In this case, the City Council in Woodland decided to let him demolish in spite of the impacts.
You mean, when Steve decided to no longer rent it and allow it to fall into ruin? Sorry, no free pass on that one. It really is one of the oldest tricks in the historic building ransacking business. In fact, it's got a name -- it's called demolition by neglect.
But the city council gave him the permit to tear down the house in 2004. After the EIR. It wasn't that big of a deal then. (And it's not one now.) He was blocked by some historical preservation society after he got the permit. And who was the most vocal person in this society.....the person who sold him the house. The very same person who told Steve that he would have no problem tearing it dowm when he bought it. If that person wanted to perserve the house, he shouldn't have sold it to Steve. Knowning full well that Steve wanted to tear it down. He should have waited for a buyer that wanted to restore it.
Unless something (or someone) very special happened there, in most of the world it'd be considered tacky at best.
But the city council gave him the permit to tear down the house in 2004. After the EIR. It wasn't that big of a deal then. (And it's not one now.) He was blocked by some historical preservation society after he got the permit. And who was the most vocal person in this society.....the person who sold him the house. The very same person who told Steve that he would have no problem tearing it dowm when he bought it. If that person wanted to perserve the house, he shouldn't have sold it to Steve. Knowning full well that Steve wanted to tear it down. He should have waited for a buyer that wanted to restore it.
Not the city council, the city. The city was sued over the issuance of the permit because they failed to follow the law in doing so. That forced the preparation of the EIR, which they should have done in the first place, and the ensuing debate about the feasibility of preservation.
can a house built in 1929 be considered an historic resource.
1925, but yes, it certainly can.
Unless something (or someone) very special happened there, in most of the world it'd be considered tacky at best.
No, that's just an opinion without foundation in fact.
Without getting into pages of detail, that's not really an accurate accounting of how this works. Because his project was subject to California's environmental laws, it was required for him to hire a professional to determine if the property was historically significant before moving forward. The verdict was that the property was in fact significant (given the architect, a virtual slam-dunk), and an Environmental Impact Report prepared. The EIR doesn't dictate what the city must do, it simply informs the decision makers and the public about the environmental impacts of their decisions. In this case, the City Council in Woodland decided to let him demolish in spite of the impacts.
Woodland is up by Davis, about a two-hour drive from the mansion. Your posts are no longer
perfectly accurate (if they ever were).
Woodland is up by Davis, about a two-hour drive from the mansion. Your posts are no longer
perfectly accurate (if they ever were).
Woodside, begging your forgiveness. That typo probably means I know nothing about this. Well argued.
Woodside, begging your forgiveness. That typo probably means I know nothing about this. Well argued.
It was a direct response to your fallacious argument of the form "you are wrong because
you disagree with me and I am always right".
It was a direct response to your fallacious argument of the form "you are wrong because
you disagree with me and I am always right".
Which is not what I said, so this response makes no sense.
You are more than welcome to check me on my knowledge of architectural history, environmental laws in California, and the specifics of how they applied to this particular case. If you're not willing to do that, then please dispense with the specious arguments.