A 10 year battle to tear down a house that was only 70 years old to begin with? This is beyond ridiculous. What if there was a house there before that? What if there was an Indian settlement? What if there was a prehistoric hut? What if a Lemur had a nest there a million years ago? Oh, the Humanity! At what point must we freeze time? My God, the only reason there are "historic" things for you to appreciate is because at some point and time, someone was able to do something NEW! I think some of you would have prevented Michelangelo from sculpting David in order to preserve the doggone marble!
A 10 year battle to tear down a house that was only 70 years old to begin with? This is beyond ridiculous. What if there was a house there before that? What if there was an Indian settlement? What if there was a prehistoric hut? What if a Lemur had a nest there a million years ago? Oh, the Humanity! At what point must we freeze time? My God, the only reason there are "historic" things for you to appreciate is because at some point and time, someone was able to do something NEW! I think some of you would have prevented Michelangelo from sculpting David in order to preserve the doggone marble!
Let me point out that George Washington Smith borrowed his designs from the past. Stuff that existed nearby. Not genius. Nothing new. Hell even his name is borrowed off someone else! Yawn.
Frank Lloyd Wright came up with new designs that had never been thought of before in the history of architecture over thousands of years.
Let me point out that George Washington Smith borrowed his designs from the past. Stuff that existed nearby. Not genius. Nothing new. Hell even his name is borrowed off someone else! Yawn.
Frank Lloyd Wright came up with new designs that had never been thought of before in the history of architecture over thousands of years.
I wouldn't say GWS isn't notable. That is a bit harsh, but that isn't really the argument here, the point as I see it is, why can't someone have the liberty to do with what they want with their property? Is it a shame Mr. Jobs is choosing not to renovate it, sure, but is it illegal not to? No. There are a lot of buildings out there that no longer exist and it is a shame that they don't. The Larkin Building by Wright is probably the best example. We almost lost the Union Terminal Building in Cincinnati, but people that wanted to preserve it stepped up and offered what the previous owner thought was fair. In this case, people are trying to force Mr. Jobs through litigation to do it for them rather than making an honest and sensible offer to do it.
California Environmental Quality Act. Look it up, why don't you?
Condescending Troll Asshole. Look that up when you have some free time?
You're welcome to have your opinion here, but you don't have to state it like you're standing on the top of a mountain handed stone tablets from God.
By the way, Mr. Self-proclaimed-on-the-internet architectural expert, how much real world historical architecture have you actually seen in person? I'm willing to bet a large sum of money I've seen far more of it than you have.
This is a demonstration of plain ignorance of the subject. How dare you accuse anyone else of trolling.
It's a fact. GWS borrowed ideas from the past that were not new, and created the "Spanish Revival" form of architecture. It can be seen in other areas not designed by GWS, it was not new and not innovative. FLW created things that no one had thought about in the history of mankind.
So I'm correct in my statement, I've backed it up, its not ignorant, and you've said nothing to disprove what I said. So until you can back up your statement that I am ignorant then go find somewhere else to troll. I've seen examples of both if that helps you. And Spanish Revival is not impressive. True it's been widely copied in Southern California, but that does not mean it was innovative, or original.
You've said a lot of things on this thread, but backed up almost none of it. You have not given your credentials, experience, nor have you explained specific examples of why you think that GWS and specifically this run down house is somehow special.
I wouldn't say GWS isn't notable. That is a bit harsh, but that isn't really the argument here, the point as I see it is, why can't someone have the liberty to do with what they want with their property? Is it a shame Mr. Jobs is choosing not to renovate it, sure, but is it illegal not to? No.
First of all, you are right to say that Smith is notable. He is very notable, despite the ignorant comments to the contrary made by others. Anyone who was inclined to do so could read a great deal about why he is notable. How many have bothered themselves with facts?
Second, I've been trying to explore the limits of what people believe about "what someone ought to be able to do with their property," but so far haven't had any takers. We all have to know that the principle that "you should be able to do whatever you like with your property" is a fantasy. I know many entertain that fantasy, and they are they are entitled to it -- provided they acknowledge that this isn't the real world, and also provided that they aren't using this fantasy to attack regulations that they personally don't happen to like.
It's a fact. GWS borrowed ideas from the past that were not new, and created the "Spanish Revival" form of architecture. It can be seen in other areas not designed by GWS, it was not new and not innovative. FLW created things that no one had thought about in the history of mankind.
So I'm correct in my statement, I've backed it up, its not ignorant, and you've said nothing to disprove what I said. So until you can back up your statement that I am ignorant then go find somewhere else to troll. I've seen examples of both if that helps you. And Spanish Revival is not impressive. True it's been widely copied in Southern California, but that does not mean it was innovative, or original.
You've said a lot of things on this thread, but backed up almost none of it. You have not given your credentials, experience, nor have you explained specific examples of why you think that GWS and specifically this run down house is somehow special.
Hint: He's not, and It's not.
I am a professional architectural historian. I've been at it for over 30 years.
provided they acknowledge that this isn't the real world, and also provided that they aren't using this fantasy to attack regulations that they personally don't happen to like.
The "real world" gave us things like slavery, white male only voting, the draft, legalized segregation. Those examples are just from problems with the laws in the US. Just because something is a law does not make it right, and there are plenty of horrible things about California land property laws. The California Coastal Commission nazi's come to mind.
Justice and fairness and common sense is being used to attack unfair and unjust laws in this case, not some fantasy.
Heck Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech was a "fantasy".
I am a professional architectural historian. I've been at it for over 30 years.
I know what I am talking about.
I doubt it. You know how to be an ass, but I doubt you've seen a small fraction of how much I have seen in person. Pictures do not count. The fact that you think a man who made copies of spanish architecture which has been done for centuries and an inaccessible to the public private property that is under 70 years old when this case started is "historical" and needs to be protected at all costs pretty much says all I need to know about you.
It would be even more beautiful to know if you were one of the uptight ninnies who has been harassing Jobs for the past 10 years as he tried to build his home.
Is this property on the National Register of Historic Places?
Irrelevant. It may have been added to that after the fact given this legal drama has been dragging on over 10 years. So what if it has? Why would that even matter?
Irrelevant. It may have been added to that after the fact given this legal drama has been dragging on over 10 years. So what if it has? Why would that even matter?
Even if it were on the Registry, that does not guarantee protection, it really doesn't do anything. Just a collection of locations, put in a "book" for reference.
Irrelevant. It may have been added to that after the fact given this legal drama has been dragging on over 10 years. So what if it has? Why would that even matter?
You guys get your nerd panties up in a bunch too easily.
I just wanted to know. I happen to think Jobs should be able to demo the house. I live in a community in which every house is "historic". And we all know that if we want the freedom to do what we want with our houses, we avoid the Register. Everyone knows the permitting rules are only in place to collect revenue. Pay the permit fee, and you have free reign, unless you're on the Register.
First of all, you are right to say that Smith is notable. He is very notable, despite the ignorant comments to the contrary made by others. Anyone who was inclined to do so could read a great deal about why he is notable. How many have bothered themselves with facts?
Second, I've been trying to explore the limits of what people believe about "what someone ought to be able to do with their property," but so far haven't had any takers. We all have to know that the principle that "you should be able to do whatever you like with your property" is a fantasy. I know many entertain that fantasy, and they are they are entitled to it -- provided they acknowledge that this isn't the real world, and also provided that they aren't using this fantasy to attack regulations that they personally don't happen to like.
While I agree that it isn't as simple as "It's mine, I can do what I want" (zoning doesn't let you do what you that anyway) I'm curious where that line is drawn though, in this case Mr. Jobs had the permits in hand 10 years ago, did everything "by the book" and only faced opposition from a few people outside of the immediate neighborhood. This has likely caused him to spend a lot of money in arbitration, legal fees and likely need to pay off contractors that were lined up to do the work. While the law is on Mr. Jobs side here, it is still being held up in legal matters which makes me wonder why the law and lawyers are even involved. An effort has been made to relocate the building, it is unfortunate that the only serious offer, that Mr. Jobs may have accepted ended because the person financing the effort passed away, since that offer, there has been others whose offers could not be considered as credible at all.
I imagine there are several lines (and curves) on the blueprints for Jobs hopefully soon to be built house. That would be an excellent place to look!
By the way, it's silly to have the argument about what limits people should have to do on their property. We're not talking about dumping toxic waste or having a 3 story pile of trash. We're talking about redesigning architecture, in a way more appropriate for the person who owns the property. There has been no argument here that such redesign of the house would have significant adverse effects on Jobs' neighbors, this whole issue is overzealous power mad ninnies, who get off on telling others what to do. It especially gets them excited to know they are sticking it to a powerful and wealthy man.
I do not like Steve Balmer but if this was happening to him, while I would laugh about it, I would think its just as unfair and unjust.
Comments
He is a self-proclaimed expert. On the internet.
Yah...that's really compelling.
Ok, I was curious. Wonder if that stands up against my Bachelor of Architecture...
A 10 year battle to tear down a house that was only 70 years old to begin with? This is beyond ridiculous. What if there was a house there before that? What if there was an Indian settlement? What if there was a prehistoric hut? What if a Lemur had a nest there a million years ago? Oh, the Humanity!
You absolutely win this thread.
/bows
George Washington Smith = Hack.
Frank Lloyd Wright = Genius.
Frank Lloyd Wright came up with new designs that had never been thought of before in the history of architecture over thousands of years.
Let me point out that George Washington Smith borrowed his designs from the past. Stuff that existed nearby. Not genius. Nothing new. Hell even his name is borrowed off someone else! Yawn.
Frank Lloyd Wright came up with new designs that had never been thought of before in the history of architecture over thousands of years.
I wouldn't say GWS isn't notable. That is a bit harsh, but that isn't really the argument here, the point as I see it is, why can't someone have the liberty to do with what they want with their property? Is it a shame Mr. Jobs is choosing not to renovate it, sure, but is it illegal not to? No. There are a lot of buildings out there that no longer exist and it is a shame that they don't. The Larkin Building by Wright is probably the best example. We almost lost the Union Terminal Building in Cincinnati, but people that wanted to preserve it stepped up and offered what the previous owner thought was fair. In this case, people are trying to force Mr. Jobs through litigation to do it for them rather than making an honest and sensible offer to do it.
Are you?
Yes.
Bring up "environmentalism" to argue that someone cannot tear down an old inefficient environmentally unfriendly old building?: trolling.
California Environmental Quality Act. Look it up, why don't you?
Let me also say this.
George Washington Smith = Hack.
This is a demonstration of plain ignorance of the subject. How dare you accuse anyone else of trolling.
Yes.
California Environmental Quality Act. Look it up, why don't you?
Condescending Troll Asshole. Look that up when you have some free time?
You're welcome to have your opinion here, but you don't have to state it like you're standing on the top of a mountain handed stone tablets from God.
By the way, Mr. Self-proclaimed-on-the-internet architectural expert, how much real world historical architecture have you actually seen in person? I'm willing to bet a large sum of money I've seen far more of it than you have.
This is a demonstration of plain ignorance of the subject. How dare you accuse anyone else of trolling.
It's a fact. GWS borrowed ideas from the past that were not new, and created the "Spanish Revival" form of architecture. It can be seen in other areas not designed by GWS, it was not new and not innovative. FLW created things that no one had thought about in the history of mankind.
So I'm correct in my statement, I've backed it up, its not ignorant, and you've said nothing to disprove what I said. So until you can back up your statement that I am ignorant then go find somewhere else to troll. I've seen examples of both if that helps you. And Spanish Revival is not impressive. True it's been widely copied in Southern California, but that does not mean it was innovative, or original.
You've said a lot of things on this thread, but backed up almost none of it. You have not given your credentials, experience, nor have you explained specific examples of why you think that GWS and specifically this run down house is somehow special.
Hint: He's not, and It's not.
I wouldn't say GWS isn't notable. That is a bit harsh, but that isn't really the argument here, the point as I see it is, why can't someone have the liberty to do with what they want with their property? Is it a shame Mr. Jobs is choosing not to renovate it, sure, but is it illegal not to? No.
First of all, you are right to say that Smith is notable. He is very notable, despite the ignorant comments to the contrary made by others. Anyone who was inclined to do so could read a great deal about why he is notable. How many have bothered themselves with facts?
Second, I've been trying to explore the limits of what people believe about "what someone ought to be able to do with their property," but so far haven't had any takers. We all have to know that the principle that "you should be able to do whatever you like with your property" is a fantasy. I know many entertain that fantasy, and they are they are entitled to it -- provided they acknowledge that this isn't the real world, and also provided that they aren't using this fantasy to attack regulations that they personally don't happen to like.
It's a fact. GWS borrowed ideas from the past that were not new, and created the "Spanish Revival" form of architecture. It can be seen in other areas not designed by GWS, it was not new and not innovative. FLW created things that no one had thought about in the history of mankind.
So I'm correct in my statement, I've backed it up, its not ignorant, and you've said nothing to disprove what I said. So until you can back up your statement that I am ignorant then go find somewhere else to troll. I've seen examples of both if that helps you. And Spanish Revival is not impressive. True it's been widely copied in Southern California, but that does not mean it was innovative, or original.
You've said a lot of things on this thread, but backed up almost none of it. You have not given your credentials, experience, nor have you explained specific examples of why you think that GWS and specifically this run down house is somehow special.
Hint: He's not, and It's not.
I am a professional architectural historian. I've been at it for over 30 years.
I know what I am talking about.
provided they acknowledge that this isn't the real world, and also provided that they aren't using this fantasy to attack regulations that they personally don't happen to like.
The "real world" gave us things like slavery, white male only voting, the draft, legalized segregation. Those examples are just from problems with the laws in the US. Just because something is a law does not make it right, and there are plenty of horrible things about California land property laws. The California Coastal Commission nazi's come to mind.
Justice and fairness and common sense is being used to attack unfair and unjust laws in this case, not some fantasy.
Heck Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech was a "fantasy".
Fantasy is good.
I am a professional architectural historian. I've been at it for over 30 years.
I know what I am talking about.
I doubt it. You know how to be an ass, but I doubt you've seen a small fraction of how much I have seen in person. Pictures do not count. The fact that you think a man who made copies of spanish architecture which has been done for centuries and an inaccessible to the public private property that is under 70 years old when this case started is "historical" and needs to be protected at all costs pretty much says all I need to know about you.
It would be even more beautiful to know if you were one of the uptight ninnies who has been harassing Jobs for the past 10 years as he tried to build his home.
Is this property on the National Register of Historic Places?
Irrelevant. It may have been added to that after the fact given this legal drama has been dragging on over 10 years. So what if it has? Why would that even matter?
Irrelevant. It may have been added to that after the fact given this legal drama has been dragging on over 10 years. So what if it has? Why would that even matter?
Even if it were on the Registry, that does not guarantee protection, it really doesn't do anything. Just a collection of locations, put in a "book" for reference.
Irrelevant. It may have been added to that after the fact given this legal drama has been dragging on over 10 years. So what if it has? Why would that even matter?
You guys get your nerd panties up in a bunch too easily.
I just wanted to know. I happen to think Jobs should be able to demo the house. I live in a community in which every house is "historic". And we all know that if we want the freedom to do what we want with our houses, we avoid the Register. Everyone knows the permitting rules are only in place to collect revenue. Pay the permit fee, and you have free reign, unless you're on the Register.
First of all, you are right to say that Smith is notable. He is very notable, despite the ignorant comments to the contrary made by others. Anyone who was inclined to do so could read a great deal about why he is notable. How many have bothered themselves with facts?
Second, I've been trying to explore the limits of what people believe about "what someone ought to be able to do with their property," but so far haven't had any takers. We all have to know that the principle that "you should be able to do whatever you like with your property" is a fantasy. I know many entertain that fantasy, and they are they are entitled to it -- provided they acknowledge that this isn't the real world, and also provided that they aren't using this fantasy to attack regulations that they personally don't happen to like.
While I agree that it isn't as simple as "It's mine, I can do what I want" (zoning doesn't let you do what you that anyway) I'm curious where that line is drawn though, in this case Mr. Jobs had the permits in hand 10 years ago, did everything "by the book" and only faced opposition from a few people outside of the immediate neighborhood. This has likely caused him to spend a lot of money in arbitration, legal fees and likely need to pay off contractors that were lined up to do the work. While the law is on Mr. Jobs side here, it is still being held up in legal matters which makes me wonder why the law and lawyers are even involved. An effort has been made to relocate the building, it is unfortunate that the only serious offer, that Mr. Jobs may have accepted ended because the person financing the effort passed away, since that offer, there has been others whose offers could not be considered as credible at all.
Where does one draw the line?
Where does one draw the line?
I imagine there are several lines (and curves) on the blueprints for Jobs hopefully soon to be built house. That would be an excellent place to look!
By the way, it's silly to have the argument about what limits people should have to do on their property. We're not talking about dumping toxic waste or having a 3 story pile of trash. We're talking about redesigning architecture, in a way more appropriate for the person who owns the property. There has been no argument here that such redesign of the house would have significant adverse effects on Jobs' neighbors, this whole issue is overzealous power mad ninnies, who get off on telling others what to do. It especially gets them excited to know they are sticking it to a powerful and wealthy man.
I do not like Steve Balmer but if this was happening to him, while I would laugh about it, I would think its just as unfair and unjust.