Following your logic, someone who owns a Picasso that is never exhibited - and thus not visible to the public - would have every right to just burn it. I'm not sure any sane person would assert that.
If he owns them he can do anything he wants with them.
The AI article is lacking on details, fails to mention the famous architect who designed the house and leads one to come to a false conclusion.
Having owned historic houses and having friends who own them, your obligated to history for your actions. Yes you won the home and yes you can do what you want, but really your just a temporary renter in the life of some of these very old homes. A lot of rich people move around all the time, they get sick of a place and got the money to move somewhere else. A person buying a house and just living there five years can do a lot of damage to something that has stood over 300 years. If nobody tried to preserve these old homes, they all would be gone in a flash.
People should look at other restored George Washington Smith houses around the country before passing judgment on Steve Jobs lack of appreciation of other artists work.
Just Google images for "George Washington Smith houses" and see how nice and rather expensive they are. Goes to show others appreciate that relaxing style of architecture and willing to pay big to get it.
Steve could restore the Jackling House with his billions easy and even make it a museum if no one would buy it, but somebody would being perched on top of the exclusive hilltop and all that land around.
When you have as much money as Steve or Bill Gates, you have the opportunity to do certain things nobody else can to do to preserve history for later generations to appreciate.
What it sounds like it is that Steve doesn't appreciate those who appreciate other artists works. You must like what HE likes, and he likes glass and metal.
Steve should just leave the Jackling House alone, sell it to someone who would restore it and take a tiny loss next to his billions before he builds a giant glass and metal behemoth on top of that hill and be the eyesore of the neighborhood.
Great post!!! I agree with you...and I am an Apple fanboy :-) Steve could throw the community a bone and either sell it to a restorer or have it restored.
This isn't about "opinions". History of Arts - and History of Architecture - are scientific subjects. Someone who is versed in them will be able to tell you whether a landmark is significant or not. If art historians have come to the conclusion that the house in question is culturally significant, that is not an "opinion", but a fact backed up by reason and scientific method, and it doesn't matter what laypeople think about it. Neither you nor I nor Steve Jobs have studied these subjects, so our opinions as to an objects "worthiness" of preservation are unimportant, just like our opinions on a particular drug would not matter to the FDA in deciding whether or not to approve it.
HAHAHA. "Scientific Method" is an attribute of hard science and factual research. As I do hold a degree in a hard science, I am well-acquainted with the it.
What Scientific Method would tell us about "historical architecture" is that any structure with even a single unique attribute is factually significant, as there is something to be observed and learned about it.
That does not warrant the preservation of said feature. The scientific purpose of studying history is to learn and improve upon the past, preserving it adds nothing to that process, so long as the phenomenon is documented well enough.
P.S., Parkettpolitur, if you're so obsessed with this historic architecture, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go rent out the house for a few nights to soak in all that history?
If he owns them he can do anything he wants with them.
To be honest, I don't know about the legal status of privately owned artworks, so speaking from a purely formalistic perspective you might even be right (where I live, as I said, even this perspective is incorrect - my parents own their house and certainly aren't legally allowed to "do anything [they] want" with it). However, from an ethical point of view, the destruction of a significant work of art would still be despicable, even if it were technically legal.
If one follows your reasoning, it would have been better for Egyptians to tear down the pyramids within 100 years of building them as they were not historical at the time.
No, you're not following my reasoning at all and I think you don't care to. My reasoning has little to do with age, but the reasoning of those you're defending does. I used the last hundred years as a category of human buildings, and by buildings I mean buildings, the number isn't the focus.
My reasoning has a lot to do with who built it and why. The efforts of thousands versus a few contractors, the sheer scale of the project or how easily the significance is recognized by a significant population. You cannot show a picture of the house to a random person as close as ten miles and expect them to always know what the house is, and where it is. You can with the pyramids. You can show an American any European castle and while he or she may not know what its name is, they'll know it is worth protecting.
My reasoning also has a lot to do with the folks involved and what is really involved here. It's nostalgia, not reason. They're the few who have always lived in their area and seen the rest of their childhood memories disappear. This is a drama that happens in towns and cities across the country every day. They're fighting fanatically, not for the greater good, and they should not prevail. You should not be defending them. The greater good is using the land we have, and preserving ecosystems, not expanding and preserving rat infested buildings.
1. Anyone who owns property should be able to do with it as it pleases.
Under this logic the owner of the Empire State building could decide to demolish it and nobody could say anything about its historical value. Down with it! Any reasonable person can see that there are limits about what one can do with their property.
2. Most if not all people commenting on this article don't think the Spanish Colonial revival style is worth protecting.
Makes me wonder if people would say the same about demolishing the Dolce Hayes mansion of the same style, or what would they say about the more Victorian style Winchester house. What about demolishing most of downtown Santa Barbara because we don't appreciate Spanish Colonial revival style?
I have a lot of respect for Steve Jobs when it comes to creating technology products. However, I think on this one he is wrong. He just let the house deteriorate to justify demolishing it. Why did he buy it in the first place if he didn't like it?
From the pictures I've seen I think the building is worth saving. What should be the means of saving it I can't say, but knowing how much money Steve Jobs has and seeing that he doesn't seem to be much into charity or philanthropy he could start his philanthropic ways by saving this building, perhaps by making it a small museum or a place that could be visited.
HEY... IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what he does with HIS PROPERTY.... any more than it is Steve Jobs's place to decide what you do with your property. What is wrong with some of you in here? Do you not understand what makes the USA so different than other countries? Do you not understand that one big piece to that puzzle is PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS? This means if you buy something... YOU FREAKING OWN IT. Quit thinking like a liberal.... wait... that's kind of an oxymoron. Anyway it's not your place to decide what Jobs does with his property or money... which are essentially the same thing. Jobs has more than been accommodating to you people that think it's your place to decide what other people do with their property and money. If I were him I would have bulldozed the place in the middle of the night and then paid whatever idiotic fines were imposed by the city.
Let me just plant this seed in your head. Do you own a car? Well... I'm going to be visiting your part of the country soon and I need a ride. Since you can afford a car then I think it's your responsibility to provide everyone else with a car that can't afford one. So.... give me your keys and I'll be on my way.
This isn't about "opinions". History of Arts - and History of Architecture - are scientific subjects. Someone who is versed in them will be able to tell you whether a landmark is significant or not.
Haha, this is the single dumbest thing in this entire topic. If there is no testable hypothesis, then it ain't science, kid. A bunch of pretentious people sitting around and agreeing amongst themselves that something is "significant" is no different than any other sort of opinion, except you seem to want to grant it more merrit.
Why people are so eager to shackle future generations down to be hostages of the past is beyond me.
HAHAHA. "Scientific Method" is an attribute of hard science and factual research. As I do hold a degree in a hard science, I am well-acquainted with the it.
What Scientific Method would tell us about "historical architecture" is that any structure with even a single unique attribute is factually significant, as there is something to be observed and learned about it.
That does not warrant the preservation of said feature. The scientific purpose of studying history is to learn and improve upon the past, preserving it adds nothing to that process, so long as the phenomenon is documented well enough.
P.S., Parkettpolitur, if you're so obsessed with this historic architecture, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go rent out the house for a few nights to soak in all that history?
-Clive
Yes, factually significant maybe, but that's not the same thing as cultural relevance, and you know it. What scientific method tells us with regard to "historical architecture" is whether we are dealing with an original work worthy of our attention and care or simply the derivative work of an epigone. But again, this is not my subject, so I am completely out of my element here. I just chose to chime in because your post reeks of a cetain elitism often exhibited by those who are proud to have studied a so-called "hard science". Well, congratulations, I guess my subject isn't as cool and hard as yours.
BTW, I'm not American, and as a student who's just finishing up his degree and can barely afford to live in a one-bedroom apartment, I sadly can't step in and save the house
But I can assure you that if I were a billionaire, I would spend the pocket change to have the building relocated.
I'm quite disappointed by the number of people who feel that you should be able to demolish anything on your property. I live in a neighbourhood with a lot of older homes, but some people buys these homes, demolish them and put up truly ugly cheaply, made houses because it's cheaper than rebuilding. One of the attractions of this neighbourhood is it's one of the few that is mostly old homes. These people coming in and demolishing here often never live in the house and have no connection to the neighbourhood.
I figure, if you buy property with an older home on it, you have a responsibility to try and preserve it in some fashion. The home has been here longer than you, and will be here, hopefully, long after you're gone.
Obviously, some homes simply cannot be saved, but people have to realize that this "it's my property and I can do what I please" doesn't fit in with the fact that we live in communities with other people, and are simply part of a history of the area. You don't want the responsibility of buying an older home. Then don't. No one is making you buy it. There are loads of properties with newer homes or empty lots. Just buy one of them.
Haha, this is the single dumbest thing in this entire topic. If there is no testable hypothesis, then it ain't science, kid. A bunch of pretentious people sitting around and agreeing amongst themselves that something is "significant" is no different than any other sort of opinion, except you seem to want to grant it more merrit.
Yes, the only areas of study with any "merrit" are those that are based on testable hypotheses. Oh wait, Art History is actually one of these areas of study! Hooray!
If you had any knowledge of the Humanities, you wouldn't spout such stupid crap - and you would probably know how to spell "merit".
I'm quite disappointed by the number of people who feel that you should be able to demolish anything on your property. I live in a neighbourhood with a lot of older homes, but some people buys these homes, demolish them and put up truly ugly cheaply, made houses because it's cheaper than rebuilding. One of the attractions of this neighbourhood is it's one of the few that is mostly old homes. These people coming in and demolishing here often never live in the house and have no connection to the neighbourhood.
I figure, if you buy property with an older home on it, you have a responsibility to try and preserve it in some fashion. The home has been here longer than you, and will be here, hopefully, long after you're gone.
Obviously, some homes simply cannot be saved, but people have to realize that this "it's my property and I can do what I please" doesn't fit in with the fact that we live in communities with other people, and are simply part of a history of the area. You don't want the responsibility of buying an older home. Then don't. No one is making you buy it. There are loads of properties with newer homes or empty lots. Just buy one of them.
What if the place is haunted? I am being serious because I had a relative that had to move out of a 125 year old Victorian because things were real strange and he feared for his baby (6 months old). The people who bought the place moved out in 3 months and it still on the market. So be careful in what you "wish" for.
Not if the owner wants too. If you think it so special, go buy it and then you can decide. Until then, quit whining!
Dude, ownership is a legal category, not an ethical one. Just because the owner of an object chooses to do something to or with that object doesn't make it right. This is why private ownership of artworks is such a problematic and murky concept. Or let's put it this way: if you "owned" a slave in the 19th century, you could do whatever you wanted to him or her and it was legal, but it sure as hell wasn't ethical. I guess those whining crybabies in the north should just have bought all the slaves from southern slaveowners, heh.
Steve Job's wealth is irrelevant. If the SOH wants to save it, the SOH should make it happen financially, instead of whining about it in court.
Such rampant entitlement...
Dude, if YOU think this property is historically significant, put your money where your freaking mouth is, and MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I'm sick of all these faux saints, who bemoan everything and do nothing.
-Clive
Yes, because a billionaire has the exact same moral and political obligations to his community as someone without any wealth at all... If you truly believe that, I consider myself happy not to have to share a country with you and I'll leave you with this simple quote from the German constitution (well, Grundgesetz): "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."
these preservationists are all a bunch of old blue-haired ladies that can't live their lives unless there is a law that tells them what they can and can't do. they spend their lives trying to force people to live the way they do by creating even more laws.
Comments
Following your logic, someone who owns a Picasso that is never exhibited - and thus not visible to the public - would have every right to just burn it. I'm not sure any sane person would assert that.
If he owns them he can do anything he wants with them.
The AI article is lacking on details, fails to mention the famous architect who designed the house and leads one to come to a false conclusion.
Having owned historic houses and having friends who own them, your obligated to history for your actions. Yes you won the home and yes you can do what you want, but really your just a temporary renter in the life of some of these very old homes. A lot of rich people move around all the time, they get sick of a place and got the money to move somewhere else. A person buying a house and just living there five years can do a lot of damage to something that has stood over 300 years. If nobody tried to preserve these old homes, they all would be gone in a flash.
People should look at other restored George Washington Smith houses around the country before passing judgment on Steve Jobs lack of appreciation of other artists work.
http://santabarbararealestatevoice.c...-montecito-ca/
Look at this fine place!
http://www.casadelherrero.com/index.html
Sold $16,900,000
http://www.sbestatehomes.com/listings/650gws2.shtml
Almost $7 million for this one
http://www.sothebyshomes.com/socal/sales/0113158
http://www.latimes.com/classified/re...4.photogallery
Just Google images for "George Washington Smith houses" and see how nice and rather expensive they are. Goes to show others appreciate that relaxing style of architecture and willing to pay big to get it.
Steve could restore the Jackling House with his billions easy and even make it a museum if no one would buy it, but somebody would being perched on top of the exclusive hilltop and all that land around.
When you have as much money as Steve or Bill Gates, you have the opportunity to do certain things nobody else can to do to preserve history for later generations to appreciate.
What it sounds like it is that Steve doesn't appreciate those who appreciate other artists works. You must like what HE likes, and he likes glass and metal.
Steve should just leave the Jackling House alone, sell it to someone who would restore it and take a tiny loss next to his billions before he builds a giant glass and metal behemoth on top of that hill and be the eyesore of the neighborhood.
Great post!!! I agree with you...and I am an Apple fanboy :-) Steve could throw the community a bone and either sell it to a restorer or have it restored.
This isn't about "opinions". History of Arts - and History of Architecture - are scientific subjects. Someone who is versed in them will be able to tell you whether a landmark is significant or not. If art historians have come to the conclusion that the house in question is culturally significant, that is not an "opinion", but a fact backed up by reason and scientific method, and it doesn't matter what laypeople think about it. Neither you nor I nor Steve Jobs have studied these subjects, so our opinions as to an objects "worthiness" of preservation are unimportant, just like our opinions on a particular drug would not matter to the FDA in deciding whether or not to approve it.
HAHAHA. "Scientific Method" is an attribute of hard science and factual research. As I do hold a degree in a hard science, I am well-acquainted with the it.
What Scientific Method would tell us about "historical architecture" is that any structure with even a single unique attribute is factually significant, as there is something to be observed and learned about it.
That does not warrant the preservation of said feature. The scientific purpose of studying history is to learn and improve upon the past, preserving it adds nothing to that process, so long as the phenomenon is documented well enough.
P.S., Parkettpolitur, if you're so obsessed with this historic architecture, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go rent out the house for a few nights to soak in all that history?
-Clive
Disclaimer - I own / live in a restored Victorian house in San Francisco. I know what's worth saving. SJ's house is worth more in scrap wood.
If he owns them he can do anything he wants with them.
To be honest, I don't know about the legal status of privately owned artworks, so speaking from a purely formalistic perspective you might even be right (where I live, as I said, even this perspective is incorrect - my parents own their house and certainly aren't legally allowed to "do anything [they] want" with it). However, from an ethical point of view, the destruction of a significant work of art would still be despicable, even if it were technically legal.
If one follows your reasoning, it would have been better for Egyptians to tear down the pyramids within 100 years of building them as they were not historical at the time.
No, you're not following my reasoning at all and I think you don't care to. My reasoning has little to do with age, but the reasoning of those you're defending does. I used the last hundred years as a category of human buildings, and by buildings I mean buildings, the number isn't the focus.
My reasoning has a lot to do with who built it and why. The efforts of thousands versus a few contractors, the sheer scale of the project or how easily the significance is recognized by a significant population. You cannot show a picture of the house to a random person as close as ten miles and expect them to always know what the house is, and where it is. You can with the pyramids. You can show an American any European castle and while he or she may not know what its name is, they'll know it is worth protecting.
My reasoning also has a lot to do with the folks involved and what is really involved here. It's nostalgia, not reason. They're the few who have always lived in their area and seen the rest of their childhood memories disappear. This is a drama that happens in towns and cities across the country every day. They're fighting fanatically, not for the greater good, and they should not prevail. You should not be defending them. The greater good is using the land we have, and preserving ecosystems, not expanding and preserving rat infested buildings.
Off to lunch.
I think I have seen enough posts to see a trend.
1. Anyone who owns property should be able to do with it as it pleases.
Under this logic the owner of the Empire State building could decide to demolish it and nobody could say anything about its historical value. Down with it!
2. Most if not all people commenting on this article don't think the Spanish Colonial revival style is worth protecting.
Makes me wonder if people would say the same about demolishing the Dolce Hayes mansion of the same style, or what would they say about the more Victorian style Winchester house. What about demolishing most of downtown Santa Barbara because we don't appreciate Spanish Colonial revival style?
I have a lot of respect for Steve Jobs when it comes to creating technology products. However, I think on this one he is wrong. He just let the house deteriorate to justify demolishing it. Why did he buy it in the first place if he didn't like it?
From the pictures I've seen I think the building is worth saving. What should be the means of saving it I can't say, but knowing how much money Steve Jobs has and seeing that he doesn't seem to be much into charity or philanthropy he could start his philanthropic ways by saving this building, perhaps by making it a small museum or a place that could be visited.
HEY... IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what he does with HIS PROPERTY.... any more than it is Steve Jobs's place to decide what you do with your property. What is wrong with some of you in here? Do you not understand what makes the USA so different than other countries? Do you not understand that one big piece to that puzzle is PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS? This means if you buy something... YOU FREAKING OWN IT. Quit thinking like a liberal.... wait... that's kind of an oxymoron. Anyway it's not your place to decide what Jobs does with his property or money... which are essentially the same thing. Jobs has more than been accommodating to you people that think it's your place to decide what other people do with their property and money. If I were him I would have bulldozed the place in the middle of the night and then paid whatever idiotic fines were imposed by the city.
Let me just plant this seed in your head. Do you own a car? Well... I'm going to be visiting your part of the country soon and I need a ride. Since you can afford a car then I think it's your responsibility to provide everyone else with a car that can't afford one. So.... give me your keys and I'll be on my way.
What you're saying is no stinking different.
Z
This isn't about "opinions". History of Arts - and History of Architecture - are scientific subjects. Someone who is versed in them will be able to tell you whether a landmark is significant or not.
Haha, this is the single dumbest thing in this entire topic. If there is no testable hypothesis, then it ain't science, kid. A bunch of pretentious people sitting around and agreeing amongst themselves that something is "significant" is no different than any other sort of opinion, except you seem to want to grant it more merrit.
Why people are so eager to shackle future generations down to be hostages of the past is beyond me.
What kind of a world are we living in where a man doesn't have the right to destroy something he owns?
Exactly, look at ... oh but wait ... Ballmer doesn't own M$ so I guess that doesn't count
However, from an ethical point of view, the destruction of a significant work of art would still be despicable, even if it were technically legal.
Not if the owner wants too. If you think it so special, go buy it and then you can decide. Until then, quit whining!
HAHAHA. "Scientific Method" is an attribute of hard science and factual research. As I do hold a degree in a hard science, I am well-acquainted with the it.
What Scientific Method would tell us about "historical architecture" is that any structure with even a single unique attribute is factually significant, as there is something to be observed and learned about it.
That does not warrant the preservation of said feature. The scientific purpose of studying history is to learn and improve upon the past, preserving it adds nothing to that process, so long as the phenomenon is documented well enough.
P.S., Parkettpolitur, if you're so obsessed with this historic architecture, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go rent out the house for a few nights to soak in all that history?
-Clive
Yes, factually significant maybe, but that's not the same thing as cultural relevance, and you know it. What scientific method tells us with regard to "historical architecture" is whether we are dealing with an original work worthy of our attention and care or simply the derivative work of an epigone. But again, this is not my subject, so I am completely out of my element here. I just chose to chime in because your post reeks of a cetain elitism often exhibited by those who are proud to have studied a so-called "hard science". Well, congratulations, I guess my subject isn't as cool and hard as yours.
BTW, I'm not American, and as a student who's just finishing up his degree and can barely afford to live in a one-bedroom apartment, I sadly can't step in and save the house
But I can assure you that if I were a billionaire, I would spend the pocket change to have the building relocated.
I figure, if you buy property with an older home on it, you have a responsibility to try and preserve it in some fashion. The home has been here longer than you, and will be here, hopefully, long after you're gone.
Obviously, some homes simply cannot be saved, but people have to realize that this "it's my property and I can do what I please" doesn't fit in with the fact that we live in communities with other people, and are simply part of a history of the area. You don't want the responsibility of buying an older home. Then don't. No one is making you buy it. There are loads of properties with newer homes or empty lots. Just buy one of them.
Haha, this is the single dumbest thing in this entire topic. If there is no testable hypothesis, then it ain't science, kid. A bunch of pretentious people sitting around and agreeing amongst themselves that something is "significant" is no different than any other sort of opinion, except you seem to want to grant it more merrit.
Yes, the only areas of study with any "merrit" are those that are based on testable hypotheses. Oh wait, Art History is actually one of these areas of study! Hooray!
If you had any knowledge of the Humanities, you wouldn't spout such stupid crap - and you would probably know how to spell "merit".
Just build a house somewhere else. No big deal.
Save Our Heritage
-- Sent from my iPhone
I'm quite disappointed by the number of people who feel that you should be able to demolish anything on your property. I live in a neighbourhood with a lot of older homes, but some people buys these homes, demolish them and put up truly ugly cheaply, made houses because it's cheaper than rebuilding. One of the attractions of this neighbourhood is it's one of the few that is mostly old homes. These people coming in and demolishing here often never live in the house and have no connection to the neighbourhood.
I figure, if you buy property with an older home on it, you have a responsibility to try and preserve it in some fashion. The home has been here longer than you, and will be here, hopefully, long after you're gone.
Obviously, some homes simply cannot be saved, but people have to realize that this "it's my property and I can do what I please" doesn't fit in with the fact that we live in communities with other people, and are simply part of a history of the area. You don't want the responsibility of buying an older home. Then don't. No one is making you buy it. There are loads of properties with newer homes or empty lots. Just buy one of them.
What if the place is haunted? I am being serious because I had a relative that had to move out of a 125 year old Victorian because things were real strange and he feared for his baby (6 months old). The people who bought the place moved out in 3 months and it still on the market. So be careful in what you "wish" for.
Not if the owner wants too. If you think it so special, go buy it and then you can decide. Until then, quit whining!
Dude, ownership is a legal category, not an ethical one. Just because the owner of an object chooses to do something to or with that object doesn't make it right. This is why private ownership of artworks is such a problematic and murky concept. Or let's put it this way: if you "owned" a slave in the 19th century, you could do whatever you wanted to him or her and it was legal, but it sure as hell wasn't ethical. I guess those whining crybabies in the north should just have bought all the slaves from southern slaveowners, heh.
This would be a valid point if Steve Jobs weren't a goddamned billionaire. He's just being stubborn and stingy on this one.
Steve Job's wealth is irrelevant. If the SOH wants to save it, the SOH should make it happen financially, instead of whining about it in court.
Such rampant entitlement...
Dude, if YOU think this property is historically significant, put your money where your freaking mouth is, and MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I'm sick of all these faux saints, who bemoan everything and do nothing.
-Clive
Steve Job's wealth is irrelevant. If the SOH wants to save it, the SOH should make it happen financially, instead of whining about it in court.
Such rampant entitlement...
Dude, if YOU think this property is historically significant, put your money where your freaking mouth is, and MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I'm sick of all these faux saints, who bemoan everything and do nothing.
-Clive
Yes, because a billionaire has the exact same moral and political obligations to his community as someone without any wealth at all... If you truly believe that, I consider myself happy not to have to share a country with you and I'll leave you with this simple quote from the German constitution (well, Grundgesetz): "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."
these preservationists are all a bunch of old blue-haired ladies that can't live their lives unless there is a law that tells them what they can and can't do. they spend their lives trying to force people to live the way they do by creating even more laws.
An iHouse, with no Windows..
And every surface in the house is multi-touch.