You don't understand how the criteria for significance work, so your conclusions are bound to be incorrect. The criteria do not include "scientific importance." Historic properties are not important because they provide data (with the exception of archeological sites, which is a separate topic). They are judged to be significant for the ways they represent or exemplify themes in U.S. history (including architecture). Rarity or uniqueness are not the criteria for eligibility.
The criteria aslo include a specific and extensively described method for determining if the property has sufficient "integrity" which is defined as the "ability to convey its significance," which fully takes in the issue of alterations. This evaluation is broken down into seven defined aspects. All of this has to be part of any analysis of significance. So you see, the method may not be empirical, but it's not arbitrary and it is not capricious. Sentiment has nothing to do with this.
This is a good point to repeat what I've said many times before in this thread: the significance of this house was never in question. So your post-hoc analysis is not only uninformed, it is not relevant to this instance. The battle which has been waged over the last few years over this house has been entirely about whether the city complied with California environmental law in authorizing the demolition.
I'd be willing to bet that in 200 or 300 years time the site of the very first McDonald's will be of greater historic importance than this house. Things that are deemed historically significant are ultimately determined by those living and their cultural perspective.
No, he bloody well can't "do as he pleases" with a piece of history.
When you buy a historic property, you don't get to do as you please. You're buying the right to be the caretaker of a piece of history, and the right to live in a piece of history. You ARE NOT buying the right to destroy it.
And yes, I own and live in a historic home. I don't have the right to tear it down either.
Than you are an idiot and should ask for your money back, unless you are fine with the house. MY HOUSE, MY RULES. If I own something I decide what happens to it, up until the day I die.
I'd be willing to bet that in 200 or 300 years time the site of the very first McDonald's will be of greater historic importance than this house. Things that are deemed historically significant are ultimately determined by those living and their cultural perspective.
Dead people don't get to do much determining about anything, so you're right about that much.
At least one McDonald's that I know about was determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but I don't think it was ever listed (owner consent denied).
The point being, it isn't a competition, and there's no quota. Places are found to be historic for a wide variety of reasons.
Apple has been trying to build a store downtown for years, but the Historic Preservation Board keeps rejecting their plans- too much glass for the neighborhood. Looks like DC will never get one.
From the tone of your posts, you appear to believe that you have found somewhere that is less crazy.
Would you mind sharing where that might be.
PM me if you don't want to share with other posters.
The EU in one of the ascension states. But really, anywhere in the EU I find people to be more reasonable with fewer appeals to emotion when it comes to debate. There's a lot I miss about life in the USA, but this thread, and the tone of many of the posters, reminds me of why I left. This whole Ignorance is Knowledge crap is getting out of hand.
As I have already said, the "style of the house" is not the source of its significance. The article states this wrongly. It is the owner of the house when it was built, and the architect who designed it which are the source of its significance. These determinations are made objectively on the basis of fact and analytical criteria by people who are knowledgeable about both. Whether you believe this or not is immaterial. It happens to be true in any case. If you reject this information out of hand for no other reason than you don't know anything about it (or don't want to), then it is not someone else who is being silly.
Actually the determination is made subjectively since it requires the analysis of knowledgeable people as opposed to determined by objective criteria.
As an example, the winner of a speed skating event is objectively determined (who crossed the line first). The winner of a figure skating event is subjectively determined (who was considered to have executed the more difficult program the best). The significance of Smith as an architect is subjectively determined based on some agreed criteria in the same way the artistry, difficulty and execution of a spin is determined based on some agreed criteria.
Perhaps that's why you're so defensive about it. It is subjective and you know it.
IOW, one where you don't have to discuss the topic with someone who actually understands it?
Okay, maybe you didn't mean it that way. Not sure what you did mean though.
My previous points have made my feelings on this subject about as clear as they can be but since you're not getting it... I'm do this as slow as possible...
Q: Is this building under the protection or jursdiction of any LOCAL., STATE, FEDERAL LAW or any other society/organization that has an officially recognized LEGAL capacity to supersede the wishes of a homeowner WHERE BY the leveling of the building would be an indisputable violation of the law?
A: _________ <-- fill in this blank with a YES or NO answer
Once you answer the question I will repeat (again) how I would react to this situation.
Apple has been trying to build a store downtown for years, but the Historic Preservation Board keeps rejecting their plans- too much glass for the neighborhood. Looks like DC will never get one.
Perhaps D.C. has seen what the French citizens let happen to the louvre...
Certainly makes the teardown of this shack pale in comparison... Talk about vandalizing a work of ART ... that place looks like a modernest threw-up right in front of that truly (previously) amazing structor.
Seeing how in love Steve is with France... Perhaps, he will just pull a similar stunt on this home... all he needs to do is track down that dude who built the Luxor in Vegas and expand his building budget by a zeros or two.
Rent out the rooms in the home for wayward firebugs, arsonists, people with mild, moderate or severe pyromaniacal tendencies and call it a day. Those poor downtrodden people NEED a place to live TOO you know and half the posters here have been yelling for Steve to be more philanthropic... Heck, this plan kills 2, 3, 4 (maybe more) birds with one match... err stone.
My previous points have made my feelings on this subject about as clear as they can be but since you're not getting it... I'm do this as slow as possible...
Q: Is this building under the protection or jursdiction of any LOCAL., STATE, FEDERAL LAW or any other society/organization that has an officially recognized LEGAL capacity to supersede the wishes of a homeowner WHERE BY the leveling of the building would be an indisputable violation of the law?
A: _________ <-- fill in this blank with a YES or NO answer
Once you answer the question I will repeat (again) how I would react to this situation.
I'm not obligated to respond to your loaded questions, let alone with simplistic answers. So I will instead give you the correct answer.
The city was responsible under California environmental law to consider the adverse environmental impacts of the permitting the house to be demolished. As a part of this analysis, they were required to determine if alternatives to demolition were feasible. A group of residents in the city felt that the city had not done this work properly and sued the city for violating the law. This happens quite a lot under California's environmental laws -- cities try to take shortcuts and get caught -- so this case is hardly strange or unusual to those of us who work with these laws.
Not as emotionally satisfying as yes or no, I'm sure, but far more accurate.
I'm not obligated to respond to your loaded questions, let alone with simplistic answers. So I will instead give you the correct answer.
Obligated? No you are certainly not... and given the text below I can see why would choose not to answer. So to clear up some issues.
- This home isn't protect by any form/type of historic preservation society.
- This site isn't protected by any State Local or Federal landmark rulings.
- This site IS being jerked around by a legal loophole.
"The city was responsible under California environmental law to consider the adverse environmental impacts of the permitting the house to be demolished."
To consider them?!!? Okay that's fair enough but who exactly is responsible for FORMULATING the studies and to what level of detail and depth must they be and how long does someone have to create said studies?
"As a part of this analysis, they were required to determine if alternatives to demolition were feasible. A group of residents in the city felt that the city had not done this work properly and sued the city for violating the law."
"alternatives to demolition were feasible" Huh?!?! feasible to WHO, a random jerk on the street with no financial investment and nothing better to do? the property owner?? some town clerk??? a board of judges??? the town crier???? Hey! Maybe even Jon Cryer?
"This happens quite a lot under California's environmental laws -- cities try to take shortcuts and get caught -- so this case is hardly strange or unusual to those of us who work with these laws."
And now tearing down the structure is considered an environmental issue? Or that just the agency who established such an odd requirement. It's a wonder ANYTHING gets torn down and rebuilt if every single project has to endure this level of scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Not as emotionally satisfying as yes or no, I'm sure, but far more accurate.
Accurate and telling... Yet another reason I should NEVER be shocked about something in CA!
Case in point... It was the early/mid 90s and while smoking in bars in NYC and most of the eastern US was still allowed it was clearly not in SF... Well not knowing this I sat down at a corner bar and (near the convention hall -- WWDC 199?) got a beer and asked for an ashtray... The bartender looked at me like I had two heads and said you CAN'T smoke in here you'd have to smoke on the curb. Odd but when in Rome... So I have my smoke and return to my drink... Five minutes later a very ripe smelling homeless person enters the bar... Living the the NYC area not an alien site but then the person proceeded to walk from bar patron to bar patron asking for money.
I looked up at the bar tender and said is he allowed to be in here? I was told yes... its perfectly within their rights we can't tell them to leave so long as they behave.
So lemme get this straight I said... "ME" a guy who just spent 9.75 for a bottle of domestic beer (it was a lot at the time) has to huddle out on the curb to smoke a cigarette and a homeless person who is begging table to table is perfectly acceptable. I finished my beer and left not because I had to go outside to smoke (since it was the law) but due to the insanity of the situation.
Actually the determination is made subjectively since it requires the analysis of knowledgeable people as opposed to determined by objective criteria.
As an example, the winner of a speed skating event is objectively determined (who crossed the line first). The winner of a figure skating event is subjectively determined (who was considered to have executed the more difficult program the best). The significance of Smith as an architect is subjectively determined based on some agreed criteria in the same way the artistry, difficulty and execution of a spin is determined based on some agreed criteria.
Perhaps that's why you're so defensive about it. It is subjective and you know it.
Notice how he doesn't respond.
Instead he'll say something like, "I'm not here to argue philosophy, I just came to clear up the facts from the fiction," which is BS, because he picked a fight he now realizes he can't win and is diverting to shield himself.
Yes, that is precisely what you are arguing, continually. On multiple occasions you have attempted to impose your own private criteria for what might be considered historic.
Citation Required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
These criteria are not the criteria used. Determining what is or is not historic is not about sentiment, it is based on the application of specific criteria, professionally interpreted by knowledgeable individuals, and based upon factual, documented information. That these interpretations don't involve formulae is not a measure of their validity as a method.
How exactly do you measure an object's ability to exemplify a theme in history without using any subjective metric?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Because you are grossly misrepresenting the method, despite your complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Just as surely as I would be if I suggested that Quantum Mechanics is the result of faeries waving magic wands simply because I didn't know any better.
How can I be misrepresenting method when I'm not arguing method? I'm arguing, like I said, philosophy, which you claim not to be interested in.
And, actually, faeries waving wands is about as good as any other reason I've heard to justify why Quantum Mechanics is as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee
And remember nothing it ever truly lost... (I'm not schooled in the sciences but I do love the subject) unless it has the unfortunate luck to wander near enough to an event horizon... and I think even then it's still speculated that the information isn't lost but perhaps that theory isn't in favor any more... I don't follow all the 'action' blow by blow..
Yes, net energy is still always conserved. Also, last I heard, Hawking's theory that Black Holes evaporate still stands as well, so what entered as water will get re-emitted as "Hawking radiation," thanks to, of course, effing Quantum Mechanical effects. The process allegedly accelerates as the Black Hole shrinks, until the Black Hole has evaporated completely.
Obligated? No you are certainly not... and given the text below I can see why would choose not to answer. So to clear up some issues.
- This home isn't protect by any form/type of historic preservation society.
- This site isn't protected by any State Local or Federal landmark rulings.
- This site IS being jerked around by a legal loophole.
"The city was responsible under California environmental law to consider the adverse environmental impacts of the permitting the house to be demolished."
To consider them?!!? Okay that's fair enough but who exactly is responsible for FORMULATING the studies and to what level of detail and depth must they be and how long does someone have to create said studies?
"As a part of this analysis, they were required to determine if alternatives to demolition were feasible. A group of residents in the city felt that the city had not done this work properly and sued the city for violating the law."
"alternatives to demolition were feasible" Huh?!?! feasible to WHO, a random jerk on the street with no financial investment and nothing better to do? the property owner?? some town clerk??? a board of judges??? the town crier???? Hey! Maybe even Jon Cryer?
"This happens quite a lot under California's environmental laws -- cities try to take shortcuts and get caught -- so this case is hardly strange or unusual to those of us who work with these laws."
And now tearing down the structure is considered an environmental issue? Or that just the agency who established such an odd requirement. It's a wonder ANYTHING gets torn down and rebuilt if every single project has to endure this level of scrutiny.
I have answered, just not in the simplistic way you'd prefer. Sorry, it's not so simple.
If you'd paid attention you'd know that I have not defended suing over these issues, only attempted to explain where these opportunities to sue occur. You demanded to know on what legal basis this can happen, and I told you. If you choose to rant over it for whatever personal reasons you might have, that's your privilege, but I don't have to respond to your rants either.
The process of determining whether alternatives are feasible are not done by random jerks. The analysis is done professionally.
California environmental law has been on the books for 40 years now. (In fact it is very similar to Federal environmental law.) It covers a wide range of environmental issues, of which historic is one. As far as what sort of demolitions are covered by environmental review, that's almost entirely up to the local government. If they choose to make demolitions subject to discretionary review (as opposed to over the counter permits) then this decision comes under the law. As I've explained before, none of this requires that demolitions, even of historic buildings, don't occur, only that the local government properly disclose to the public the environmental impacts of their actions, and consider other actions that might reduce or eliminate the impact.
I'm not asking you to like any of this, and I honestly don't care whether you do. I am only explaining how it works.
Citation for what, your uninformed ranting about a subject you know nothing about?
Look it up yourself -- I've already told you where to find it. Warning: extensive reading and an open mind to concepts you have not previously considered are required. Here's a place to start:
Yes, net energy is still always conserved. Also, last I heard, Hawking's theory that Black Holes evaporate still stands as well, so what entered as water will get re-emitted as "Hawking radiation," thanks to, of course, effing Quantum Mechanical effects. The process allegedly accelerates as the Black Hole shrinks, until the Black Hole has evaporated completely.
Now you've done it... I'm in dire need of a science show hopefully something about QM, or at the very least a nice recap of the current understandings of DM (dark energy or whatever the current favorite term is)... Even I good ole fashion brains program would be nice... Too bad I've seen all the stuff currently being shown about two dozen times now.
/rant **Less crap on TV and more science, if not NOW then WHEN!**
Now you've done it... I'm in dire need of a science show hopefully something about QM, or at the very least a nice recap of the current understandings of DM (dark energy or whatever the current favorite term is)... Even I good ole fashion brains program would be nice... Too bad I've seen all the stuff currently being shown about two dozen times now.
/rant **Less crap on TV and more science, if not NOW then WHEN!**
This one is on String Theory and touches on QM, and is very lay-person focused. The identically-titled book is much more in-depth but still aimed at a casual audience. *recommended*
Quote posts where I've "attempted to impose my own criteria for what might be considered historic."
You will find none, and instead divert to other topics like you have been doing since the start of this debate.
For one, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
When it comes to understanding architectural styles, however, it's pretty well-understood what constitutes "spanish colonial revival." It can be described and replicated with near-perfect precision. I would call that an absolute understanding.
First of all, not necessarily true, but most importantly, not the criteria of significance, and not the evidence of significance in the case we were discussing.
Again, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
The issue of what is scientifically important was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Any relic with even a single unique quality is scientifically important, and ergo worthy of at least some study. Once an absolute understanding of the relic has been achieved, its only remaining importance is sentimental. If there is more yet to be learned, then preservation of the relic is practical for scientific purposes.
I am not an expert of architecture, but from what I gather, this house is neither unique, nor rare, nor is this house even a pure example of the specimen in question as it has been modified since its original construction. There seems to be very little remarkable about this house.
Not the criteria for determining significance, as described at length elsewhere.
All in the current page of this thread. So yes, this is what you've been doing all along, starting with your completely unsubstantiated claim that it's all about emotion and sentiment. I have pointed out several times what the actual criteria of significance are, discussed them at length, described how they are applied, described how the pertinent facts are evaluated, and even linked to a place where you can read more about this process in detail (which I take it you are not prepared to do).
Your problem with this, I take it, is that you find all this type of analysis to be insufficiently "scientific" for your tastes, so you think it should be done your way or not at all. You seem to hostile to the basic concepts, and therefore feel justified in willing them out of existence. If I'm supposed to get anything else out of your basic line of attack, then I don't know what it is.
Comments
For instance, my cat has white feet.
You don't understand how the criteria for significance work, so your conclusions are bound to be incorrect. The criteria do not include "scientific importance." Historic properties are not important because they provide data (with the exception of archeological sites, which is a separate topic). They are judged to be significant for the ways they represent or exemplify themes in U.S. history (including architecture). Rarity or uniqueness are not the criteria for eligibility.
The criteria aslo include a specific and extensively described method for determining if the property has sufficient "integrity" which is defined as the "ability to convey its significance," which fully takes in the issue of alterations. This evaluation is broken down into seven defined aspects. All of this has to be part of any analysis of significance. So you see, the method may not be empirical, but it's not arbitrary and it is not capricious. Sentiment has nothing to do with this.
This is a good point to repeat what I've said many times before in this thread: the significance of this house was never in question. So your post-hoc analysis is not only uninformed, it is not relevant to this instance. The battle which has been waged over the last few years over this house has been entirely about whether the city complied with California environmental law in authorizing the demolition.
I'd be willing to bet that in 200 or 300 years time the site of the very first McDonald's will be of greater historic importance than this house. Things that are deemed historically significant are ultimately determined by those living and their cultural perspective.
No, he bloody well can't "do as he pleases" with a piece of history.
When you buy a historic property, you don't get to do as you please. You're buying the right to be the caretaker of a piece of history, and the right to live in a piece of history. You ARE NOT buying the right to destroy it.
And yes, I own and live in a historic home. I don't have the right to tear it down either.
Than you are an idiot and should ask for your money back, unless you are fine with the house. MY HOUSE, MY RULES. If I own something I decide what happens to it, up until the day I die.
I'd be willing to bet that in 200 or 300 years time the site of the very first McDonald's will be of greater historic importance than this house. Things that are deemed historically significant are ultimately determined by those living and their cultural perspective.
Dead people don't get to do much determining about anything, so you're right about that much.
At least one McDonald's that I know about was determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but I don't think it was ever listed (owner consent denied).
The point being, it isn't a competition, and there's no quota. Places are found to be historic for a wide variety of reasons.
From the tone of your posts, you appear to believe that you have found somewhere that is less crazy.
Would you mind sharing where that might be.
PM me if you don't want to share with other posters.
The EU in one of the ascension states. But really, anywhere in the EU I find people to be more reasonable with fewer appeals to emotion when it comes to debate. There's a lot I miss about life in the USA, but this thread, and the tone of many of the posters, reminds me of why I left. This whole Ignorance is Knowledge crap is getting out of hand.
As I have already said, the "style of the house" is not the source of its significance. The article states this wrongly. It is the owner of the house when it was built, and the architect who designed it which are the source of its significance. These determinations are made objectively on the basis of fact and analytical criteria by people who are knowledgeable about both. Whether you believe this or not is immaterial. It happens to be true in any case. If you reject this information out of hand for no other reason than you don't know anything about it (or don't want to), then it is not someone else who is being silly.
Actually the determination is made subjectively since it requires the analysis of knowledgeable people as opposed to determined by objective criteria.
As an example, the winner of a speed skating event is objectively determined (who crossed the line first). The winner of a figure skating event is subjectively determined (who was considered to have executed the more difficult program the best). The significance of Smith as an architect is subjectively determined based on some agreed criteria in the same way the artistry, difficulty and execution of a spin is determined based on some agreed criteria.
Perhaps that's why you're so defensive about it. It is subjective and you know it.
IOW, one where you don't have to discuss the topic with someone who actually understands it?
Okay, maybe you didn't mean it that way. Not sure what you did mean though.
My previous points have made my feelings on this subject about as clear as they can be but since you're not getting it... I'm do this as slow as possible...
Q: Is this building under the protection or jursdiction of any LOCAL., STATE, FEDERAL LAW or any other society/organization that has an officially recognized LEGAL capacity to supersede the wishes of a homeowner WHERE BY the leveling of the building would be an indisputable violation of the law?
A: _________ <-- fill in this blank with a YES or NO answer
Once you answer the question I will repeat (again) how I would react to this situation.
Apple has been trying to build a store downtown for years, but the Historic Preservation Board keeps rejecting their plans- too much glass for the neighborhood. Looks like DC will never get one.
Perhaps D.C. has seen what the French citizens let happen to the louvre...
Certainly makes the teardown of this shack pale in comparison... Talk about vandalizing a work of ART ... that place looks like a modernest threw-up right in front of that truly (previously) amazing structor.
Seeing how in love Steve is with France... Perhaps, he will just pull a similar stunt on this home... all he needs to do is track down that dude who built the Luxor in Vegas and expand his building budget by a zeros or two.
Rent out the rooms in the home for wayward firebugs, arsonists, people with mild, moderate or severe pyromaniacal tendencies and call it a day. Those poor downtrodden people NEED a place to live TOO you know and half the posters here have been yelling for Steve to be more philanthropic... Heck, this plan kills 2, 3, 4 (maybe more) birds with one match... err stone.
My previous points have made my feelings on this subject about as clear as they can be but since you're not getting it... I'm do this as slow as possible...
Q: Is this building under the protection or jursdiction of any LOCAL., STATE, FEDERAL LAW or any other society/organization that has an officially recognized LEGAL capacity to supersede the wishes of a homeowner WHERE BY the leveling of the building would be an indisputable violation of the law?
A: _________ <-- fill in this blank with a YES or NO answer
Once you answer the question I will repeat (again) how I would react to this situation.
I'm not obligated to respond to your loaded questions, let alone with simplistic answers. So I will instead give you the correct answer.
The city was responsible under California environmental law to consider the adverse environmental impacts of the permitting the house to be demolished. As a part of this analysis, they were required to determine if alternatives to demolition were feasible. A group of residents in the city felt that the city had not done this work properly and sued the city for violating the law. This happens quite a lot under California's environmental laws -- cities try to take shortcuts and get caught -- so this case is hardly strange or unusual to those of us who work with these laws.
Not as emotionally satisfying as yes or no, I'm sure, but far more accurate.
I'm not obligated to respond to your loaded questions, let alone with simplistic answers. So I will instead give you the correct answer.
Obligated? No you are certainly not... and given the text below I can see why would choose not to answer. So to clear up some issues.
- This home isn't protect by any form/type of historic preservation society.
- This site isn't protected by any State Local or Federal landmark rulings.
- This site IS being jerked around by a legal loophole.
"The city was responsible under California environmental law to consider the adverse environmental impacts of the permitting the house to be demolished."
To consider them?!!? Okay that's fair enough but who exactly is responsible for FORMULATING the studies and to what level of detail and depth must they be and how long does someone have to create said studies?
"As a part of this analysis, they were required to determine if alternatives to demolition were feasible. A group of residents in the city felt that the city had not done this work properly and sued the city for violating the law."
"alternatives to demolition were feasible" Huh?!?! feasible to WHO, a random jerk on the street with no financial investment and nothing better to do? the property owner?? some town clerk??? a board of judges??? the town crier???? Hey! Maybe even Jon Cryer?
"This happens quite a lot under California's environmental laws -- cities try to take shortcuts and get caught -- so this case is hardly strange or unusual to those of us who work with these laws."
And now tearing down the structure is considered an environmental issue? Or that just the agency who established such an odd requirement. It's a wonder ANYTHING gets torn down and rebuilt if every single project has to endure this level of scrutiny.
Not as emotionally satisfying as yes or no, I'm sure, but far more accurate.
Accurate and telling... Yet another reason I should NEVER be shocked about something in CA!
Case in point... It was the early/mid 90s and while smoking in bars in NYC and most of the eastern US was still allowed it was clearly not in SF... Well not knowing this I sat down at a corner bar and (near the convention hall -- WWDC 199?) got a beer and asked for an ashtray... The bartender looked at me like I had two heads and said you CAN'T smoke in here you'd have to smoke on the curb. Odd but when in Rome... So I have my smoke and return to my drink... Five minutes later a very ripe smelling homeless person enters the bar... Living the the NYC area not an alien site but then the person proceeded to walk from bar patron to bar patron asking for money.
I looked up at the bar tender and said is he allowed to be in here? I was told yes... its perfectly within their rights we can't tell them to leave so long as they behave.
So lemme get this straight I said... "ME" a guy who just spent 9.75 for a bottle of domestic beer (it was a lot at the time) has to huddle out on the curb to smoke a cigarette and a homeless person who is begging table to table is perfectly acceptable. I finished my beer and left not because I had to go outside to smoke (since it was the law) but due to the insanity of the situation.
Actually the determination is made subjectively since it requires the analysis of knowledgeable people as opposed to determined by objective criteria.
As an example, the winner of a speed skating event is objectively determined (who crossed the line first). The winner of a figure skating event is subjectively determined (who was considered to have executed the more difficult program the best). The significance of Smith as an architect is subjectively determined based on some agreed criteria in the same way the artistry, difficulty and execution of a spin is determined based on some agreed criteria.
Perhaps that's why you're so defensive about it. It is subjective and you know it.
Notice how he doesn't respond.
Instead he'll say something like, "I'm not here to argue philosophy, I just came to clear up the facts from the fiction," which is BS, because he picked a fight he now realizes he can't win and is diverting to shield himself.
Yes, that is precisely what you are arguing, continually. On multiple occasions you have attempted to impose your own private criteria for what might be considered historic.
Citation Required.
These criteria are not the criteria used. Determining what is or is not historic is not about sentiment, it is based on the application of specific criteria, professionally interpreted by knowledgeable individuals, and based upon factual, documented information. That these interpretations don't involve formulae is not a measure of their validity as a method.
How exactly do you measure an object's ability to exemplify a theme in history without using any subjective metric?
Because you are grossly misrepresenting the method, despite your complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Just as surely as I would be if I suggested that Quantum Mechanics is the result of faeries waving magic wands simply because I didn't know any better.
How can I be misrepresenting method when I'm not arguing method? I'm arguing, like I said, philosophy, which you claim not to be interested in.
And, actually, faeries waving wands is about as good as any other reason I've heard to justify why Quantum Mechanics is as it is.
And remember nothing it ever truly lost... (I'm not schooled in the sciences but I do love the subject) unless it has the unfortunate luck to wander near enough to an event horizon... and I think even then it's still speculated that the information isn't lost but perhaps that theory isn't in favor any more... I don't follow all the 'action' blow by blow..
Yes, net energy is still always conserved.
-Clive
Obligated? No you are certainly not... and given the text below I can see why would choose not to answer. So to clear up some issues.
- This home isn't protect by any form/type of historic preservation society.
- This site isn't protected by any State Local or Federal landmark rulings.
- This site IS being jerked around by a legal loophole.
"The city was responsible under California environmental law to consider the adverse environmental impacts of the permitting the house to be demolished."
To consider them?!!? Okay that's fair enough but who exactly is responsible for FORMULATING the studies and to what level of detail and depth must they be and how long does someone have to create said studies?
"As a part of this analysis, they were required to determine if alternatives to demolition were feasible. A group of residents in the city felt that the city had not done this work properly and sued the city for violating the law."
"alternatives to demolition were feasible" Huh?!?! feasible to WHO, a random jerk on the street with no financial investment and nothing better to do? the property owner?? some town clerk??? a board of judges??? the town crier???? Hey! Maybe even Jon Cryer?
"This happens quite a lot under California's environmental laws -- cities try to take shortcuts and get caught -- so this case is hardly strange or unusual to those of us who work with these laws."
And now tearing down the structure is considered an environmental issue? Or that just the agency who established such an odd requirement. It's a wonder ANYTHING gets torn down and rebuilt if every single project has to endure this level of scrutiny.
I have answered, just not in the simplistic way you'd prefer. Sorry, it's not so simple.
If you'd paid attention you'd know that I have not defended suing over these issues, only attempted to explain where these opportunities to sue occur. You demanded to know on what legal basis this can happen, and I told you. If you choose to rant over it for whatever personal reasons you might have, that's your privilege, but I don't have to respond to your rants either.
The process of determining whether alternatives are feasible are not done by random jerks. The analysis is done professionally.
California environmental law has been on the books for 40 years now. (In fact it is very similar to Federal environmental law.) It covers a wide range of environmental issues, of which historic is one. As far as what sort of demolitions are covered by environmental review, that's almost entirely up to the local government. If they choose to make demolitions subject to discretionary review (as opposed to over the counter permits) then this decision comes under the law. As I've explained before, none of this requires that demolitions, even of historic buildings, don't occur, only that the local government properly disclose to the public the environmental impacts of their actions, and consider other actions that might reduce or eliminate the impact.
I'm not asking you to like any of this, and I honestly don't care whether you do. I am only explaining how it works.
Citation Required.
Citation for what, your uninformed ranting about a subject you know nothing about?
Look it up yourself -- I've already told you where to find it. Warning: extensive reading and an open mind to concepts you have not previously considered are required. Here's a place to start:
http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/public...lletins/nrb15/
On multiple occasions you have attempted to impose your own private criteria for what might be considered historic.
Citation Required.
Quote posts where I've "attempted to impose my own criteria for what might be considered historic."
You will find none, and instead divert to other topics like you have been doing since the start of this debate.
Yes, net energy is still always conserved.
Now you've done it... I'm in dire need of a science show hopefully something about QM, or at the very least a nice recap of the current understandings of DM (dark energy or whatever the current favorite term is)... Even I good ole fashion brains program would be nice... Too bad I've seen all the stuff currently being shown about two dozen times now.
/rant **Less crap on TV and more science, if not NOW then WHEN!**
Now you've done it... I'm in dire need of a science show hopefully something about QM, or at the very least a nice recap of the current understandings of DM (dark energy or whatever the current favorite term is)... Even I good ole fashion brains program would be nice... Too bad I've seen all the stuff currently being shown about two dozen times now.
/rant **Less crap on TV and more science, if not NOW then WHEN!**
This one is on String Theory and touches on QM, and is very lay-person focused. The identically-titled book is much more in-depth but still aimed at a casual audience. *recommended*
-Clive
Quote posts where I've "attempted to impose my own criteria for what might be considered historic."
You will find none, and instead divert to other topics like you have been doing since the start of this debate.
For one, here:
When it comes to understanding architectural styles, however, it's pretty well-understood what constitutes "spanish colonial revival." It can be described and replicated with near-perfect precision. I would call that an absolute understanding.
First of all, not necessarily true, but most importantly, not the criteria of significance, and not the evidence of significance in the case we were discussing.
Again, here:
The issue of what is scientifically important was addressed in an earlier post of mine. Any relic with even a single unique quality is scientifically important, and ergo worthy of at least some study. Once an absolute understanding of the relic has been achieved, its only remaining importance is sentimental. If there is more yet to be learned, then preservation of the relic is practical for scientific purposes.
I am not an expert of architecture, but from what I gather, this house is neither unique, nor rare, nor is this house even a pure example of the specimen in question as it has been modified since its original construction. There seems to be very little remarkable about this house.
Not the criteria for determining significance, as described at length elsewhere.
All in the current page of this thread. So yes, this is what you've been doing all along, starting with your completely unsubstantiated claim that it's all about emotion and sentiment. I have pointed out several times what the actual criteria of significance are, discussed them at length, described how they are applied, described how the pertinent facts are evaluated, and even linked to a place where you can read more about this process in detail (which I take it you are not prepared to do).
Your problem with this, I take it, is that you find all this type of analysis to be insufficiently "scientific" for your tastes, so you think it should be done your way or not at all. You seem to hostile to the basic concepts, and therefore feel justified in willing them out of existence. If I'm supposed to get anything else out of your basic line of attack, then I don't know what it is.