Jobs gets OK to tear down historic house

[MacBytes]

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Jobs gets OK to tear down historic house (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041216133418)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[nagromme]

Jobs could afford to save the house, even if it meant GIVING it away AND paying for the transportation AND paying for the repairs once it got there. It could become a museum or home for a historical society, or any kind of non-profit that was able to adapt to the place. Or, heck, someone could even live there :)

I hope someone ends up taking it before it gets demolished. You can't get history back once it's destroyed, and this is a famous architect's work.

[StarbucksSam]

Who cares? It's a house. I never heard of George whatshisface either - if he wants to tear down the house that's his right. He owns it.

[rikers_mailbox]

Apple Press Release: "250 millionth iTunes downloader wins a historic house!"

:D

[wdlove]

It is always very sad when part of history is lost. Steve must have a lot of pull with the authorities. I thought that when a house on the National Registry Historical Buildings, it is almost impossible to make any changes. Our Church happens to be, it requires certain curtains in the windows, lights must be left on, and requires a special paint color on the exterior. Hopefully someone will come along to save the building. This doesn't look good on Steve's part.

[nagromme]

Who cares? It's a house. I never heard of George whatshisface either - if he wants to tear down the house that's his right. He owns it.

It's always possible that there are things of meaning and value in this world that you or I have not personally heard of. (George whathisface? Never heard of him either!)

Someone else never heard of, say, Edvard Munch. That doesn't make it OK for the owner of The Scream to burn it. There are values in life that go beyond just who has the money to own what.

[MacBandit]

It's a material object that doesn't teach a lesson to future generations. Yes its pretty and we can marvel in the construction but when it comes down to it who will care in a thousand years.

[broken_keyboard]

Who cares? It's a house. I never heard of George whatshisface either - if he wants to tear down the house that's his right. He owns it.

Yes exactly. Owning means owning.

[Mainyehc]

Someone else never heard of, say, Edvard Munch. That doesn't make it OK for the owner of The Scream to burn it. There are values in life that go beyond just who has the money to own what.

Hey hey HEY! Wait a second!

I've heard that it was stolen, but BURNT? Or is the "owner" just threatening to burn it (maybe asking for a ransom?)? :confused:

[shamino]

It's always possible that there are things of meaning and value in this world that you or I have not personally heard of. (George whathisface? Never heard of him either!)
There are billions of things that some people find valueable. Does this mean they should all be preserved until the end of time?

Some people probably think there is value in a street full of open sewer grates as well.
Someone else never heard of, say, Edvard Munch. That doesn't make it OK for the owner of The Scream to burn it. There are values in life that go beyond just who has the money to own what.
Sorry. If the owner wants to destroy it, it's his right. He's the owner.

If others disagree, let them buy it.

I recently bought a Morris Katz painting while on vacation last month. The artist made it in about 5 minutes, in front of an audience as a part of a show. I bought it 5 minutes after that for $30. If I decide to burn it, nobody will (or should) care. If I keep it for 30 years and then sell it to someone else, who decides to burn it, what's the difference? The artist's wishes end the minute he sells the work. My wishes end the minute I sell it to someone else.

If society wishes something different from the owner, let society take up a collection and buy it.

[shamino]

It is always very sad when part of history is lost. Steve must have a lot of pull with the authorities. I thought that when a house on the National Registry Historical Buildings, it is almost impossible to make any changes. Our Church happens to be, it requires certain curtains in the windows, lights must be left on, and requires a special paint color on the exterior. Hopefully someone will come along to save the building. This doesn't look good on Steve's part.
The building has been on the chopping block for over a year and nobody thought it was valueable enough to buy and move. If even building-preservation societies in California, with all their wealthy board members, can't scrape together the money for it, then maybe the building really isn't worth saving.

I find it amusing that the most protests about this building are coming from people on the internet who have not seen it and probably never will. Maybe it is, as Steve said, a piece of junk that's beyond repair. The fact that the architect has made a lot of other buildings that people find valueable doesn't mean that this building is one of them.

[nagromme]

So you're saying that architecture can never have value, historically or artistically? Or are you saying that commercial/public buildings can have that kind of value, but that houses never can? Or are you saying that you know something about this particular architect's work, and feel that this particular house is of no value?

Yes owning a house can--and usually does--give you the LEGAL right to destroy it. There are lots of things people have the legal right to do. That doesn't make it right. I have the legal right to call my parents and say I hate them. That doesn't make it right. This isn't a question about the law in my view.

As for Munch... he's just a random example of an important artist :) Technically, I think he painted several versions of [i]The Scream[/]... and I think they have a bad habit of being stolen. But anyone who owns one rightfully still shouldn't burn it. (Not even if the law lets her do so.)

The point, to me is, that Jobs COULD save the house without feeling any financial burden, and that I hope SOMEONE does save it. I see no reason to tell Jobs "destroy what you like because I like my iPod" ;)

[MacBandit]

So you're saying that architecture can never have value, historically or artistically? Or are you saying that commercial/public buildings can have that kind of value, but that houses never can? Or are you saying that you know something about this particular architect's work, and feel that this particular house is of no value?

Yes owning a house can--and usually does--give you the LEGAL right to destroy it. There are lots of things people have the legal right to do. That doesn't make it right. I have the legal right to call my parents and say I hate them. That doesn't make it right. This isn't a question about the law in my view.

As for Munch... he's just a random example of an important artist :) Technically, I think he painted several versions of [i]The Scream[/]... and I think they have a bad habit of being stolen. But anyone who owns one rightfully still shouldn't burn it. (Not even if the law lets her do so.)

The point, to me is, that Jobs COULD save the house without feeling any financial burden, and that I hope SOMEONE does save it. I see no reason to tell Jobs "destroy what you like because I like my iPod" ;)

I'm saying that material objects are sludge to society. Real learning comes from education and then doing.

[shamino]

So you're saying that architecture can never have value, historically or artistically? Or are you saying that commercial/public buildings can have that kind of value, but that houses never can? Or are you saying that you know something about this particular architect's work, and feel that this particular house is of no value?
What I'm saying is that all these protestors should put their money where their mouths are. If you think the building is so valuable, buy it. If there are so many people who are in love with an old building, then they should be able to pool the money to buy it.

To tell the owner of a property that he has no right to do what he wants with it is to deny his ownership altogether.
The point, to me is, that Jobs COULD save the house without feeling any financial burden, and that I hope SOMEONE does save it. I see no reason to tell Jobs "destroy what you like because I like my iPod" ;)
So what you're saying is that a poor person who owns a property is free to do what he wants to with it, but a rich person has no such right because he is capable of spending whatever other people demand of him?

So far, nobody cares enough about the building to do more than stage protests. When the town tells them "put up or shut up" they all became incredibly silent.

This speaks volumes about the building itself and about the hypocricy of all those people whose activism doesn't extend beyond their ability to send out e-mail.

[Lord Blackadder]

A similar issue popped up recently in Michigan, when a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed home was demolished. Sometimes the buildings are too far gone to repair; the FLW home was about to fall down on its own and was altered from its original state so the loss was not too great. Honestly though, If I was in Steve's shoes I would probably be of the opinion that it would be better to pay the cost of having it dissasembled, packed up and donated to some local historic preservation group.

Of course, being an archeologist/historian, I always vote "save". Still, with this kind of preservation activity, you need to pick your battles carefully since the $$ for preservation is scarce. It may be that there are other historic properties in the area that are in the same situation but are more historically significant.

It's always a p*sser because once the house is gone it's gone for good. You can't un-demolish it.

Of course this wouldn't be in the news if Joe Blow owned the home and planned to knock it down, but such is celebrity.

[rueyeet]

I think there's some requirement in the ruling that the house has to be posted on preservation sites, and if someone comes forward with the cash to buy and preserve it, Steve must let them. (or, my memory could be full of holes/crack as usual).

If no one ponies up the cash, though, I bet Steve has far more value for a plot of utility-connected land in that neighborhood than he does for the house itself; and rest assured that if he keeps the property the house is on, he's not going to be putting a cookie-cutter mass-produced tract house on it.

Preservation of historic places is a tricky question. I sometimes think that it's just humanity's irrational resistance to change: buildings are meant to come and go, and nothing lasts forever; yet we try to keep so many things, as if trying to freeze time in amber.

But I do resent it when we carelessly neglect and tear down the things that were built in a time when people actually cared enough about what they made to do it well and make it beautiful, and replace it with something banal, cheap, and ugly. If you're going to bulldoze a gorgeous or interesting old building and put something else up, at least take the time and trouble that what you build there is a worthy replacement.

[puckhead193]

Why doesn't he turn it into a guest house..... I'll be more then happy to be a guest at his house!!!! :p

[jsw]

Digitize it for future generations, then tear it down. It's a 17,000 square foot decaying mansion. It's of no use to society. It's not a government building. It's privately owned.

And, yes, if the owner of The Scream wanted to burn it, that would be that owner's right as well.

I understand laws restricting destruction of natural habitats on private land. I understand zoning laws. I do not understand restrictions on the destruction and removal of private property.

[Abstract]

Someone else never heard of, say, Edvard Munch. That doesn't make it OK for the owner of The Scream to burn it. There are values in life that go beyond just who has the money to own what.

It was recently stolen from Norway. It isn't the first time, either. :(

I don't like the idea of, "You own 100% of it because you bought it, but here's a list of things you can't do with it." Who decides what's historic (ie: Old) AND worth saving?