Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can SJ not afford the extra $5M to renovate? :rolleyes:

Its not a question of whether or not he can afford the extra $5M. It's the fact he doesn't want that house there.

Just because you can afford a Bentley doesn't mean you should have to buy one if you find them hideous and would be miserable with it. Granted, a car and a historical* house and a car are two different things, but the idea is the same.

*I use the term historical loosely, as they obviously didn't care about it until he wanted it torn down, but I digress.
 
Frankly on the design side of things, I agree completely with Jobs. Even if it is historic, looking through those pictures it's just so UGLY. Maybe it might have looked better in it's hey day, but personally, I find it very rambling and it has no cohesive sense of design, almost as if it's had multiple additions added on (which is probably has). I can see why Jobs doesn't want to spend the money to renovate it. It looks like a beautiful site and I'm sure Jobs's new home will be much better looking.
 
the idea that when you buy an historic property you can just tear it down like it's nobody's business is honestly ludicrous, as is the concept that something less than 100 yrs old cannot be historic.

what is arguably the most significant piece of american architecture, was designed in 1934
399px-Wrightfallingwater.jpg


if someone bought the property and decided to purposedly let it collapse, to build something else there, he/she should be shot on the spot.

That said, being old doesn't automatically make anything "historic".
That house wasn't deemed historic when SJ bought it, and i assume he got it with the idea of taking it down. It seems iffy to change the situation afterward, but it is very heavy-handed of SJ to basically let it go to ruins.
 
I think it's interesting that you bring up Frank Lloyld Wright's Fallingwater, because as you said, being old is not enough to deem a site or building historic, however that seems to be what they've done with this house. It may show period design, but I don't think it shows much else that is extraordinary on the design scale and so to me, it seems as if they were trying to protecT it simply because it was old. Then again, the fact that the historical organization deemed the house historic after jobs bought it is pretty dubious ass way to block it's demolition.
 
I think it's interesting that you bring up Frank Lloyld Wright's Fallingwater, because as you said, being old is not enough to deem a site or building historic, however that seems to be what they've done with this house. It may show period design, but I don't think it shows much else that is extraordinary on the design scale and so to me, it seems as if they were trying to protecT it simply because it was old. Then again, the fact that the historical organization deemed the house historic after jobs bought it is pretty dubious ass way to block it's demolition.

yeah, i am not taking any strong position regarding that specific house because i don't know enough about it, and about the back story.

but people were dismissing this house as not being historic simply based on its "young" age.
Being old is part of being historic, but it's not the only part and not even the most important part in many cases. This goes both ways, obviously.
 
yeah, i am not taking any strong position regarding that specific house because i don't know enough about it, and about the back story.

but people were dismissing this house as not being historic simply based on its "young" age.
Being old is part of being historic, but it's not the only part and not even the most important part in many cases. This goes both ways, obviously.

:confused: They are? Where?
 
If your neighbours (on both sides of our house - for the sake of argument assume you are in an ordinary house) decided to build two 16 story buildings that came right up to the property lines - with all the extra traffic 24/7 that would bring..... then you might decide that you wanted an opinion on what they could do. Society does maintain some controls on what people can do with their property

That is why there are zoning laws. You can't build anything you want for any purpose unless you can meet zoning requirements.
 
If it was Balmer instead of Jobs...

You'd all be saying how dare he tear down a piece of our cultural history.. blah blah blah.

Not saying I like the building just that if you let the land owner tear down whatever they want you have very little history able to develop.
 
thecritix said:
Not saying I like the building just that if you let the land owner tear down whatever they want you have very little history able to develop.

The fact that they designated this historic after he had bought the property is the whole ball game here. He spent millions of dollars with the reasonable belief that he would be able to do what he wanted with the land.

The government has the power of eminent domain. If the property is really that important, use that power, pay the owner the fair market value, and then pony up yet more millions of taxpayer dollars to preserve the site. What's bull**** is to designate it a historic site, thus preventing the owner from using it as he sees fit, yet refuse to pay for either the land or the building's upkeep.

If he'd bought the site knowing it was a historic site it would be a whole different story. This was a bait-and-switch.
 
I seem to be the only one but having looked through some more pics online I quite like the house. I hate when old houses are left to rot :(

I see the bait and switch point though.
 
If it was Balmer instead of Jobs...

You'd all be saying how dare he tear down a piece of our cultural history.. blah blah blah.

I would still have the same opinion regardless of who owned the house. Let the landowner do as they please they bought it before it was deemed historical. Just because a famous/important person built and used to live in the house does not necessarily make it historic.

I do believe in cultural preservation and preserving historic sites, but this instance (like instaxgirl stated) is similar to a bait and switch.
 
:confused: They are? Where?

in pretty much every blog where the jackling house is discussed someone will come up with a "it's not even 100 yrs old" line, or just dismiss the entire discussion on the basis that it is "his property, his decision" or because nothing 'historical' happened there.
there can be many reasons why a landmark is a landmark (i am not suggesting this one should be one, btw).
 
What country is this again?
Here I was under the impression that *owning* property meant precisely that. The locals don't care? Destroying it doesn't BREAK any laws? Then he should be able to turn it into a parking lot if he wants to. If that's such a crime, then it seems illogical that it was ever available for sale on the open market. I'm sorry, but once something gets put in an advertisement for a public consumer to buy, you've lost all rights to control the property. (HOA BS notwithstanding.. I have a fascist HOA, myself, and am certain those people will be first against the wall when the revolution comes) ;)

Where were the cultural preservationists when the property was for sale before Jobs bought it? If they have such a soft spot for this style of architecture, then they should have bought it or gone through the proper channels to have it converted into a PUBLIC historical landmark... BEFORE IT WAS SOLD TO A PRIVATE PARTY.
They snoozed.. so they lose. (and don't say "we all lose" because it seems like the *vast* majority thinks this style is butt-ugly.. I'm of the school of belief that a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter how old or iconic it is) Take a couple hundred high-rez photos of the place and let's be done with this invasion of privacy.
 
If he owns the land and the building, then it should be his to do with as he pleases. Yes it may be historical, and I'm a big fan of preserving history, but this one is a no brainer. His property, his choice.

So if he said he wanted to build an animal rendering plant or host a nuclear waste dump, that would be okay? In a sane society here are always limits. Although in this case he should be able to dynamite it. If the society wants it, it's on sale for a dollar. I'd give them one week to move it.
 
I've done a couple nominations for the National Register of Historic places, and I'm a big, big advocate for the preservation of historic buildings and sites. Once they are gone, they are GONE.

Local residents were defending Jobs’ right to tear down a building he doesn’t like and replace it with a new house more to his taste.

Preservationists who had traveled from as far away as Florida and Virginia argued that Jobs hadn’t tried hard enough find someone able to restore or relocate the 84-year-old Santa Barbara-style Spanish colonial that they describe as an architectural treasure.

...which does not mean that any of the local residents have any appreciation for this house.

What country is this again?
Here I was under the impression that *owning* property meant precisely that. The locals don't care? Destroying it doesn't BREAK any laws? Then he should be able to turn it into a parking lot if he wants to. If that's such a crime, then it seems illogical that it was ever available for sale on the open market. I'm sorry, but once something gets put in an advertisement for a public consumer to buy, you've lost all rights to control the property. (HOA BS notwithstanding.. I have a fascist HOA, myself, and am certain those people will be first against the wall when the revolution comes) ;)

Where were the cultural preservationists when the property was for sale before Jobs bought it? If they have such a soft spot for this style of architecture, then they should have bought it or gone through the proper channels to have it converted into a PUBLIC historical landmark... BEFORE IT WAS SOLD TO A PRIVATE PARTY.

Most Americans think the way you do, mahashel. And, as you said, private property is strongly protected in this country. Too much, as a matter of fact. Speaking as an archaeologist, I can tell you that there is very, very little legislation that protects the past in this country. Aside from battlefields, parks and graves, you can do just about whatever you want to whatever you want, so long as you legally purchase it. If you had the money, you could buy and demolish just about any historic home, no matter how significant. If you find a large prehistoric archaeological site on your property (provided there are no burials), you can charge pot hunters to bulldoze the whole goddamn thing and there isn't anything anyone can do about it from a legal standpoint. You own it.

No, we really don't have much appreciation for the past in this country. We don't protect the past through legislation very much. That would probably be considered socialist. Here, it's all about "me". I own it, I can do whatever I want with it.

They snoozed.. so they lose. (and don't say "we all lose" because it seems like the *vast* majority thinks this style is butt-ugly.. I'm of the school of belief that a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter how old or iconic it is) Take a couple hundred high-rez photos of the place and let's be done with this invasion of privacy.

In the case of Jobs' home, I don't know enough to pronounce. But I can say that every year more and more examples of historic architecture are being demolished to make way for Wal-Marts and McMansions and whatnot. I am not going to say that demolishing an old house is just something you should never do, and sometimes a historic house is too far gone for viable restoration.

I'm going to disagree with you strongly on two points. First, saying that a house is "butt-ugly" is a not a good reason to declare it not historically significant - far too subjective. Abraham Lincoln was no looker, but that didn't prevent us from putting a huge statue of him on the mall. Historical significance is not based on subjective assessments of beauty. In fact, there are a number of building styles that are both highly significant and usually considered unattractive. Also, arguing against preservation on cost grounds doesn't alter a building's significance (whatever it may be).

Second, your notion that "a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter how old or iconic it is" is an oversimplification that ignores the notion of historical significance. There is so much to learn in the study of "bad ideas" and failed inventions. Often, the origins of the great successes lie in the ruins of failure. To ignore this is to manufacture a selective history of things that ignores how it all really happened.

Jobs is a very, very rich man. In my opinion, it would be best for him to go get another piece of property and put a house on it and let preservation groups take a crack at the old mansion.
 
Jobs is a very, very rich man. In my opinion, it would be best for him to go get another piece of property and put a house on it and let preservation groups take a crack at the old mansion.

He did just that. He does not live there and he offered to sell it to them for $1 but they would not take it.

The is a difference between an old house and great architecture. This house happens to be old and in a rare style but poorly designed and not attractive

It's best to preserve theo good houses that are old, not just all old houses.
 
He did just that. He does not live there and he offered to sell it to them for $1 but they would not take it.

The is a difference between an old house and great architecture. This house happens to be old and in a rare style but poorly designed and not attractive

It's best to preserve the good houses that are old, not just all old houses.

Looking at the preservation group's website provides an alternative viewpoint.

My argument is simply that saying something is (subjectively) ugly, in poor condition, and expensive to restore does not constitute a good enough argument to destroy something. I specialize in the archaeology of industry. What do you all think about preserving the rusting, rotting remains of Bethlem Steel? Certainly a critical piece of the growth of American industrial might - but it ain't pretty. It will be horrifically expensive to preserve and interpret for the public. But it should be. This current example is less high-profile, but the concept is still there.

I notice that several of George Washington Smith's houses are on the National Register of Historic Places (which does not, I must mention, confer any protection on a property). So the preservationists should have nominated the house for the National Register as part of their movement to preserve the house. But it is possible that, due to modifications and the presence of other examples of the style, the house may not be deemed sufficiently significant to preserve it. Some Frank Lloyd Wright houses have been demolished, so it isn't as if it never happens.

I just disagree with a lot of the reasons being put forward here (and by Jobs' lawyer) supporting demolition - that doesn't mean I think this particular house needs to be preserved.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.