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.
