Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Can't Tear Down House
- Thread starter WildCowboy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
17,000 square feet? 
Imagine how many Mac minis you could fit in there.
Excepting all the dry rot, of course ...
Imagine how many Mac minis you could fit in there.
Excepting all the dry rot, of course ...
Apparently it's valued both as a prime example of the Spanish colonial revival architectural style, and because it was built as a residence for Daniel Jackling, the dominant figure in the American copper industry in the first half of the 20th century.
I think it was designed by some semi-famous architect. But apparently, no one cares about his his work enough to renovate the house, they only care enough to keep Stevie (who owns it) from ripping it apart. I say he goes in with a sledgehammer and just starts smashing ****.After G said:
Counterfit said:
I agree. This kind of crap really pisses me off. He freakin' owns it. He can do what he wants with it. End of story.
Counterfit said:
It was designed by one of California's most important architects, George Washington Smith. Nobody can force Steve to care about such things. He doesn't like the house, but he won't sell it to someone who does, either.
QCassidy352 said:
No, this isn't how it works, sorry.
IJ Reilly said:
Yes, I'm aware of that.
It's how it should work. The way it does work is outrageous. Sorry I wasn't explicit before.
PlaceofDis said:
No, he made it available to someone to move to another site. Ever tried to move a house? A 17,000 square foot house?
QCassidy352 said:Yes, I'm aware of that.
It's how it should work. The way it does work is outrageous. Sorry I wasn't explicit before.
Suit yourself, but I haven't met anybody yet who really believes in no land use regulations.
There's a difference between a long lost cemetery from the colonial days (which we have many of around here), which a small group of people can clean up in a matter of weeks, and a huge old house, that no one is willing to put up the money to fix. Steve offered it to anyone who was willing, but no one wanted to.----Bowie---- said:
It can be done. Stranger things have moved.IJ Reilly said:
As much as I hate seeing historical buildings and other such places be redeveloped over (like downtown Gettysburg), you can't save it all, because if you did, we'd eventually run out of room, thanks to being forced into endless suburban sprawl.
----Bowie---- said:
Exactly. If someone who doesn't appreciate historic buildings owns an historic property, they should sell it to someone who does, not tear it down out of stubborn pride. Years ago, finding somebody who actually cares might have been a problem, but not today. A lot of people care about historic buildings these days. Selling a home by George Washington Smith would be a snap. It would fetch a premium, not only because he was one of the most renowned California architects of the 1920s but because he died young, so his buildings are scarce.
Steve is one of the richest people on the planet. He could built any house he likes nearly anywhere he likes. Why on this property, where he hasn't even lived for years? Ego?
About a year ago, when this whole thing got started, Steve was quoted as saying that George Washington Smith couldn't possible be an important architect because he'd never heard of him. This remark made me think quite a lot less of Steve. It made him sound like one of those people who believes that nothing he doesn't already know is worth knowing.
PlaceofDis said:
It would have to be moved first.
Counterfit said:
Strangeness has nothing to do with it. This is why I asked you if you'd ever tried to move a house. I have.
Nobody is "trying to save everything." That's just a red herring.
Holy IJ Reilly!
I think the biggest hole in your argument is the implicit assumption of value you place both in "architecture" generally and in this "piece of architecture" specifically. Where do we draw the line between that which deserves preservation and that which can deservedly be torn down? How important does the architect have to be (and who gets to declare that importance) and how much dry rot does it take?
I guess I come at this from a poet's perspective, i.e. "thank god people didn't burn Mina Loy's books back in the 50's when they thought she was some crazy streetperson." The difference, of course, is that Loy's poems never became decrepit (though some saw fit to codemn them).
God. This thread has "Burning Down The House" running through my head over and over ...
God. And now that I've brought up Mina Loy I can't stop myself from including this entirely irrelevant picture of her.
One of my favorite photographs.
I think the biggest hole in your argument is the implicit assumption of value you place both in "architecture" generally and in this "piece of architecture" specifically. Where do we draw the line between that which deserves preservation and that which can deservedly be torn down? How important does the architect have to be (and who gets to declare that importance) and how much dry rot does it take?
I guess I come at this from a poet's perspective, i.e. "thank god people didn't burn Mina Loy's books back in the 50's when they thought she was some crazy streetperson." The difference, of course, is that Loy's poems never became decrepit (though some saw fit to codemn them).
God. This thread has "Burning Down The House" running through my head over and over ...
God. And now that I've brought up Mina Loy I can't stop myself from including this entirely irrelevant picture of her.
One of my favorite photographs.
thedude110 said:
It isn't an arbitrary process. There are standards for making these determinations, such as the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources and local ordinances -- and professional people who understand this stuff make them. In the case of a George Washington Smith house, though, it's essentially a slam-dunk. As I said, it is beyond dispute that he is one of California's most important architects. Every architectural historian in California worth a half a grain of salt knows this.
BTW, this is what I happen to do for a living. So if you guys are interested in knowing more about how this stuff works, then I'd be happy to explain it. But please, do me a favor, and don't imply that we're making it all up as we go along.
IJ Reilly said:
Well, now you have.
How do we determine what qualifies as "significant" enough to be preserved? Whose opinion should count, if not that of the person who actually owns the property? The opinion of some judge? Of politicans with ulterior motives? Of "the public?"
The idea that we are entitled to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" is Jefferson's adaptation of the Lockian "life, liberty, and property." The right to do what you wish with what you own is fundamental. That's what ownership is. Otherwise, we're all just renting space from the collective, a la communism.
By what right to those who do not own a property tell those who do own it what they may do with it? If someone has an interest in preserving a property, make the owner an offer he can't refuse. And if he does refuse, tough luck. Someone else should have bought it first if they wanted to ensure its preservation.
IJ Reilly said:
By what right do those organizations make that decision? Did they help Steve buy the house, or are they just asserting control over something that they have no right to, in the way of all looters?
Who gets to decide of George Washington Smith is a great architect? What if I own a house he built and I think it's crap? Why does the opinion of the majority subsitute for my own judgment?
Have you ever read The Fountainhead? I ask because you're sounding an awful lot like Ellsworth Toohey right now...
QCassidy352 said:
People who understand and study these things professionally make these judgments. The standards of evaluation aren't arbitrary, they are well established. But I've said that already. Local governments are allowed to regulate land use, so the Supreme Court has ruled time and again. In California, local governments are obligated by law to consider these issues and to avoid environmental impacts where feasible. And so on.
I'm sorry to hear that you are at war with our entire system of government. And yes, I did read "The Fountainhead." I think it's one of the funniest books I've ever read.