Steve Can't Tear Down House

[IJ Reilly]

Like 300' Cape Hatteras Lighthouse?

A number of years ago (30 or more, IRRC), a large masonry Gothic church was moved a longer distance, intact. I believe this was in Czechoslovakia. Like the Hatteras Lighthouse relocation, this kind of move takes an extraordinary effort, including a huge sum of money, a long period of time in planning, and plenty of luck. The single biggest issue is finding a suitable site for relocation, one that isn't too far away. One freeway underpass between the original site and receiver site, and you're basically screwed. Too many overhead wires, and an uncooperative utility (they have to give you permission to move them), and you're also screwed. Just a couple of the many problems, all of which must be solved or that building is going nowhere. This is why making an historic building available for relocation is an essentially meaningless gesture. Generally, its only affect is massaging the guilt of the property owner.

 

[Studawg7]

People who understand and study these things professionally make these judgments.

thats like saying a politicians make good decisions b/c they study the laws they are looking at and they have gained senority and respect in the congress through the years 'cough' Jack Abramoff 'cough'

just saying someone is professional doesnt mean they are making the right decisions.

oh and i vote for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. really if it was such an important house, a person or group of persons would buy it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

thats like saying a politicians make good decisions b/c they study the laws they are looking at and they have gained senority and respect in the congress through the years 'cough' Jack Abramoff 'cough'

just saying someone is professional doesnt mean they are making the right decisions.

oh and i vote for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. really if it was such an important house, a person or group of persons would buy it.

As I've already suggested, Steve should sell the property to someone who would like to live in a house designed by George Washington Smith. Such as buyer would be easy to find. But the property isn't for sale. Get it?

BTW, I don't know what you do for a profession, but would you like being told that you don't know your job, especially by someone who doesn't understand the first thing about it? Just something to consider.

 

[Studawg7]

As I've already suggested, Steve should sell the property to someone who would like to live in a house designed by George Washington Smith. Such as buyer would be easy to find. But the property isn't for sale. Get it?

everyone has a selling price

BTW, I don't know what you do for a profession, but would you like being told that you don't know your job, especially by someone who doesn't understand the first thing about it? Just something to consider.

that's not what i said. Professionals are scrutinized all the time (think Doctors and Engineers). I am not saying that someone doesn't know his or her stuff, I am just saying people should question and not believe everything someone says b/c he or she is a "professional."

 

[stonyc]

everyone has a selling price

I believe IJ mentioned it before, but the property is not for sale... the house itself is/was (to be moved after purchase). Steve wants the property, and not the house on the lot.

that's not what i said. Professionals are scrutinized all the time (think Doctors and Engineers). I am not saying that someone doesn't know his or her stuff, I am just saying people should question and not believe everything someone says b/c he or she is a "professional."

I agree with what you say here, in general... but shouldn't doctors be questioned by other doctors/health professionals? Granted, some fields lend themselves to critical analysis by a wider spectrum of people/fields/experiences... such as politics, ethics, etc. But some fields, medicine for example, require a certain level of education/experience in order to understand and therefore critique...

 

[IJ Reilly]

Steve has owned this property for something like 25 years, most of which time he hasn't even lived on it. In fact, he's allowed the house to be vandalized and otherwise abused. In historic preservation, this is called "demolition by neglect." In more general terms, it's called being a bad neighbor. Consequently I can't find any reason to cut Steve much slack on this.

Question the judgment of professionals all you like, but you'd better be in possession of some information they don't have. Otherwise, you are simply substituting your guesswork for their knowledge. Not sure why anyone would want to do this in this case, unless they believe that Steve is saintly and all-knowing.

 

[Spectrum]

Steve is rich-as. (IMO) he ought to renovate the property - not tear it down.

Steve has owned this property for something like 25 years, most of which time he hasn't even lived on it. In fact, he's allowed the house to be vandalized and otherwise abused. In historic preservation, this is called "demolition by neglect." In more general terms, it's called being a bad neighbor. Consequently I can't find any reason to cut Steve much slack on this.

 

[0490043]

-

 

[After G]

Didn't Steve try to sell the house, with no takers?

Anyway, I think the idea of preservation here is misguided. If it's been neglected as much as some of the comments here suggest, and the house is practically condemned, you won't save much of the original material anyway. For say, a national park, where all the tress are fine and dandy, why not? But where the cost of a new home is probably less than one of the old home (7.5 million to restore the thing?), and you could probably build the exact same kind of house right close by with new materials and the benefit of research into preservation, and put a marker saying the house's true location is originally where Steve Jobs lives, wouldn't that be enough? And having rabid Apple fans visit where Steve Jobs lives is probably enough punishment for him. No need to throw rabid architecture fans into the mix

"If we do not honour our past we lose our future. If we destroy our roots we cannot grow" - Friedrich Hundertwasser

Ever heard of trimming back a tree to induce new growth? Not to incite you or anything, but keeping the old-town look in Palo Alto only encourages the general shabbiness of the place.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Didn't Steve try to sell the house, with no takers?

Sigh. Once again, no he didn't. He offered the house to be moved.

The rest of your post is pure speculation based on no information.

 

[badmofo9000]

Things like this really get on my nerves. Steve owns the house. He should be able to do anything he wants with it. If I were him I would just have it torn down, screw the stupid law and pay what ever fine goes alone with it. He can afford it I think.

 

[mpw]

...He doesn't like the house, but he won't sell it to someone who does, either...

As I understand it he was forced and did offer it for sale for one year with no suitable offers and I assume the suitability of those offers was decided by those who forced Steve to offer it for sale not by him, the owner.

...but I haven't met anybody yet who really believes in no land use regulations...

Land use isn't the issue here. The land is being used for a dwelling and the owner of both the land and that dwelling wants to demolished the existing dwelling and replace it with another dwelling. No change in land use.

I disagree completely! I think historic buildings should be protected. Its like destroying a piece of art. I would hate to see what the world would be like if rich people could demolish whatever buildings they wanted to. Just think of all the landmarks that would be gone by now if there wasn't any protection.

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...

Yes some buildings, old and new, are like art. Of course if the owner of Van Gough's Sunflowers decides he wants the wallspace (which he also owns) for another painting he can simple move it and sell the painting.

What if the new owner of the painting doesn't appreciate the painting for it's artistic merit as in the case of the Japanese investment bank which purchased an old master's painting for the investment value, should they be compelled to offer it for sale for one year without having a say as to what a suitable offer might be?

...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?...

Choice?

Don't get me wrong I do believe that some properties need to be protected. I also do this sort of thing from time to time in my job where I'm the 'Steve' and the restrictions on some of these properties are ridiculous and unfair so I do have sympathy for him.
It's not always just about the money, maybe Steve simply loves the place.

Was this property protected when it was last sold? Did it have restrictions on it at that time regarding development? Has the State offered a fair price to Steve to buy the whole property plus compensation? If not then the State has failed to protect the property not Steve Jobs.

 

[After G]

Sigh. Once again, no he didn't. He offered the house to be moved.

The rest of your post is pure speculation based on no information.

Surely, you can't mean all of it is pure speculation? Living 20 minutes from Palo Alto, I've seen the place However, my opinion of Palo Alto is just my opinion, and isn't meant as an argument.

Thanks for clarifying that he offered the house to be moved; now I'm thinking some news sites should be more clear about what "selling" means.

However, I still think that saving a house for the fact that:

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.

is rather arbitrary ...

and the fact that Steve Jobs has had the property for 25 years previous, and nobody bothered him during ALL that time ...

and the fact that he offered the house to be moved for a year after he was finally bothered, and nobody stepped up to move it...

... That just casts the people who would stop Steve Jobs now in a less favorable light.

The people who want this house saved are not willing to step up and bear the cost of saving the thing, and yet those same people would rebuke Steve Jobs, who is going to actually do something with the place, for doing what he wants with his money.

Preservationists, you had 26 years to get your act together, and possibly even longer than that.

...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?...

He happens to like that exact spot, and he owns it. Plus I find that telling people what to do with their money is rather hypocritical given that I can't/don't/won't do the same things with my own money. Like telling rich people to donate to charity when I can't/don't/won't spare all that much myself. Mind you, I am a poor college student, but that is no justification.

If it bothers you that much, you can start a collection to raise the money needed to rebuild/move/do whatever is necessary to the house, and you can contribute something from your own pocket. This is what we have government for, to do the things ordinary people can't (in this case, pay). And if the government can't bring the tax money necessary to save it, then I'm sorry for fans of architecture, but Steve should be allowed to bulldoze the place.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Surely, you can't mean all of it is pure speculation?

Yes, it's speculation of the purest form. You don't know anything about the subject, yet you seem completely prepared to second-guess those who have made it their life's work. That's more than speculation, it's basically an insult aimed at an entire profession. A profession that just happens to be my profession. So what can I say? Thanks. Thanks a lot.

 

[IJ Reilly]

As I understand it he was forced and did offer it for sale for one year with no suitable offers and I assume the suitability of those offers was decided by those who forced Steve to offer it for sale not by him, the owner.

This is becoming tedious. No, he did not offer it for sale. He made it available to be moved.

Land use isn't the issue here. The land is being used for a dwelling and the owner of both the land and that dwelling wants to demolished the existing dwelling and replace it with another dwelling. No change in land use.

All forms of zoning controls come under the general classification of land use regulations.

Was this property protected when it was last sold? Did it have restrictions on it at that time regarding development? Has the State offered a fair price to Steve to buy the whole property plus compensation? If not then the State has failed to protect the property not Steve Jobs.

This all completely irrelevant, and wrong besides. At least in this country (and probably in yours as well) governments are not required to compensate owners when they impose restrictions on the use of property. If they were, all land use controls would be impossible, which as I pointed out before, almost nobody really wants -- even if they sometimes play at it.

Things like this really get on my nerves. Steve owns the house. He should be able to do anything he wants with it. If I were him I would just have it torn down, screw the stupid law and pay what ever fine goes alone with it. He can afford it I think.

So if you're rich enough, you're above the law? Nice.

 

[LethalWolfe]

So if you're rich enough, you're above the law? Nice.

How is he above the law if he pays the fine?


Lethal

 

[angelneo]

This all completely irrelevant, and wrong besides. At least in this country (and probably in yours as well) governments are not required to compensate owners when they impose restrictions on the use of property. If they were, all land use controls would be impossible, which as I pointed out before, almost nobody really wants -- even if they sometimes play at it.

It feels very tyrannical if the government start making you do what they want to your property without any proper compensation. How would you like if someone comes along says that you have to spend $250,000 to restore your old car which no one wants to buy because the maintenance is too expensive.

 

[WildCowboy]

I think we should find out the identities of all of the people who are against land-use laws, buy up all of the land surrounding their houses, and build 200 foot high walls right outside their property lines...bright pink walls.

Hey, it's my land...I'll do what I want.


Seriously, some form of land-use laws are necessary in any sane society. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the property owners and those of the community at-large. Where that balance lies is certainly up for debate, but to say that someone can do whatever they want with their land is rather ludicrous.

Is the Jackling House worth saving? Honestly, I have no idea. I'm inclined to think not, but I'm not an expert. And that's why we have people like IJ Reilly...to help us figure these things out.

 

[mpw]

...This is becoming tedious. No, he did not offer it for sale. He made it available to be moved...

OK so has anybody come forward and taken up the offer that the land owner was forced to make as part of the planning process? As I understand it, no. So the landowner has been prevented from using his land how he would like to for a whole year the process has had a chance to save the house, why shouldn't the landowner now be given permission to continue to develop his land, within the development criteria of that area but without the hindrance of this old buildings 'historic status'?

...This all completely irrelevant, and wrong besides. At least in this country (and probably in yours as well) governments are not required to compensate owners when they impose restrictions on the use of property. If they were, all land use controls would be impossible, which as I pointed out before, almost nobody really wants -- even if they sometimes play at it.

No I don't think it is either irrelevant or wrong.

I still don't know if the property had any protected status or restrictions on development when it was last sold.

If someone buys or applies to develop a property here the government has a right to make certain conditions on the future use/development of the property should the developer/vendor and purchaser go ahead with the transaction/development. Of course they have a right of appeal or can simply keep the status quo should they not want these restrictions in force.

If the property wasn’t protected at the point it was last sold when was it first protected, when the current plans where announced? In that case there’s no case to answer to IMO of demolishing by neglect and you can’t force a property owner to refurbish a property to a state it was at a chosen time in its history just ‘cause you want to.

One more thing, how old is the property? Some of the protected properties I deal with are 16th century and built in a traditional local style I can see the point in keeping them protected but this building isn’t it’s built in a revival style so isn’t even contemporary architecture or defining the locality’s historical style. The decision to protect this property does seem to be quite arbitrary and is down to it’s connection with the celebrity architect.

Another way to look at it could be that if Steve Jobs wins it is him more than you or I who is likely to afford the best architect to build a very high quality contemporary building on the site. Maybe the planning authority could do what they do here and restrict him by saying that only he may occupy the property and it must be demolished if or when he leaves.

The irony being that in 50years when Steve dies and the bulldozers move in people will cry out that the property exemplifies early 21st century architecture and was the last residence of the great historical figure that was Steve Jobs.

 

[Abstract]

Steve bought a house and property where he knew he couldn't demolish the house. He knew that before he bought the house, as all owners of such houses do when they buy them. They're "heritage" homes, or at least that's what they call it in Toronto.

The fact that he didn't get his way doesn't mean you should all get flustered about it. You can't say, "He bought the house so he should be able to break it down" when Steve knew he couldn't break down that house when he bought it, could you?

As much as I hate seeing historical buildings and other such places be redeveloped over (like downtown Gettysburg), you can't save it all....

No, you can't save it all, but you save whatever you can. Apparently, you don't hate seeing historical buildings be redeveloped over as much as you think.

 

[hmmfe]

This all completely irrelevant, and wrong besides. At least in this country (and probably in yours as well) governments are not required to compensate owners when they impose restrictions on the use of property. If they were, all land use controls would be impossible, which as I pointed out before, almost nobody really wants -- even if they sometimes play at it.

Well, there is a point when the restrictions eliminate all economically viable use of the land. When this happens, you have a taking (even in today's screwed up jurisprudence).

You are very correct in describing the current state of taking law in the US (sad but true).

My objection is that a select few end up paying the vast majority of the cost so that the many can, one day, drive by the house and remark how important it is or how pretty it is. If it is that important and that pretty, then let the public pay for the preservation.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No I don't think it is either irrelevant or wrong.

I still don't know if the property had any protected status or restrictions on development when it was last sold.

If someone buys or applies to develop a property here the government has a right to make certain conditions on the future use/development of the property should the developer/vendor and purchaser go ahead with the transaction/development. Of course they have a right of appeal or can simply keep the status quo should they not want these restrictions in force.

If the property wasn’t protected at the point it was last sold when was it first protected, when the current plans where announced? In that case there’s no case to answer to IMO of demolishing by neglect and you can’t force a property owner to refurbish a property to a state it was at a chosen time in its history just ‘cause you want to.

One more thing, how old is the property? Some of the protected properties I deal with are 16th century and built in a traditional local style I can see the point in keeping them protected but this building isn’t it’s built in a revival style so isn’t even contemporary architecture or defining the locality’s historical style. The decision to protect this property does seem to be quite arbitrary and is down to it’s connection with the celebrity architect.

Another way to look at it could be that if Steve Jobs wins it is him more than you or I who is likely to afford the best architect to build a very high quality contemporary building on the site. Maybe the planning authority could do what they do here and restrict him by saying that only he may occupy the property and it must be demolished if or when he leaves.

The irony being that in 50years when Steve dies and the bulldozers move in people will cry out that the property exemplifies early 21st century architecture and was the last residence of the great historical figure that was Steve Jobs.

All of this is either factually wrong on not relevant to the situation. The reasons why, in most cases, are explained in previous posts. I really don't have the time (or the patience) to repeat all of it. The only thing I will add at this point is, the standard minimum age for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (and its twin, the California Register of Historical Resources), is 50 years. Local preservation ordinances usually don't even contain this minimum, but in reality few buildings less than 50 years old are listed or determined eligible for listing by any of these means.

 

[After G]

Yes, it's speculation of the purest form. You don't know anything about the subject, yet you seem completely prepared to second-guess those who have made it their life's work. That's more than speculation, it's basically an insult aimed at an entire profession. A profession that just happens to be my profession. So what can I say? Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Well, my apologies if you have taken anything I have said as a personal insult. Didn't intend for them to be that way. However, in this thread, you have not addressed my, or anyone else's comments, on the fact that the public should be paying for this thing, The legal status of the property is important as well. That's why mpw kept asking about things like protected status when Steve bought the thing.

Maybe because I am not someone who has made it their life's work, and someone who has an uninformed opinion, but your passion for your work is causing people's comments get to you personally. I admire your passion, but your passion shouldn't translate into blind defense of what you love.

Please don't take any of my questions as personal attacks. I only say things because I want to know more. I fully respect your opinion, and how you feel. Yet, I feel differently than how you do. Maybe what you say will change my mind. But I feel that comments such as:

Steve bought a house and property where he knew he couldn't demolish the house. He knew that before he bought the house, as all owners of such houses do when they buy them. They're "heritage" homes, or at least that's what they call it in Toronto.

that tell me that the home in Woodside is protected already, are much more informative than:

All of this is either factually wrong on not relevant to the situation. The reasons why, in most cases, are explained in previous posts. I really don't have the time (or the patience) to repeat all of it.

You could have, at the very least, taken the extra 30 seconds and quoted Abstract as an explanation of why prior protections are present. The article as linked in the first post doesn't explain this. And your comments don't either, unless I missed something.

 

[Counterfit]

No, you can't save it all, but you save whatever you can. Apparently, you don't hate seeing historical buildings be redeveloped over as much as you think.

Apparently, I think the historic significance of this building is a bit overestimated.
Now, if someone were to want to demolish William Blackstone's house (not that anyone would, not exactly a great part of town), I'll sit on the front step until the bulldozer runs out of fuel.

 

[m-dogg]

I think we should find out the identities of all of the people who are against land-use laws, buy up all of the land surrounding their houses, and build 200 foot high walls right outside their property lines...bright pink walls.

Hey, it's my land...I'll do what I want.


Seriously, some form of land-use laws are necessary in any sane society. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the property owners and those of the community at-large. Where that balance lies is certainly up for debate, but to say that someone can do whatever they want with their land is rather ludicrous.

Is the Jackling House worth saving? Honestly, I have no idea. I'm inclined to think not, but I'm not an expert. And that's why we have people like IJ Reilly...to help us figure these things out.

I agree. I was thinking that too...how would people feel about land use laws if I opened a garbage dump/sewer treatment plant/hog farm/<insert other unsightly/smelly option here> right next to their house?

I've lived in a town with poor zoning before, it is not a good thing.