Steve Can't Tear Down House

[hmmfe]

I haven't misrepresented any arguments, as nearly as I can tell. This is especially difficult to know in your case, since what you are arguing for or against, I'm still not really certain. Possibly not you, but several people in this thread have questioned the authority of local governments to require the preservation of historic buildings. I have pointed out that not only are they permitted to do so, but that in California, they are obligated by law to at least consider it. These are facts, not opinions.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, so to make it totally clear (once and for all, I hope), I have tried and I think managed to avoid engaging in any philosophical discussion about whether historic preservation is a good thing or any wider debate about land use controls beyond their legal legitimacy, which is well established. I am simply describing how this system works for the benefit of those who might care to know.

Well. Not sure who it is that needed you to tell them how the system works, but I'll bet they're thankful that you did.

My only issue with your posts was your suggestion that you can't alter the current state of the law without destroying land use regulations entirely. This is bad logic, and simply not true. If I misunderstood your stance, then you can disregard.

 

[maestro55]

If those people had an extra (estimated) 7.5 million laying around, they might do what you have mentioned.

I think the issue is what should happen to the house when it is protected, but the public can't do enough to preserve it? I don't think it should just stand there and rot. I don't know if it should be just torn down by the Steve either. What laws cover this situation?

That is the point I am trying to make. What should happen to the house? Like I said, why should Steve or anyone else be stuck with the burden of a house that is falling apart, and why should Steve be the one to have to pay to restore the house? My point is, it would be in many ways sad to see this house torn down, but the money isn't there to fix the house up, and so those stopping Steve from tearing the house down and re building on the land (a very logical solution that would save money, and help the economy and just do a world of good for Steve and those in the house building industry, while hurting those who want to perserve the house but can't afford to do so) are just going to keep the burden there for Steve. Why?

 

[gco212]

To throw in my two cents, I think it's fair for the government to not allow someone to tear down a historical house like this one apparently is. However, the government should also have to buy said house if they want to stop him from using the land in the way he wants in the same way of eminent domain.

 

[Blackheart]

To throw in my two cents, I think it's fair for the government to not allow someone to tear down a historical house like this one apparently is. However, the government should also have to buy said house if they want to stop him from using the land in the way he wants in the same way of eminent domain.

At what price, though? I'm sure the house/land would fetch a nice amount of money on the open market, if it weren't for the whole "historical work" problem. So, do you suggest the government pay him the value at sans-historical market price, or the historical market price? ("historical", being used here to mean that the owner can't take the house down).

 

[mymemory]

The house should remain because of its history. The same thing happened in New York early 70's when people started to destroy all the monuments because "they were old" and now they are protected, even Grand Central Station was about to get demolish.

The fack that you own it does not mean you have right over the history or the influence that piece of "what ever" has.

Steve can go and get another house any where else.

For all the mac freaks here just think about how your comments would change if Bill Gates was the one trying to tear down the house? I bet you would be comenting the oposite and try to save the house. I mean, is so obvious.

 

[Blackheart]

For all the mac freaks here just think about how your comments would change if Bill Gates was the one trying to tear down the house? I bet you would be comenting the oposite and try to save the house. I mean, is so obvious.

For the record, I don't care whose house it is. Take it down.

 

[maestro55]

For all the mac freaks here just think about how your comments would change if Bill Gates was the one trying to tear down the house? I bet you would be comenting the oposite and try to save the house. I mean, is so obvious.

If it was YOUR house and you didn't want to pay to restore it, and no one else wanted to either and you were stuck with a house that was falling apart that you didn't want to live in, I would support YOU in tearing it down. So it has nothing to do with the person, rather the concept.

 

[aquajet]

So who set you up as god, judge, and jury? To determine what is art, is arbitrary, "taste" is a sense of one a (one) person considers to be of worth. Get a group of snobs together and you have nothing more than forced groupthinnk extending their powers over others for their own ego or authority kick. One person's elephant dung jesus is another person's Mona Lisa. Worth being nothing really more than a arbitrary marker made by someone who makes up their own criteria and then forces their view on others. Thanks for reaffirming my belief in how broken the system is. If you think his old heap is worth something, buy it, if not, Jobs should bulldoze it and put up something potentially better. It's his property, not yours, and not your place to make decisions for somebody else no matter how much better you think you are with your tastes and hypocritic oath.

Jeez...way to lay it on and insult the man's profession. Seems to me his profession, at least in part, is all about recognizing and preserving the finer points of our history. But I suppose everybody values something different in life...

Think I'll go and knock down Stonehenge and build some nice deluxe condominiums. Besides- who the hell is gonna care? It's only a heap of rocks anyway...

 

[Blackheart]

Jeez...way to lay it on and insult the man's profession. Seems to me his profession, at least in part, is all about recognizing and preserving the finer points of our history. But I suppose everybody values something different in life...

Think I'll go and knock down Stonehenge and build some nice deluxe condominiums. Besides- who the hell is gonna care? It's only a heap of rocks anyway...

Go ahead! If you can afford throwing away that much money. Because after you've bought it, and thrashed it, good luck selling it.

 

[mpw]

...Think I'll go and knock down Stonehenge and build some nice deluxe condominiums. Besides- who the hell is gonna care? It's only a heap of rocks anyway...

Do you own Stonehenge?

 

[mpw]

Most people don't have millions of dollars to throw around.

So are you saying the US/Californian tax payer should pick up the restoration costs or pay the present landowners asking price?

 

[mpw]

...I really don't understand why you think your questions haven't been answered...

Because they haven't.

...given the number and length of my posts in this thread...

Quality not quantity.

...Perhaps you should try being specific, if you have questions you don't think have been addressed...

How more specific do you want me to be?

...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?...

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

...As for where you've been wrong -- for one, you continue to insist that a property can't be protected by from demolition by an historical designation after someone purchases the property. This is not correct. Also, you insist that the determination that this house was designed by an important architect is an "arbitrary" way of determining it to be significant. This is could hardly be more incorrect...

Never insisted just offered my opinion. If you don't agree fine but say you don't agree not that people with different opinions are wrong.

...I don't mean to be condescending. What you are taking as condescension is really just me showing my weariness from answering the same questions and correcting the same misinformation over and over -- not to mention, annoyance at insults directed at my profession generally. I'm fairly certain you'd feel the same way, placed in the same position...

I'm sure you're not but the information you've been giving isn't answering people's questions, you can't blame them for that.

...I realize that most people don't know these issues like I do, nor should they. That is why I have attempted to explain them, to describe how this process works, the relevant laws, and how standards of analysis are utilized by people in my profession. I'm getting the impression that some people just don't want to know -- that they'd rather rely on their "gut" instinct on these matters than on the opinion of an experienced professional. So what can a person do about that? Not much, in the end, but throw one's hands up in frustration.

I've no idea what your qualifications are to be the only authority on this matter, like I've said I also deal with historic buildings in my job but I'll take your word that you do 'know your stuff' and have local knowledge I don't.

Of course just 'cause you're the professional doesn't mean you don't make mistakes and the whole historic building area of planning has few absolutes as far as I've every experienced.

 

[maestro55]

Think I'll go and knock down Stonehenge and build some nice deluxe condominiums. Besides- who the hell is gonna care? It's only a heap of rocks anyway...

Stonehenge isn't rotting away, there is no need to restore stonehenge, and frankly I believe that is had far more historical value then the house in question. If the house in question had more historical value then someone would have offered to restore it. Again, even thought Steve Jobs hasn't put the house up for sell, I haven't seen anywhere that anyone has tried to buy the house from him. People could always make offers, and they haven't tried.

You can't compare this house to stonehenge, and I think that is what some of us are trying to get across. There are historical landmarks and then there are places of the past that are rotting away and apparently under california law the owner must be burden to the rotting home.

 

[WildCowboy]

If it was YOUR house and you didn't want to pay to restore it, and no one else wanted to either and you were stuck with a house that was falling apart that you didn't want to live in, I would support YOU in tearing it down. So it has nothing to do with the person, rather the concept.

But what if it's your own fault that the house is falling apart...

 

[mpw]

But what if it's your own fault that the house is falling apart...

What if it's a building I don't care about AND that you don't care about, why should I be obliged to maintain it other than where it might be a danger to others?

It's interesting to note that one of the expenses of restoring the house mentioned in one of the articles is that it will need to be made 'earthquake proof' to meet current building codes. Hardly fair to the owner of an old building and if it's considered new enough to have to meet current code how can it be also considered historic?

 

[Roger1]

If it was YOUR house and you didn't want to pay to restore it, and no one else wanted to either and you were stuck with a house that was falling apart that you didn't want to live in, I would support YOU in tearing it down. So it has nothing to do with the person, rather the concept.

If you can't or won't pay to have your "fixer upper" repaired, then don't buy it in the first place.

 

[mpw]

If you can't or won't pay to have your "fixer upper" repaired, then don't buy it in the first place.

When he bought it it was fine by all accounts, since moving out it has decayed through lack of maintenance. He knew he didn't want to keep it so why spend money on upkeep?

 

[Roger1]

So he deliberately let his house fall into disrepair? Interesting. I'm suprised none of his neighbors got on his case for that, considering it lowers the value of the entire neighborhood, creates heath/crime issues.

 

[Roger1]

So are you saying the US/Californian tax payer should pick up the restoration costs or pay the present landowners asking price?

I do believe its been done before. Slightly different circumstances, but I bet it can still apply.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/134032/

 

[mpw]

So he deliberately let his house fall into disrepair? Interesting. I'm suprised none of his neighbors got on his case for that, considering it lowers the value of the entire neighborhood, creates heath/crime issues.

Can the building even be seen from any other property?

Possibly not and maybe that's why someone like Steve Jobs likes the property. It's another interesting question as to whether it's worth preserving a building as a historic building if the public can't ever see it.

Also I don't think it's fair to say he deliberately let the house fall into disrepair if you mean that was his aim, I meant he just didn't maintain it 'cause there was no point.

 

[mymemory]

If it was YOUR house and you didn't want to pay to restore it, and no one else wanted to either and you were stuck with a house that was falling apart that you didn't want to live in, I would support YOU in tearing it down. So it has nothing to do with the person, rather the concept.

If the people does not have the money does not mean it has to be destroyed. Quit being so capitalist, money is not the answer, solution or reason of everything.

 

[Roger1]

I don't know, I don't live in California. So it's a very real possibility it is out of sight. So would you settle for saying he neglected the property, rather than saying the deliberatly let it go?

 

[mpw]

I do believe its been done before. Slightly different circumstances, but I bet it can still apply.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/134032/

The trouble now is how do you value the property?

We have similar laws here and what bothers me about them is the government can force someone to sell their land to the government where it's shown to be in the public interest.

I've got no problem with that per se but I know of two examples where this has been done and the land valued low because the government wouldn't allow any development of the land so it was worthless other than 'being returned to nature for the public good' a few years later the government sold the land at a huge profit to a quarrying firm and the original land owner has no legal right to a slice of the profit or as he would've preferred to build a home on a piece of beautiful land that is now an ugly hole.

 

[mpw]

...So would you settle for saying he neglected the property, rather than saying the deliberatly let it go?

Even neglect has a negative sound to it, he simply took no action to either destroy or maintain the property, he just let time and the elements effect the original architects design. Maybe a better design would've lasted better.

 

[Roger1]

I don't know how you can value the property. That may be up to judges, "historical" type people, I don't know. I also didn't mean to imply that I felt that it would be the appropriate thing to do, in this case. As for what happened in your example, I wonder how crooked the involved politicians are.