The US had and has no concept of allodial title for private persons. Neither does the State of California. There appears to be a revisionist movement in the US when it comes to the history of property rights, physical and intellectual.
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 Jobs to Build 'The iPhone of Houses'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The US had and has no concept of allodial title for private persons. Neither does the State of California. There appears to be a revisionist movement in the US when it comes to the history of property rights, physical and intellectual.
If they make the "star trek" whoosh sound when you open and close them, it might be cool...
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
If I touch it on the southwest corner will it not work?
You have to grip it hard silly.
Wow. I suggest finding a phonebook and looking up your nearest therapist because you have major issues. House rapist? You are mental? You have gone bananas so I suppose that avatar suits you. I have no problem with people being good neighbours by not building an eye sore but ultimately those damn conservationists can stick their concerns where the sun does not shine because it is not their property and they would not have paid a single red cent to make that old house livable and earthquake safe. Everything has a life span and that includes houses.
Those conservationists should have given up early on when the facts were presented about the costs of saving the house. They are just crazy busy bodies who are jealous of Job's wealth and expected him to spend money on a house that was not worth saving.
You should realize that everything we have in the physical world deteriorates eventually and that things are not really what is important.
Historical preservation is precisely about determining the difference between one of 1 million "things" of plastic and an object which conveys information about some period's culture, identity, art, technology, etc. I live in one of fairly many Grade II Listed buildings in the United Kingdom, much older but not quite as large as old Steve's, and there is no surprise when purchasing such a building that you are significantly restricted in what you can do to it. If you are found to have made a modification which is not permitted, it will be your money which pays to have it restored to its original state.
It is absurd to suggest that historical preservation is about envy just because others have the means to destroy historically valuable objects. Indeed, those who want to destroy an interesting creation to make way for their own concern me far more. What is it about the past that you don't like, Jobs? Your firm makes a habit of claiming to innovate where it does not; surely this is not a projection of how you live your private life?
England has a very long history of common people being subject to the will & whim of the rich & powerful & connected.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
How it gets in the way of the present & future.
When people stop shelling out good money, time & resources of their own (not confiscated-at-gunpoint taxpayer funds) for old things, maybe it's time to stop preserving what people don't actually want and start replacing it. Remember, Apple does not maintain a "museum of past Apple products" because those products no longer sold are, by current standards, failures - they may have been great then, but nobody wants to put up their own money for them today.
Yes, there is a valid argument and sociopolitical expenditure to preserve things which may not be of sustained current value. Question is where to draw the line. AFAIK, nobody actually wanted that house, and few are truly enamored by Spanish Revival architecture to a degree worth the substantial cost of preservation of such an example, and fewer still are truly enamored by the decedent who built it. The argument, IMHO, centers more around those wanting to either criticize Jobs at any opportunity, or whose relevance hinges on ability to find old homes they can spin as "historic".
Suitable acreage is costly in that region. The cost of preserving the "interesting creation" far exceeds the cost of replacing it with another interesting creation; as none are interested in putting up the money to preserve the former, those interested in putting up the money to create the latter win.
And yes, the old gives way to the new. Physical things are not important of themselves. It's not about wanton destruction for sake of destruction, it's about moving forward and removing obstacles thereto.
Basement. Follow the Gizmodo links and you'll find the rather uninteresting floorplan thereof.
FTFY.
You're just making history up. There is no allodial title to land in US law. There is no allodial title to land in Californian law. Where Jobs is and where I am, all land belongs to the government. Independence was from the British Crown, and while the US and/or its states might have had the opportunity to create absolute property ownership, today you have no recognition by the US and only a couple of states even considering it.
There's enough space. But the eloquence of your argument would have been improved if you'd just quoted policy straight from 1984
.
Give me your best shot, not this patronising, insulting crap! The house rapist part was meant to be a bit of a joke, but clearly, it was wasted on you.
I could insult you, but what's the point? You have issues with my banana, whereas you named yourself after one of the greatest classic philosophers? Who the hell do you think you are?! I suggest you suck my banana and put me on your ignore list, because I don't need a monkey on my back, whatever it's called.
But England moreso than other regions. The notion has been fully internalized by the population at large.
So what's your theory about why the American Colonists got so uppity? Yes, we do not have formal allodial title, but cultural attitude is that we do (or at least a close proximity), and insofar as we don't it's more a matter of "protection money" than "belongs to the government". Tell an American his government "owns" his property and he'll laugh at you.
Not within 20 miles of 1 Infinite Loop.
They are referring to iPhone, the main topic.this is one of the worst titles for a story I have read. It also sounds like whoever wrote the story has no knowledge of anything that's been happening in architecture for about a century.
Clean, modern design? Must be influenced by the iPhone!
I don't have a problem with your philosophy. In my own home, only the master has its own bath (moreso because the house was built prior to the fad of private baths for individual bedrooms). However, I do not believe that comments such as "Some people obviously want their homes to feel like a home rather than a hotel." are fair. If true777 wants to have a large home, its his/her prerogative. Maybe you all should stop judging how others spend their money. Many of you seem to think that luxuries cannot be used for family time. As if you can't watch a movie with another person.
ctdonath said:
I don't know why you're applying this to me. I did say that my comments were speculation. I'm only providing a speculative reason for why people give individual bedrooms individual baths.
Right, we wouldn't want any little princelings to have to share a baath, would we? After all, doing so might compromise their senses of entitlement and privilege.
Who are you to judge how I'd raise my kids? I earned my money, and I'll spend it however I damn well please.
Humm?
You're qualified to make this statement because you're rich! Awesome credentials!
Value judgement.
"Higher level people?" Who are you? Does above average wealth make them more deserving or special or some robotic superhuman that immediately "needs" more of everything? Some "higher level people" aren't elitist consumers like you seem to think.
Ahhh. I see.
. . .
You seem to be very misinformed, an example of what is wrong with the majority of Americans. You have no conception of need verse desire; if you do, this post does not make apparent that fact.
And I recognize this awful trend, the trend of overindulgence and unnecessary opulence. That's why I'm an architecture major, to hopefully convince people like you waste is not the best option, even if you can afford it. The best spaces are often the most well designed small spaces. Clearly, you have never experienced this.
Nah, much rather have the sighing doors from the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy Trilogy (Of 6 books no less).
Though I doubt I'll get any work done because I would find myself on the floor after going to another room.
This is America. If the man wants a small house, let him have a small house (The blueprints are for a house smaller than mine, so I call it "small"). If he wanted to live in the back of an El Camino, that's his right also.
Personally, I like old houses and hate the look of modern homes, but that's just me. I also live in what would be considered a larger home, as I have 8 kids and need some space. But I also have a few acres, so the house isn't stuck right next to my neighbors.
However, I did not build my house to compete with or impress the neighbors. Neither did Steve.
Personally, I like old houses and hate the look of modern homes, but that's just me. I also live in what would be considered a larger home, as I have 8 kids and need some space. But I also have a few acres, so the house isn't stuck right next to my neighbors.
However, I did not build my house to compete with or impress the neighbors. Neither did Steve.