View Single Post
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2006-11-13, 01:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
But this may present problems on two fronts: a building's architectural and aesthetic value may depend heavily on its surroundings,
True, and I neatly dodged that bullet by ignoring it. Darn you for bringing it up.

Quote:
and buying the building and/or land would cost a lot of money that could be saved by simply preventing Jobs from destroying it.
Saved by.... whom? Certainly not Jobs, who did, after all, pay for it in the first place...

I agree that a move of the building would likely be more expensive in total than a complete purchase of the property, but if he's not willing to sell the land, then buying the building is the next best thing.

Quote:
The fact that it would cost a lot of money is important, because future generations' enjoyment of culture should not be held to ransom by the short-sightedness of the current generation (who would have to donate to raise the funds). Because of public apathy and endemic cultural ignorance, I think you actually do need a specially knowledgeable body making these decisions (a "high priesthood of self-delegated authorities levying decrees", perhaps), rather than simply relying on market forces.
Not surprisingly, I disagree in some part... but I really quite thoroughly disagree when the body calling for preservation has no authority, and more importantly, no accountability to the populace that it is claiming to be speaking for. If this were an elected body, that would be one thing, but it's not - it's a group of private individuals who simply have a difference of personal opinion.

Consider if you purchase an old clunker of a car (oh god, a car analogy), and decide after a while that you're going to junk it. It's really not worth saving, in your opinion, but a car club across town would like to see it preserved. They don't buy it from you, but instead, they want to force you to fix it up at your own expense. You offer to sell it to them, but no, they say that would be too much, instead it would be better if you did it. But you don't want the car... but they still want you to have to pay to have it repaired, restored, and kept running. Oh, and they'd like to come over and ride in it on their terms, when they want to.

Quote:
I would generally agree, although I wouldn't hold this position as dogma. But there are culturally valuable structures which have debatable aesthetic value, or are even widely held to be downright ugly, that should nevertheless be preserved. The Eiffel Tower is an example: hardly beautiful, but immensely valuable. Now, I'm sure there are people who think the Eiffel Tower is achingly beautiful, and others who think it's grotesque, but nearly everyone would agree that it shouldn't be destroyed. In other words, a building's intrinsic historic value is more fact-like than its aesthetic value.
Agreed in general, and there are a number of buildings around that I think are just godawful, but I can recognize that they were *such* a shift in thinking, and influenced later designers, that I can support keeping them around. But does this house really qualify for that sort of landmark status? From everything I've read, this isn't even considered by most architectural historians as a particularly good example of Jackling's work, not to mention that it was apparently built rather poorly even when new. It really does seem to me that this is a small group of private, unaccountable individuals who have decided that based solely on the foundation of their own opinion, that a private individual should be forced to give up property. That, I disagree with, fundamentally. If it is that obviously important, than either funding and market forces, or appeal through an appropriate elected body should be a simple path. There needs to be either financial compensation, or proper societal authority, for such a move to be considered fair, IMO.
  quote