[Benton]

It is past time for Steve Jobs to exercise his vision for a new home before his family grows much older and his children move on with their lives. Who can imagine how his vision for a 21st century minimalist domicile maybe influenced along the way by the Apple retail experience? Would others consider an Appleesque designed Machome? Consider how the Mac print press could leverage their offerings with examples of new lifestyle surroundings. A whole new advertising realm could spring up. Consider MacDirectory Magazine as a lifestyle example for show casing architectural and decorating themes.
May we wish Steve an early 52nd birthday surprise with the demise of the obstructionists of his former abode.
http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org/index.html

[turtle]

People with nothing better to do with their time.

We move on a society, this means even old things go away and make room for now. How many of these people hoping to stop Steve from killing the home actually lived in that house or helped be a part of the home's life?

[Luca]

Who cares?

[Dorian Gray]

turtle2472, I'm not sure why you're opposed to the preservation of architecturally and culturally valuable buildings. These are the buildings that make our cities interesting and offer great enjoyment to both casual visitors and specialists in history and architecture. Imagine what the world would be like if we just bulldozed everything to put up new shopping malls. Here in London there are a great many very interesting buildings (Somerset House on the Strand is one I particularly like, with its perfect proportions), but there are also vast swaths of land covered in unspeakably ugly 1970's architecture and many more recent structures such as Marks Barfield's London Eye which should never have been granted planning permission.

I for one am very grateful that some people take it upon themselves to fight for the preservation of significant buildings that would otherwise be demolished to reuse the land (invariably for something ghastly and profit-driven).

[autodata]

So, let's see here. I'm supposed to feel sorry for a multibillionaire over the preservation of a $25M+ house he owns but hasn't lived in for years? Then again, if he doesn't get to do what he wants with this house he might be forced to keep living in the $25m+ house he's living in down the street from this one. Oh, the horror!!

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray turtle2472, I'm not sure why you're opposed to the preservation of architecturally and culturally valuable buildings. These are the buildings that make our cities interesting and offer great enjoyment to both casual visitors and specialists in history and architecture. Imagine what the world would be like if we just bulldozed everything to put up new shopping malls. Here in London there are a great many very interesting buildings (Somerset House on the Strand is one I particularly like, with its perfect proportions), but there are also vast swaths of land covered in unspeakably ugly 1970's architecture and many more recent structures such as Marks Barfield's London Eye which should never have been granted planning permission. I for one am very grateful that some people take it upon themselves to fight for the preservation of significant buildings that would otherwise be demolished to reuse the land (invariably for something ghastly and profit-driven).

Word!

Just look at Vilnius where I currently live. The old town is a UNESCO World Heritage site, but the suburbs are soviet concrete. The commies had *very* little understanding for preserving the old stuff and were very keen on building their own vision of architecture. Argh! Anyone who actually think the commies knew what they where doing should just go to Minsk. That particular city was flattened during WWII and rebuilt entirely in stalinistic style. It simply has no soul.

[MSFT]

Originally Posted by Luca Who cares?

I second that. It's a house, it's meant to be torn down.

[Mugge]

Pft. Americans!



Actually this is probably the first time ever I've said something so mean about you guys, but I think it's an appropriate moment. I've heard a lot of Americans moan over how the Europeans are the ones with all the culture and history, so what's with this uncivilised urge to tear down nice old houses?

[hiltond]

Umm, there is a lot of interest in saving old homes. Of course people should also be allowed to do what they want with their property within safety regulations so the issue becomes somewhat complex.

[Kickaha]

I think the problem here is the definition of the word 'significant'. Just because some person or persons likes an architect's work, does not mean that every piece that architect did needs to be preserved. (I'm not saying that is the case in this instance, just that it is one end of the spectrum.) Even people who agree, as I do, that significant works deserve preservation get hung up on this point. One person's significant work is another person's dump.

Personally, I think that if they want the building preserved, they should purchase it, and have it moved to somewhere where it will be. Buy the structure, pay to have it moved, and take custody of it. If it's that important, finding funding should be doable, right? I don't believe that a group's aesthetic opinion should hold sway over private property. Environmental fact, that's one thing (to a point) - aesthetic opinion? Not so much.

[chucker]

I just don't understand what's so unique and worth preserving about this particular mansion.

Oh, and what Kickable said.

[turtle]

What Kickaha said.

One group shouldn't stop a landowner from using his rights on *his* land.

[Jamie240]

Originally Posted by chucker Oh, and what Kickable said.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 What Kickaha said. One group shouldn't stop a landowner from using his rights on *his* land.

Do your own research and argue your own arguments. His defense does not apply to this case.


It's pathetic how so many of you think historical preservation is a joke. Especially surprising considering the strong political leaning of the mac message board community.

It's probably because you all are just too young and don't care/aren't educated enough.

It's sad. Hopefully you wisen up as time goes by or we'll be stuck with another generation that would tear down Penn Station.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Especially surprising considering the strong political leaning of the mac message board community.

Yes, because "the Mac message board community" has such a "strong political leaning".

Why did we abolish Political Outsider again?

Precisely because "the Mac message board community" has a multitude of different "leanings" and, when discussing politics, has a hard time agreeing on even the simplest of matters.

Takes but a few minutes of browsing AI's PO to figure that one out.

It's probably because you all are just too young and don't care/aren't educated enough.

Yes, almighty educated grandpa BU.
 

[hiltond]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Do your own research and argue your own arguments. His defense does not apply to this case. It's pathetic how so many of you think historical preservation is a joke. Especially surprising considering the strong political leaning of the mac message board community. It's probably because you all are just too young and don't care/aren't educated enough. It's sad. Hopefully you wisen up as time goes by or we'll be stuck with another generation that would tear down Penn Station.

Tearing down Penn Station is not comparable to a private citizen using his property as he sees fit. Further, suggesting that favoring the rights of private propety over those that will never see or benefit from a residence is an uneducated position is insulting.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by hiltond Tearing down Penn Station is not comparable to a private citizen using his property as he sees fit. Further, suggesting that favoring the rights of private propety over those that will never see or benefit from a residence is an uneducated position is insulting.

Well, it's hard to draw the line between a mere old building, and an old building with huge, relevant history to it. As I've asked before, I don't understand what makes this building in question so special and worth preserving, and I wish someone could make a case for that.

I don't believe preservation is always the answer; sometimes tearing down the old is a needed step to pave way for the new.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Do your own research and argue your own arguments. His defense does not apply to this case. It's pathetic how so many of you think historical preservation is a joke. Especially surprising considering the strong political leaning of the mac message board community. It's probably because you all are just too young and don't care/aren't educated enough. It's sad. Hopefully you wisen up as time goes by or we'll be stuck with another generation that would tear down Penn Station.

Don't judge me or anyone else.

On second thought, it's not worth my time answering your bait!

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses It's probably because you all are just too young and don't care/aren't educated enough. It's sad. Hopefully you wisen up as time goes by or we'll be stuck with another generation that would tear down Penn Station.

We think that when people pay for something they should have rights to it, therefore, we aren't educated enough?

I understand the cultural worth of a building is important, however, do what every other cause has to do: buy the property from him.

[Kickaha]

Jesus H. Christ, BU, come down off the high horse, the altitude is affecting your higher cognitive functions again.

For the record, I'm not offering a defense for anyone. Read what I wrote, not what you wanted to.

I mean obviously, by the very virtue of living in a common society, we *all* give up rights to how we can use our own personal property. That's just the way it is. The problem only occurs when restrictions are placed that benefit, tangentially, a small group, based on their personal taste, and nothing but. In matters of cultural significance, where opinion matters more than fact, it makes little sense to have a high priesthood of self-delegated authorities levying decrees. If they wish to preserve the structure, they should step up and do so. It's just that simple.

You're right, the loss of Penn Station was tragic, but I don't see this as being anywhere in the same class of structure. We don't have to save every outhouse to preserve our heritage and history.

[murbot]

Jesus fucking christ!

[chucker]

Originally Posted by murbot Jesus fucking christ!

Yes, dear?

[MSFT]

Originally Posted by murbot Jesus fucking christ!

damn, didn't know jesus was gay. that sort of poses a problem to the catholic church, eh?

[scratt]

Can anyone tell me what is so special about the house...

I have read the conservationsists web page and so on..

Is 'Jackling' somebody?

In the UK it's quite simple.. If a house is in a protected band then you can't even sneeze in it without permission, even if it's been your familly home for generations.. Obviously the bands are graded, and you may only have minor restrictions.. But if it's full on listed you are screwed..

One funny problem is that some people in some of our rarer 'wattle and daub' (Mud houses) in the South cannot have certain kinds of heating, or double glazing because it damages the walls...

[billybobsky]

I grew up in the city with the oldest historic district in the US. It keeps the environment of the city relatively constant, but the houses aren't homes. They are owned by wealthy people who only live there one or two weeks a year; otherwise they are unoccupied. The houses slowly become modernized anyway as their ediface's collapse, or their roofs rot... There is value in maintaining superb examples of architecture, the rest is a way for the rich to both establish in roads in otherwise undesirable areas and maintain the areas they already live, since property tax is determined block by block and historic districts almost always establish an upward trend in 'property values'...

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by hiltond Of course people should also be allowed to do what they want with their property within safety regulations

I'd have to disagree with that, although I certainly accept that property rights count for something. But sometimes property rights come into conflict with other values, and in such cases it's not always immediately obvious which right should prevail. I would even go so far as to say that property rights should not even be considered in some circumstances, where they might be so different in degree or character from the issue at hand that to consider them would be absurd. For example, if two people were freezing to death (literally) and one of them owned a winter jacket, I would personally consider it absurd to allocate the jacket on the basis of that property right. In such circumstances, more extreme advocates of property rights would be willing to take property rights into consideration after exhausting more relevant factors (such as the age and fitness of the two people), but I would personally be much more comfortable with blind luck deciding the outcome (drawing straws, perhaps), because property rights are so different in character from the right to life that they cannot meaningfully contribute to the outcome of the situation.

More specifically, the property rights of Steve Jobs must be weighed against the value of the building to present and future generations. Even if Jobs himself would never permit visitors to the residence (I don't know if that's actually the case), Jobs will eventually pass away and the property will change hands. It's very possible that the building, if left to stand, would at some point in the future be opened to the public.

Originally Posted by Kickaha I think that if they want the building preserved, they should purchase it, and have it moved to somewhere where it will be. Buy the structure, pay to have it moved, and take custody of it. If it's that important, finding funding should be doable, right?

But this may present problems on two fronts: a building's architectural and aesthetic value may depend heavily on its surroundings, and buying the building and/or land would cost a lot of money that could be saved by simply preventing Jobs from destroying it. 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.

Originally Posted by Kickaha I don't believe that a group's aesthetic opinion should hold sway over private property.

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.

Originally Posted by chucker I don't believe preservation is always the answer; sometimes tearing down the old is a needed step to pave way for the new.

Of course. (And for a start, could someone please tear down Millbank Tower, the former NatWest Tower, and most of Canary Wharf? The IRA had the right idea bombing that lot, shame about their other ideals.) But buildings will always be torn down for new ones, due to market forces; nobody needs to fight for this. On the other hand, history has shown us that many buildings, including some of simply outstanding cultural value, have been destroyed and their destruction later widely lamented. And in nearly all these cases, groups of one kind or another lobbied to save the buildings in question. On the other hand, how many buildings that were preserved after a long fight are now considered worthless? Not very many! It seems to me much wiser to err on the side of caution, especially as there are huge areas of our cities with absolutely no redeeming merits which should first be destroyed for development.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by MSFT damn, didn't know jesus was gay. that sort of poses a problem to the catholic church, eh?

Warning: This image is in spoiler tags for a reason. If you're easily offended, don't click.

[Banana]

Jobs should just make a VR tour of his house and give it to the group, claiming that it is now 100% perserved.

Seriously, what about histroical preservation? I mean, if this group did think the house was worth keeping, couldn't they go to the local city hall and apply for preservation which would restrict the land use or use eminent domain to force the sale from Jobs? Or is it more complicated than that?

[LudwigVan]

Originally Posted by Luca (Image snipped)

Dude, at least put that thing between spoiler tags. Yeesh.