“Steve Jobs’ quest to demolish a Woodside mansion has hit another snag, cheering preservationists who consider the home built for a copper magnate a historical treasure,” Kim Vo reports for The San Jose Mercury News. “San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner has tentatively ruled that the town improperly granted Jobs, chief executive of Apple Computer and Pixar, a demolition permit last year. Jobs’ attorney, Howard Ellman, said he is likely to appeal the decision.”
“Jobs, who bought the 17,000-square foot home in 1984 but hasn’t lived there in more than a decade, has said he wants to build a new, smaller home on the property that would be more suitable for his family. They currently live in Palo Alto,” Vo reports. “His efforts to demolish the existing home have drawn ire from preservationists, who say the house is historical and deserves protection. Architect George Washington Smith, who gave Santa Barbara its distinctive look, designed the Spanish Colonial Revival home for Daniel Jackling, who formed the Utah Copper Co.”
Vo reports, “The Jackling house sits at the end of a narrow, tree-lined road, behind locked gates. The home — surrounded by hills and oaks and olive trees — is built in the Spanish style with adobe-style walls, red tiles and wrought-iron balconies. Jobs is not a fan, as he told the Woodside town council in December 2004. ‘I’ve worked with some of the best architects. I’m a lucky guy,’ he said then. ‘But I don’t think it’s a historic building.’ The town made Jobs offer to give the house away to anyone willing and able to move and restore it. He had to advertise the freebie for a year; no demolition permit would be issued before this month. About 100 people inquired about it after features appeared on TV’s ‘This Old House’ and in the New York Times and local papers, Ellman said. Only one person had the means to actually take on the project, which would cost at least $7.5 million, according to town estimates. But that man’s investor was killed in an accident and it’s uncertain if he will still pursue the house, Ellman said. He would not comment if Jobs now plans to sell the property.”
Full article here.
Why not just make sure nobody’s in there, stick an Xbox in the dump, and let it do its thing?
[Preemptory disclaimer for the humor impaired: We do not condone or promote arson. Arson is a crime. Do not burn down houses or anything else with Xboxes or by any other method.]
Advertisements:
Get Free Shipping on Top-Rated iPod and Mac Accessories
The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music & video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.00.
The New iMac G5. Built-in camera and remote control. From $1299. Free shipping.
Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using your dial-up service. $49.00.
Related articles:
Microsoft sued over defective Xbox 360 consoles, suit alleges units prone to freeze ups, overheating – December 05, 2005
UK woman narrowly survives Xbox fire; users report Xbox 360 ‘crashing like mad’ – November 23, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs offers ‘dump’ of a house free to anyone who’ll take it away – January 03, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs gets green light to tear down his ‘dump’ of a house – December 15, 2004
Preservationists battle Apple CEO Steve Jobs over his ‘dump’ of a house – October 17, 2004
Why not just dispense with the stupid arson references that require a “preemptory disclaimer”? Can’t be more creative than using an xbox?
How about a bank of PowerMacs stuck in full-fan mode to blow the house off the property?
California is still part of the US (sort of).
Tell the preservationists to put up or shut up. Buy the MF or let him tear it down. It is HIS property.
I guess we can file this story under the “why should we care?” department.
for steve: build your new house at a DIFFERENT location!
He must really like the spot, but history can’t be recovered once it is destroyed. A compromise is made.
Steve must build his new house someplace else if the old one is really of architectural significance.
“Tell the preservationists to put up or shut up. Buy the MF or let him tear it down. It is HIS property.”
In the same vein, would it be alright in your view to purchase and demolish the statue of liberty? Laws protecting important properties exist for a reason, you know.
Is this building historical? Meh.
I’ve seen pictures – this isn’t exactly a house that inspires oohs and ahhhs through its architecture or features. The property is awesome, but the house isn’t.
If SJ sold the property, I bet you the house comes down…
Just because the house was owned by somebody famous once, doesn’t make it a treasure. Fame and wealth do not necessarily travel in the same circles as taste and style.
“Why not just dispense with the stupid arson references that require a “preemptory disclaimer”? Can’t be more creative than using an xbox?
How about a bank of PowerMacs stuck in full-fan mode to blow the house off the property?”
zupchuck, you’re condoning, even suggesting, defacing, destroying or otherwise vandalizing private property! you’re being careless and irresponsible by even suggesting such actions.
maybe we should use a bank of PowerMacs to blow over your house…
or at least to blow all the crap out of your room in your parent’s house.
There are enough parts of Woodside that are preserved. Why don’t they let him alone? If I were him (with his financial capacity and lawyers), I would sue the City of Woodside. If he was told when he bought the house that it was historical, that would be different. But for them to bitch after he bought the house, is fscked up.
Let him build his dream house on the property. I don’t see the City of Woodside forking out the $7.5 million to move the house somewhere else, so shut the fsck up people.
Sincerely,
Jim Rome
and that’s why our American heritage is protected by our laws.
America doesn’t stand for “do whatever you want all the time.” You can’t torture “your” dog, you can’t beat “your” kids, and you can’t destroy “your” piece of history. Not even if you paid to live in it.
By your logic, the highest bidder could buy the Washington monument and tear it down because he “owns” it.
Owning the house means it can’t be taken from Steve without paying for it. And nobody’s trying to do that.
Think a little before reacting, people!
Does anyone here know the details of that decision?
No? Didn’t think so. Yet you will all jump in and ASSUME the house is NOT historical… just because it belongs to Steve Jobs?
A lot of people and judges have spent more time looking into this than you have. Ever consider that the decision wasn’t a simple one, and that there MIGHT be some historical value you aren’t expert enough to judge in 15 seconds?
Why the hell didn’t Steve have the wrecking ball come in immediately upon the granting of the permit?
Comparing the Statue of Liberty to a house built by someone most people have never heard of is a bit extreme. Besides, the property that the Statue of Liberty sits on is not for sale. The land that this house sits on was, and Jobs bought it over twenty years ago. In my mind, if a community decides that a building must be preserved, they should buy the land and protect it themselves. If he owns it, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it.
Yes, this IS America –
Come on! Many of these laws are enacted by knee jerk responses that feel someone else should spend the money.
If I were Steve I’d simply put it up for sale and move where I’m wanted, afterall he does own a private island, BUT the media has made it an issue and we all know how much Steve likes to lose.
Hopefully he’ll take the high road, maybe he’ll even move it for them, but I doubt without the land the house is worth that much.
Hey This IS America:
Why don’t you try to make a comparison that remotely works?
“You can’t torture your dog”? Nobody is saying that.
“You can’t beat your kids”? Nobody is saying that.
“You can’t destroy your piece of history?”
The first two deal with inhumanity and animal cruelty. How can you make that comparison, dip shit?
The highest bidder could buy the Washington Monument and tear it down because he owns it? First of all, that property is not residential, so nobody could own it even if they wanted to. And secondly, you obviously are not a lawyer so don’t give me that “protected by our laws” crap.
If you own a piece of residential land, and you want to build something on it, you go through a period of planning and approval with the city. I do not know the whole history of the property, but it is not the City of Woodside that complained, but the citizens/preservationists.
Steve has done what is necessary to get approval to demolish and build. The house was listed for purchase to be moved off the property and all of a sudden, the preservationists were quiet.
Shut up or put up. They had their opportunity and they shut up. Now Steve should have the right to tear it down. End of story.
Sincerly,
Steve’s Cousin
Given the insane state of both property law (i.e., what’s left of it) and historical/environmental “protection,” it is a total crapshoot whether SJ is being molested by busybodies or he is really in the wrong.
Sad.
P.S. I know the “environment” was not involved in this one, but exactly the same issues apply.
I have a smaller house, my family could use a larger one, maybe we could arrange a trade?
Just let me know if you are interested…
Yeah, this is America … and we have less of our 230 year old traditions still around than the Europeans & Asians have of the same, sometimes going back even thousands of years.
Look, I don’t know what this particular Jobs House looks like, or where it’s architecture fits in the grand pantheon of things. But historic preservationists, as a rule, don’t have the time or the resources to waste on keeping mere ‘dreck’ from the wrecking ball. Despite what a lot of you may be thinking, the deck is so stacked against these kinds of efforts (both legally and financially) that they can’t afford the luxury of being Quioxtic, or saving houses that just look interesting. So, if they’re consistently raising a stink, then there must be something about this home that makes it special enough to save – whether Jobs sees that or not.
Besides, if the man isn’t even LIVING there anymore (for over a decade?!), then what’s this really all about anyway – ego? Has this all just become some tempest in a teapot because SOMEBODY just can’t stand being told what to do? Just donate the damn building to the local historic society (or whomever), take the tax write-off, and be done with it! Sometime’s it pays just to be the bigger man, no matter who ‘started it’.
It all seems so petty. What with all his recent successes, I would think His Steveness could afford to be a little magnanimus – especially with something that has historic significance to the community.
MDN magic word = try
As in “Try to see past yourself sometimes, Steve.”
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smirk” style=”border:0;” />
(gotta respect the wisdom of that magic word)
“This is America, right?” is probably a republican. typical rethuglican thinking. do whatever you want to whomever, for any reason you think is appropriate.
Correction: “…we have less of our 230 year old architectual traditions …”
Hey Odyssey67,
I like your idea of donating it to the City of Woodside and writing it off on his taxes. But as you know, even if that is his plan, His Steveness always like the dramatic flair. So maybe that was his plan all along and he is just waiting for the tension to build until he declares…
And One More Thing… His Steveness hereby declares the house in Woodside to be given to the City of Woodside for $1, and that the house be a museum of Apple culture. Visitors would pay $3 to get in and $1 would go to the City, $1 to California Preservation Society, and $1 to Until there is an Ego Cure Foundation.
Steve’s Cus
I am going to suggest that the people who are actually backing up the preservationists fall into most these categories:
1. Do not or have never owned commercial properties.
2. Do not or have never owned any residential property.
3. Do not or have never had the means to own more than one residence at a time.
4. Have never seen the actual property in question.
5. Do not or have never actually paid the property tax on said property in question.
6. Do not or have never paid property tax in any form other than ‘rent’.
7. Do not or have never paid personal property tax.
8. Do not or have never fully underdstood the meaning of the phrase ‘life, libery and the pursuit of happiness.’
9. Agree with cartain local governments that the definition of immenent domain includes being able to take your grandmas home to build a Wal-Mart.
Once you do not meet most of these statements then you may understand the protections of private property under the constition.
I saw the pictures in This Old House Magazine. It is in poor condition and needs a lot of work. Its not even liveable in its present condition. Since they made him try to get someone (and if he made a honest try find someone) to move the house they shouldn’t stop the demo now. It is his private property and in America private property (at least it used to be) is to be used any way he wants to. He should have been able to raze it at any time in my opioion. Its in the contitution folks.
This has become the new American Way! Everybody thinks that everyone else is an idiot. Therefor it is up to them to govern their less intelligent neighbor.
This especially true in congress. I am an avid off-road enthusiast and enjoy visiting Utah to explore their beautiful trail system around the Moab area. There are many groups who both support and object to the people like me traveling in these wilderness areas, so there is a constant struggle to close trails and keep them open (depending what side your on). Part of these struggles involve new laws being proposed that will effect the usage of the Utah’s federally owned land in Utah. The funny thing is that the laws are usually introduced by a Senator or Rep. from New York State or Rhode Island. The people who have to fight the bills to keep the land in Utah open is oddly enough, the Senators and Reps from Utah and other southwest states who depend on public access to the federal land in their states.
All the environmental groups members who look at pictures of the Canyon Lands from their offices in New York city are sure that anyone who actually wants to visit that beautiful area should be kept behind a fence, yet all other of us with hands-on experience with the area are told that we don’t know what’s the right thing to do. The real problem is irresponible people who abuse their access to the land and don’t treat it with respect, but as we all know, introducing a law that resticts access will only keep the honest people out. The trouble makers would still be abusing the area.
It makes no sense that people aren’t allowed to govern themselves. Wasn’t that the idea when America was founded?
Sorry for the non-Mac rant.
Beautiful, actual property owner. You left out one category: Think living in communes is a good idea.
Odyssey67 wrote, “Besides, if the man isn’t even LIVING there anymore (for over a decade?!), then what’s this really all about anyway – ego?”
He’s not living there because the house is a wreck and he wants to build a new one.
Think of it this way, if Steve gets to build a new house, 200 years from it will be historical because it was built for Jobs : )