Steve Jobs wins approval to raze his old mansion
Unless preservationists make a last-ditch effort to save it, a 14-bedroom house built by a copper millionaire during the Coolidge administration will be torn down by a computer billionaire in the age of Obama.
At a public hearing Tuesday night, the town council of Woodside, Calif. — one of the wealthiest small towns in America — voted 6 to 1 to approve a controversial demolition permit that would allow Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs to knock down a 17,250 square foot Spanish colonial mansion and replace it with a smaller, more environmentally friendly home.
"I love old Spanish revival homes — I have a couple of them myself, and I've restored them," council member Dave Tanner said at the meeting, according to a report in the Palo Alto Daily News. "I didn't see any reason to try to restore or maintain this house."
Jobs bought the sprawling mansion known as the Jackling House in 1984 — the year the Mac came out — and camped out in it for about 10 years before moving to Palo Alto. His 2004 demolition permit was approved by the Woodside town council but blocked by an ad-hoc group called Uphold Our Heritage. They view the abandoned structure — built in 1925 by George Washington Smith in his Santa Barbara style for copper mining magnate Daniel C. Jackling — as a national treasure.
At Tuesday's meeting, Mayor Peter Mason, a licensed architect, cast the sole vote opposing demolition. "It's an unfortunate thing that Mr. Jobs doesn't like the house," Mason told the Daily News. "It's really sad that we're going to continue to tear down historic resources in this town because they're old."
Asked by the paper whether she planned to pursue further legal action, Uphold Our Heritage president Clotilda Luce gave an ambiguous answer. "We already sued, and we won," she said. "I wish (the council) had paid attention to the law."
Photo by Jonathan Haeber posted with permission. For more of his work, click here and here.
See also:
I think they should coat it with transistor paste and let aliens use their fazoopsticators to lzlzlzlzp it.
That way, there wouldn't be any waste, and in return for the snack, the aliens could give Steve some more technology.
Several have commented that Jobs should have known the responsibility he was taking on when he bought the property. Last I checked, this property still is listed on any significant historical registry. In fact, the only ones calling it historic are the ones fighting Jobs.
If they want it to be preserved, raise the money, buy the property and end this tired battle. Jobs has a right as a property owner to do what is necessary. The supreme court was right to overturn the original decision, but as the home has continued to decline, a new case was presented, and the board could reach a decision, in favor of Jobs wishes, that still meets the aims of the city.
My only wish is that rather than a wrecking ball, dismantle the structure, sell it, recycle, or reuse it to build a better, more efficient structure for the future. If the preservationist can only afford a portion of the property, they can preserve that part of history.
Also, while the Smith homes are great designs of architecture and shaped those California communities, from a historic stand point, they come no where near the works of Frank Lloyd Wright. Which is completely evident as his works are preserved by historic preservation and societies will to pay for the properties and their up keep. If you or someone won't pay for it, why should you expect someone who is not passionate about it to care for it. Think of a Monet or Renior painting. If I don't like one that I own, I won't destroy it, but I will sell it and some one will buy it. If I have a no-name painting by a largely unknown friends cousin, you are not likely to pay anything to preserve it. Unfortunately, Smith's work is largely unknown and little support is available to preserve it.
"Raze" is such a harsh word. It sounds like burning it down and salting the earth.
Rather than do that, maybe Jobs could consider deconstruction as an alternative? He could have a crew disassemble his house and donate the old materials to Habitat for Humanity. There's a site for that here: http://www.reusenetwork.org/
This house was not that historic given that there are many, better examples of Spanish Revival architecture right in that area. If this was such a historic treasure surely someone would have taken Jobs up on his offer to have it relocated. The fact that no one did tells you everything you need to know about this house: It wasn't worth the effort and Jobs was under no obligation to spend millions to fix a house he hated. Sometimes history is important enough that someone with money takes up the challenge, but in this case, the market spoke.
I think it was the correct result.
Personally, I think a property owner should be allowed to tear down any structure and build a new one, as long as it falls within the zoning laws of the area. This house has some history to it, but you can be assured that whatever SJ builds here will be of FAR more historical value when he's gone.
For me, it's not even about for the fact it is 80 years old.
The place is gorgeous from the outside and could have its inside restored.
Yes, Jobs offered it for sale or for the cost of relocation"
Someone from the preservationist should have considered that offer.
Think about this house relocated in some type of vineyard or a farm.
It would make a good "hacienda". Its design is better suited for that.
The real issue, is to have the preservationists moving their a____ to find funding to meet that goal.
Nobody is trying to compare the house to the Sistine Chapel, you have to read back in the thread for the original reference. The point is that if you purchase a historic property, you take on the responsibility of caring for that property. Letting it decline and then declaring it too costly to restore is not an excuse.
Individual rights have to be tempered by the greater concerns of the community, and if some people object to the demolition of the house, they should have a voice. If the balance seems to fall in the favor of the property owner, fine. I just worry in this case that Jobs' money and celebrity status trumped historic interest. The house looks crappy now, but it's not hard to find pictures that show how beautiful it once was:
http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org/gallery.html
We are too eager in this country to pave over our past in the interest of "efficiency". Our heritage is an important part of our future, and we've already lost so much.
He offered the house repeatedly for sale or for the cost of relocation, and nobody took him up on it. The preservationists only want it if somebody else pays for it.
And it's blasphemy comparing that monstrosity to the Sistine Chapel. Give me a break.
How much history did the Sistine Chapel have when it was 80 years old? Perhaps it should have been torn down instead of restored when the paintings got old and dingy. Think, people.
The house, as shown on the picture, is nice though.
I wouldn't tear down but rather fix it, and sell it.
Americans fail…. really?
Because the house of a old rich man has as much history as the sistine chapel.
Give me a break.
Sounds like there's plenty of property to build another "small, efficient" house without tearing down the old one.
Ostensibly the house didn't look like it does now when Jobs bought it in 1984, so Jobs let it get run down and decrepit and now he argues it's ugly and will cost too much to restore. Whose fault is that?
If "a rich guy lived there" isn't good enough, with which I would agree, how about "built by the most famous California architect of the time, foremost proponent of the Spanish Colonial Revival Style which is the characteristic style of much of California today"? Try a quick Google search before you spout off on forums.
If you purchase a historic property, you should know that your rights regarding use of that property may be restricted. But, money talks, and even though the CA Supreme Court ruled against him, somehow Jobs' highly paid and skilled attorneys figured out a way to thwart the law.
LoL. I think it's funny how all these people are saying "yeah! tear it down!", when they are the same people who would travel overseas to tour all the unique OLD architecture of cities and villages.
Americans fail.
Maybe this house is the cause of his mysterious illness? 
Personally, that house is so butt-ugly that I'd want to tear it down, too. People who want to preserve absolutely everything simply because it's old need to get a life. I understand trying to preserve houses of actual historical significance, but don't preserve it just because it is old and belonged to a rich guy. Use some common sense.
Perhaps it is time to create a set of guidelines for preservationists. An event should have taken place in the house which changed the course of history. For example, the birth of George Washington, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, or the creation of a new state are all valid reasons to preserve a house. "A rich guy lived there" is not valid. Move on.
I was going to say how you can mark this one up to property owners, but you guys said it already. Good to hear Jobs 'doing well' since he's going through this much 'trouble.'
NoTimeForRecess.com
As long as Mr. Jobs doesn't build an eyesore, I support his right to tear down the building on his property.
To me, too many properties recently have been registered as historic or endangered. The ones that really have historic value should be preserved. But one man's art is another man's trash right?
@Jay Cranton,
"Would Mr Jobs go through all this trouble
if he only has months to live?"
Very very good point you are making here…
that's exactly what I was wondering.
Only in California would they call a decrepit, inefficient, 80 year old, monstrosity of a house 'historical'.
Why doesn't Ms. Luce and the rest of the "Uphold Our Heritage" crew purchase the property from Mr. Jobs if it is so near and dear to their hearts?
CONGRATULATIONS STEVE! — score one for property owner rights! It shouldn't matter if you're lower middle class or a billionaire, it's your property.
If he is that sick, maybe he wants to build a place that is handicap accessible, and has a nurses suit, etc. Or he is cleaning up his entire "Estate".
Congratulations, Steve.
A win for property rights; probably the last one in America during the age of Obama.
This is the kind of hard-hitting news I like to hear about.
Can we find out please how many saddle-bred horses he has on his horse farm (and yes, including the colt that was born earlier this week.)
Would Mr Jobs go through all this trouble if he only has months to live? Or does he actually have much better prognosis than people say?
And, California can't understand why it's are near bankruptcy. . . I will be really, really angry if the Federal Government moves to bail them out, especially in the face of stupidity like this.
I'm a proud, unapologetic "PC" and defender of the Microsoft faith, but I completely side with Steve Jobs in this case.
Steve Jobs has owned this property for 25 years. As a property owner, he has every right to make improvements to it as he sees fit. The only restriction is that he meets zoning regulations, which he has done.
There is nothing about this house that makes it remarkable, other than an old rich guy lived there. There are a 100 other mansions from that time period in the US that look just like this one and are in much better condition. This house is not Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water".
Even so, I think it's absolutely wrong for a government to interfere for 25 years with a property owner's rights without some type of compensation to the owner.
This is why businesses are leaving California; you never know when the wonderful government there is going regulate you to the point where a few loud activists can bring your business dealings to a screeching halt for 25 years.
Building a new, energy efficient house to replace this piece of ugly, roaring 1920's over-consumption is something that should be encouraged. In the long run, Steve Jobs is going to create jobs for Californians and save energy. I'm also sure he's going to make this house a technology showcase for Apple products just as Bill Gates did with Microsoft products at his house in Seattle. This will create even more jobs for Californians and, possibly, better energy management solutions.
Let him do what he wants with the property.