.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
UPDATE: After writing this post, Clotilde Luce, a former resident of Jackling House, started an organization, Uphold Our Heritage, whose purpose is to preserve Jackling House. If you’d like to support their efforts, please click this button which will enable you to donate to the group’s Paypal account.
Apparently, Steve Jobs never met a historic home he couldn’t imagine tearing down to replace it with something soulless, sleek and new. Certainly not the Daniel C. Jackling House (1926) which he’s owned in Woodside, CA since 1983 (Free to a Good Home: A Captain of Industry’s Rejected Mansion).
Jackling House vista (credit: Woodside History Committee-all photos from this source unless otherwise noted)
The San Francisco Chronicle wrote a good story in October, 2004 describing the home:
The house in Woodside sits hidden in the woods on a private lane off Mountain Home Road and was built in 1926 for copper baron Daniel C. Jackling. It was designed by George Washington Smith, who created the red-tile-and- stucco look of Santa Barbara and neighboring Montecito and whose Pettigrew House in Palo Alto is on the National Register of Historic Places. Smith homes in Santa Barbara and Montecito sell for tens of millions of dollars.
George Washington Smith created the architectural style
of Santa Barbara, but Steve Jobs “never heard of him.” (credit: Architect.com)
The Woodside Town Council has just approved Jobs’ questionable plan to tear down the home if he cannot find someone to take it off his hands–free. I say, if Jobs wants to build a new home there–let him. But why not make him pay the $2.5-million it’d take to relocate it and rebuild it? Why the Town Council has let Jobs off so lightly is a mystery to me. You mean poor Steve can’t afford to shell out the extra $2.5-million? That’s nothing for the likes of Steve Jobs, all he has to do is sell a few hundred thousand more iPods to make up the difference. If I were Steve Jobs, I’d move the house, restore it and recruit a non-profit organization to manage it as a museum dedicated to the architectural legacy of George Washington Smith or to California architecture. Instead of coming across as a boorish, uncultured philistine, for a change Jobs would come across as a mature, civic-minded individual. What a difference that would make!
Daniel C. Jackling House–a Steve Jobs tear down?
Instead, this clueless Joe has made the following ignorant comments about his home showing he has an absolutely tin ear and obtuse mind when it comes to understanding the value of preserving a culture’s architectural legacy:
Jobs, the billionaire chief executive of Apple and Pixar, who has called the mansion, built for an earlier captain of industry, the copper baron Daniel C. Jackling, “one of the biggest abominations of a house I’ve ever seen.”
At a hearing earlier this year, he explained that he had always intended to knock it down, calling the house “poorly built” and professing never to have heard of the architect, George Washington Smith, revered elsewhere in California for creating, among other things, the architectural look of Santa Barbara.
“Why should I invest a lot of money to keep it protected when I want to tear it down?”
“It was never really a very interesting house to start with,” he told the planning commissioners. “So I think I could build something far, far nicer and far more historically interesting down the road.”
He described [the house] as “pretty much a dump when I moved in.”
Mr. Jobs said of Mr. Jackling: “He was a very wealthy man. Unfortunately, he didn’t have very good taste.”
Says who, Mr. Jobs? And you have better taste? Please don’t make me laugh! And finally we have this nugget from his attorney, who doesn’t appear to have a much more developed sense of decency than his client: “All he wants is the house off the property,” Mr. Ellman said. “What happens next is of little or no concern.”
Thalia Lubin, architect and member of the Woodside History Committee put the lie to all of this intellectual chicanery in this statement: The estate is “part of the cultural fabric of the town,” she said. “Every time you lose one of those threads, you’ve lost a little bit of history.”
Harry Kolb, a Santa Barbara real estate agent specializing in sales of George Washington Smith homes, places Smith into broader architectural context:
Smith is “revered” for his neo-European designs and wanted the homes to appear upon construction as if they had been expanded over the generations. He used multiple roof lines and non-functioning chimneys and varied the iron work adorning windows. Inside, he designed corner fireplaces, tile floors that rose slightly higher in the center of the room and rooms twice as long as they were wide with coffers, beam work and painted medallions in the ceilings to create an intimate feel, Kolb said.
Smith also liked to surprise homeowners with steps going up or down into a room simply for artistic purposes and indoor-outdoor walkways that would force residents to go outside to get to their bedrooms or other rooms in the house.
Kolb considers the homes works of art but knows they are not suited to everyone.
“I can understand someone saying a house of the 1920s isn’t appropriate today. They didn’t have kitchen-living rooms, their closets were small — people have more than three changes of clothing today. On the other hand, it’s just as easy for somebody who really likes that type of architecture to point out all the things that are special and that you don’t want to lose.”
Why should the architectural judgments of Neanderthals like Steve Jobs be substituted for architectural historians like the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which decries the effort to tear down the Jackling House?
Clotilde Luce, an architectural preservationist who lived in the Jackling House in the 1970s and is leading the effort to preserve it said this about Jobs’ plans: “I think it’s irresponsible and predatory to deprive the house to future owners, ones who know the value of a 17,000-square-foot masterwork by a great California architect.”
Cities, towns and neighborhoods throughout this country are fighting losing battles to preserve their architectural heritage. Young nouveau riche like Steve Jobs come along and feel they need to make their own architectural statements with the new palaces they wish to build. They know nothing of what has come before them. They care little what will come after them. They want what they want when they want it. Pity the poor, decrepit old home that stands in their way.
Don’t know about you, but I can do without Apple products in my life as long as Steve Jobs wants to be the Attila the Hun of historic preservation. Shame on you, Steve Jobs. You should know better!
Some of the above quotations come from this article in the International Herald Tribune (also published in the New York Times): Steve Jobs brings down the house
![Image of West-East Divan [DVD Video]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vPRxjvAhL._SL110_.jpg "West-East Divan [DVD Video]")
Hi Richard
…Even now that I understand your point, it’s still preposterous. The historic preservation movement is akin to Nazi aesthetics? Puh-leeze!…
When a govenment wants to regulate aesthetics, I think it’s worth paying attention and waking up, because there is something wrong. And yes, when governments force us to believe what they want us to believe – for no other reason than to prove that they can – the government is oppressive. It may sell newspapers and books, but “…historic and cultural preservation..” is not, itself, a persuasive argument to me. The South argued that elimination of slavery would change their way of life and would adversely affect their rich heritage and culture. You know what? They were absolutely right! The South has not been the same since slavery was abolished, but that does not mean that slavery is justified on grounds of historic, cultural, economic or aesthetic preservation.
Up until 1950, it was perfectly legal to enforce property covenants that prevented minorities from buying property in certain neighborhoods. These covenenants were upheld on economic grounds for almost a century after slavery was abolished, because they preserved property values. And you know what? The covenants did preserve property values! When minorities moved into all-white neighborhoods, property values plummeted. But arguments in support of preserving neighborhood culture (white) and preservation of neighborhood economic interests (real estate values) do not override individual rights, personal freedoms, and personal liberties. Eventually, these laws were overturned, but it took a very, very long time, and there was a lot of opposition.
…Historic preservation merely wishes to preserve valued architectural styles that already exist….
Valued by whom? The state of California has not offered to pay to have the house moved. To date, no one has offered to pay for the building’s removal and restoration, I understand. The style may be valued, but the style can be preserved through drawings, photographs and individual artifacts, and this is borne out by the style’s enormous popularity – realtors in California love it! It’s everywhere! Lots of people are willing and eager to have houses designed and built in this style, but that is their personal choice. That choice is not being made for them by people who are on religious missions, usually.
Tearing this building down will not destroy its style, and I believe that expert architectural historians would agree.
What this looks to be about is a small group of people that is demanding to be paid off – it walks and talks like extortion, plain and simple. They want to prove that they are in control and that they can force even wealthy and powerful people to yield to their demands, right? That’s what this is about – it’s a shakedown.
…It doesn’t want to impose any particular architectural standards or aesthetics in terms of new construction…
Are you an architect? Have you consulted with any architects, have you read the legal case, have you familiarized yourself with Woodside’s building ordinances, or any other building town’s ordinances, for that matter? All across the country, property owners are faced with aesthetic restrictions when building. Many, many, many ordinances make aesthetic demands on property owners who want to build. Height limits are the most obvious, but there are plenty of others that regulate materials, colors, projections, roof slopes, visibility of garage doors, yard sizes, etc. – you name it. Your statement is not true and not credible.
I believe that the reasons these aesthetic ordinances exist is simply because they have not been opposed for the right reasons.
….I know this offends yr radical libertarian philosophy. But don’t expect any sympathy fr. me….
I don’t expect sympathy. At this point, the only thing I expect from you is religious intransigence. My philosophy is not “radical libertarian” – it’s Jeffersonian. Jefferson was this country’s first architect and he built and rebuilt for personal pleasure, not for money, not to keep his neighbors happy and not to preserve the then-popular English Colonial style, which he detested. I think the courts would listen to a Jeffersonian argument or two, but I don’t think they have ever been presented, at least from the research I have done.
…Again you’re off the mark & the analogy is wholly w/o merit. Simply put, if you own this particular house & the land on which it sits, you’ll have to either preserve it or negotiate with preservationists to move it to a suitable location where its integrity will be preserved….
The analogy and references to music, literature and poetry are dead on the mark. The Jackling house is claimed to be some sort of artistic masterpiece, and references to art, aesthetics, and the First Amendment are right on the money. The fact that you don’t understand the analogies is another story. Recently, I spoke to a very experienced attorney who was running for office as a municipal judge, and I asked him what he thought about government regulation of aesthetics. He didn’t have a clue – none whatsoever. He wasn’t dumb, he’d just never thought about it, because he only forms opinions on arguments presented in court.
“You’ll have to either…” is not a reasonable argument, it’s an statement of authority and power. “We own this neighborhood, so pay up.” It may be true right now, but it’s not persuasive.
Would you agree with a law that requires you pay to support the KKK or the campaign of David Duke? How about George Bush? Barack Obama? The fact is, is doesn’t matter how popular or loved the candidate is. The reason you can’t be forced to pay, no matter how rich you are, is because MONEY IS A FORM OF SPEECH and the First Amendment specifically protects speech. You can not be made to say things that you don’t agree with or support ideological causes that you don’t believe in. Do you understand that? Or not?
Historic preservation is an ideological issue, and it has no constitutional basis, just as aesthetics have no right answers. The town of Woodside (actually, the State of California) requires property owners to:
1.) Pay money. Individually. Not as taxpayers contributing to a government-funded or publicly sponsored program, or as commercial entities contributing to civic programs as a cost of doing business. They have to pay *personally*, as individuals, for things that other individuals do not.
2.) Pay money to an ideological “cause” of historic preservation as determined by narrow special interest groups. To preserve aesthetics that the property owner finds personally distasteful. And for which the historic preservationists can demand payment as consultants.
There is no constitutional amendment upholding the authority of government to demand aesthetic obeisance and subserviance to self-appointed, ad-hoc historic preservation groups. There is one that guarantees free speech, however, and I support that one, don’t you?
The courts have upheld historic preservation (and the issue is not about historic preservation, really it’s about control) on economic grounds – that historic preservation is an economic issue. But economic issues still do not prevail over freedom of thought and freedom of speech, especially at the personal, non-commercial level. Aesthetics are expressive qualities and are therefore aspects of speech. As a constitutional matter, what else can they be?
If aesthetic preservation is an economic issue, and because governments can pass laws to regulate local economics, then municipalities could enact ordinances requiring everyone to wear, say, black suits, white shirts and black hats, to wear white skin and to drive white cars, right? What would prevent that? Seriously, if a municipality passed those laws, what argument would you offer against them? Some “radical libertarian” nonsense?
…98% of Californians are willing to accept this minimal restriction on their property rights in order to preserve the state’s architectural heritage….
I’m not sure where you got that statistic, but my guess is that, in similar circumstances, 98% of Californians would agree with Steve Jobs. When it’s your property, it’s not a minimal restriction, it’s a big deal. Attend any local City Council meeting where citizens have their property evaluated by some Board of Do-Gooders. NO ONE wants to have their property deemed to be “historically significant”, because the property often *decreases* in value. The property owners get their hands tied and they have to negotiate with some historic preservationists about what they can and can not do, based on how much money they have available to spend. Sure, they like historic preservation as long as they don’t have to pay for it, and I think you fit in that category, no?
…I’m sure selfish billionaires like Steve Jobs and David Geffen would richly fund yr campaign. But do let me know so I can make a contribution to your opponent…
Reversal of these laws will not happen by people in elected office, but only in the courts. Some individual property owner will have to find to find the courage and reasons and time to argue his way through the courts, with very little help and against well funded, well entrenched opposition.
Sadly, your personal attack – and the ones in your article slandering Steve Jobs – are one of the most telling parts of your argument. You don’t seem willing to raise money to buy the house and pay for its preservation, but you are willing to spend money to elect people who want to wipe out our basic freedoms. Steve Jobs has taken a salary of $1 for the past ten years and has quadrupled (at least) the value of his shareholders stock. And he’s selfish? I read this as a sign that he holds principles that you have trouble grasping. If you want to preserve his house, why don’t you pay for it?
And who knows how much he’s already contributed to cultural or other worthwhile causes? Some donors make a big show out of their contributions, demanding that this concert hall or that theatre or some musuem be named after themsleves. They have “their architect” design the building and loan their own personal collection of paintings to hang on the wall. Those donors make sure everyone knows what wonderful humanitarians they are and what great contributuions they’ve made toward the advancement and preservation of culture.
Other donors give money quietly and anonymously. They do it secretly, privately, for reasons of their own. They support causes but want the focus to be on the cause – not the donor. Are you certain that Steve Jobs hasn’t already contributed millions to other worthwhile causes? I don’t know that he has, of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
You seem to like to have the last word (actually the last hundreds of words), but that won’t be the case here. I think we’ve both said everything we could possible say supporting our respective arguments. I respect yr right to hold yr well-argued (but incorrect) views. But I think it’s time to give this a rest.
When the State Court of Appeals rules in favor (at least that’s what we hope & expect to happen) of the preservationists in the next phase of the court battle I’ll post again & you can comment there if you wish.
First, historic preservation is like Nazi aesthetics & now its like slavery. You really pull out all the stops don’t you. C’mon! It’s a just plain dumb analogy. And btw, the South objected to abolition much more strenuously because it would “adversely affect” their society’s economy. Certainly abolition affected heritage & culture, but this was a secondary factor compared to the utter devastation it posed for the munificent plantation lifestyle enjoyed by the aristocratic land-owning class.
Lord, now historic preservation is akin to racist property covenants! That’s rich.
You understand incorrectly. Two potential buyers have come forward. But one wishes to move the house entirely away from Woodside. Preservationists wish to retain the home for the area in which it was built. I’m not certain what the outcome was with the other offer. Jobs is the party who must negotiate w. them and the outcome is not fully in the preservationists control, though they may have some leverage in terms of final veto power since the law has found in favor of their position that he cannot demolish the home.
This is akin to saying we can shred the original Mona Lisa but “preserve” it through photographs. That argument would go over well with the Louvre I’m sure. Or should we tear down Versailles while preserving Marie Antoinette’s bedstead to remind us of the palace’s former glory?
Actually, expert architectural historians (from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and others) universally agree with the preservationists legal efforts and have written Friend of the Court briefs supporting them. I’m not aware of a single architectural historian who’s said anything differently. Though you’re welcome to try to find one.
That is a vicious calumny. I am a founding member of Uphold Our Heritage and have been intimately involved in this entire case. I know what my motivations & UOH’s are. You are a despicable person for making such assumptions. It only proves your own paranoia & mistrust but is absolutely no reflection on the preservationist mission in this matter. If you were decent you would apologize. We’ll see how decent you are.
You are confusing BUILDING ordinances with PRESERVATION ordinances. They have nothing to do with each other. Building ordinances regulate the types of issues you raise. But they serve a wholly diff. purpose than preservation ordinances which are designed to preserve a limited number of specific historic structures.
That’s delightful. If you’re Jeffersonian, then you should be willing to place some value on Jefferson’s crowning architectural achievements–Monticello and the Univ. of Vir. campus. But if you’re true to yr libertarian principles you should allow for the fact that the current owners, should they wish, could sell these properties off & allow them to be demolished. Which is it–are you Jeffersonian or libertarian?
And for you to say that Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s first great architects, would embrace your rampant Darwinian view of private property rights is laughable.
That’s horseshit. Historic preservation is NOT an ideological issue. It is only an ideological issue for an ideologue such as yourself. Lot’s of things that are considered hard & fast law have no specific “constitutional basis.” The abolition of slavery, one man-one vote, abortion rights. All of these were inferred from constitutional principles with no clear-cut basis in the original text. That doesn’t make them any less valid. Besides historic preservation is NOT a federal issue. It is a state & local issue. And I’m relatively sure there is some basis in the CA. state constitution for historic preservation, as it is fixed law (for everyone but the likes of you).
I have no idea what you’re ‘on’ about. What “money” are you talking about? Historic preservation is only a “narrow special interest” group to radical Darwinians like you. While many Americans know little about historic preservation (hence the public apathy leading to abysmal decisions to tear down architectural jewels like the old Penn Station), the vast majority of those who do, value it very highly.
There doesn’t have to be. That’s what plain, ordinary state laws are for. There’s a state law governing historic preservation. You don’t like it–fine. You think it’s unconstitutional–fine. Please, do go ahead and start a state initiative to abolish all aspects of state law that prevent individuals fr. exercising their full powers. I’d like to see such a campaign & how much public support it would win. I’d even like to see an initiative restricted to abolishing historic preservation laws. They’d fail miserably too. Or maybe you’d like to bring a case before the State Supreme Court arguing such laws are unconstitutional? I’d like to see you do it and see how many votes you’d get. Go right ahead.
I won’t take this argument solely based on yr unsupported word. I’m certain that historic preservation has been upheld on a variety of grounds & that economics are but one of many factors supporting it.
Yes, the key phrase is “in similar circumstances.” If every Californian was worth $10 billion, then there might be no support, or very little support for historic preservation (then again there might be a great deal of support for it as long as you weren’t the person who wanted to destroy your historic home). Economic self-interest tends to distort people’s values when they’re god-awful wealthy. Luckily, the Jobs and Geffens of CA. constitute a very small percentage of the population. The rest of us plebes (I don’t live in CA. but did for 17 years) have more normative values–historic preservation being but one of them.
And that’s precisely why we have laws that govern all of us. That’s why we don’t allow the wealthy to buy the laws or shape them to their advantage. Laws made to benefit the few are bad laws. Sure David Geffen hated allowing a walkway on his property for public beach access. It was a big deal for him. But thankfully, the interests of the broader public subsumed his individual interest. Geffen argued the case for years & finally lost. The same holds true for Jobs.
A wholly wrong & ignorant claim. Thousands of properties, including private homes are deemed historic landmarks every year with their owners full approval.
As I wrote above, Geffen tried & failed to do precisely that. Jobs is now trying to appeal his way through the state legal system. Hopefully, he’ll fail as well. We’ll see.
I guess Thomas Jefferson would be a sycophant for American corporatism too, at least by yr twisted notions. Steve Jobs has taken $1 in salary for 10 yrs. So what? What’s that supposed to mean? That he’s doing it for charity? I don’t have any problem with Steve Jobs running a successful company and making himself and his employees rich. But the way he runs his personal life is entirely separate fr. the way he runs his business life. And the rules governing both are different as well. If he doesn’t like the rules as they affect his disposition of Jackling House he has many alternatives, none of which (except demolition) he’s chosen to avail himself of.
Oh no, I have no trouble grasping Jobs’ values. They’re values of selfishness, boorishness, self-importance, & self-grandiosity, & a willingness to thumb his nose at established law that contravenes his own personal interest. I understand his values completely. I reject them & in this particular case, so does the State of California.
I have not examined Steve Jobs personal philanthropy. But I am a professional non-profit fundraiser and study such matters in general terms for a living. I’m aware of many, many wealthy individuals who’ve given much more significantly to charity than Steve Jobs. If you want to claim him as a philanthropic angel I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than to presume he’s generous w/o providing any proof. And even if he is generous, it has nothing to do w. this particular matter.
One last question and I’ll give it a rest….
Do you know the cutoff date for the appeal (if there is one)?
Thanks for the discussion!
The Court of Appeal hearing was December 20th. A ruling is expected within a month or possibly less.
You know, I actually thought Jobs might be in the wrong until I read your blog post today. Through your holier-than-thou attitude and unwillingness to even consider his side of the story, I’ve gained sympathy for his point of view, and a new “appreciation” for the “winning, even at the cost of fairness and honesty” strategy that people such as yourself often employ.
Certain commenters here who have long made up their minds on an issue come here & blame me & something I write for “changing their minds,” as if their minds weren’t made up to begin with. This commenter is a perfect example. Besides, don’t believe or disbelieve me. There’s now a legal record. Two levels of judicial review have determined him to be in the wrong.
It doesn’t really matter what you or I say. Judges determine the law & he’s broken it. Plain & simple.
Then I guess yr snarkier than thou attitude is an attempt to repay me? I’ve been following this story for well over a yr. YOu think I haven’t heard & read Jobs’ “side of the story??” I know what his side is. It’s pathetic & that’s been proven as I said by a Superior Court judge and three Appeals Court judges in a unanimous ruling.
Well lets look about the facts here, this is a house, in a neighborhood 99.999999999999~% of you dont live in, wont drive by, wont ever set foot into. Yet here we reading an article about preserving it like something important happened here. Im sorry the declaration of independence was not written here, nor any other significant event that requires we maintain the house for all eternity.
How long will this house need to be preserved? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? get real. The fact that these preservation efforts to keep a house that lets face it, does not affect ANY of your daily lives whether its in existence or not is treated like its incredibly important is ridiculous.
Anyone who is in this historical preservation society is flat out ridiculous.
I think everyone needs to step back, stop being sentimentalist freaks and realize that frankly its not their business.
@ruserious: In that case, why don’t we also destroy the Mona Lisa or Versailles or the Amazon rainforest for that matter. After all, how much tangible direct impact do they have on any of our lives?
My brother and I purchased a home in Portwashington NY 11050 together.
Close to two year later the village landmarked it.
We were devestated. It cost us a fortune to fight it, and we were not successfull. We were looking for alternative solutions that will come to a sound solution between us and the the landmark commission. It led to no where and the struggle went on for 5 years and put us in debt and our ailing aging parent in further illness. The compounding factor of the financial crisis with realestate value further downturn led us now to consider foreclosure. Basically, the village cornered us into banckrupcy and we can not do anything about it, as everything with the law is an “uphill battle” Our rights were totally robbed from us, and we were not even looking to demolish the property. if you have any way of helping us we are in extreme difficulty: write to my email at aol dot com — I hope someone reading this can help, I am calling out to the angels as a last resort. The saint that I pray to every day crashed to the ground today and lost a head without a reason, and for sure, I think this was the saint’s answer to my prayers.