.jpg)
Jackling House Historic Photos and Steve Jobs Taken Down a Peg or Two
For the latest update on Steve Jobs’ failure to gain a review by the California Supreme Court in his effort to destroy Jackling House, see this post.
Just after Steve Jobs lost his bid to demolish Jackling House, Christopher Lloyd visited the blog and wrote me a fascinating story about his personal bond to the House. In the early 1970s, a close relative owned the property and invited Christoper and his family to visit. They did and he had an enchanting stay. His father took these images and I reprint them here with Christopher’s kind permission. Should anyone visiting, wish to use these images you must contact him for permission. Clotilde Luce of Uphold Our Heritage, a former resident of the House herself, says these images fill a gap in the historical documentation of the House. So I reprint them here with pleasure.
Most of the previous photos I’ve seen have been in black and white and have not shown many exterior details of the house and its landscaping. What I like about Christoper’s images is that they show wonderful exterior details; and they also show how the House ‘lived’ in its surroundings. For those who know the northern California landscape, these pictures will remind you of the wonderfully lush understory of stately California oaks. The House here looks nothing like a manicured museum like Filoli, another historic home in the area. Jackling House here is lovingly maintained, but it is most of all lived in. It looks like it is being used, but used well. It would make George Washington Smith, its architect proud.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Now for something completely different. I love the dripping sarcasm of this column in the San Jose Mercury News by Patty Fisher:
Howard Ellman, Steve Jobs’ attorney, sounded pretty annoyed when I called him last week to ask about the Jackling House.
I wanted to know how Jobs had reacted when a state appeals court ruled Thursday that he couldn’t tear down his 30-bedroom historic mansion in Woodside.
Didn’t I understand how busy Mr. Jobs was? Ellman asked me. Didn’t I read my own newspaper?
Indeed, I understand. What with Macworld, Cisco Systems’ trademark lawsuit over the iPhone and those sticky questions about backdated options, Apple’s iconic chief executive had more pressing things on his mind than some drafty old house.
Not that the house has ever been a pressing issue for Jobs. Since 2000, he has neglected it, hoping it would fall down so he could build a smaller and spiffier house in its place.
Jobs is good at making things smaller and spiffier.
She notes that Gordon Smythe, a local venture capitalist, is very interested in taking on the house and moving it to a suitable local site. But Jobs, alas, hasn’t taken his interest seriously even though it would seem, after his two court losses, to be the only way Mr. Jobs’ Dream House will get built on the Jackling site:
Smythe wants to seal the deal, but Jobs is a tough guy to get a meeting with these days. Considering they live in the same neighborhood, I suggest Smythe stroll by with his baby and knock on Jobs’ door.
Kids grow up so quickly. If Jobs wants to build his own dream house before his kids leave home, he might want to move this project to the top of his to-do list.
After all, one thing we know about a cool gadget like the iPhone (or the Appletalker or CisNO or whatever the lawyers decide to call it) is that it becomes obsolete in a nanosecond. Someone — probably Jobs — will always design something even smaller and spiffier.
A house, on the other hand, can last for generations.
Or not, if Steve Jobs could have his way. Thank God, two California courts have told him he can’t.
UPDATE: Several commenters below have incorrectly claimed that when Jobs bought the House the law under which he is currently forbidden from demolishing it was not in effect. In their view, Jobs bought the building assuming he could do with it as he wished and then the State changed the rules on him thereby punishing him unfairly. This is not the case. Jobs bought the property in 1984 and the California Environmental Quality Act was passed in the 1970s.
Steve_C said:
Are you kidding me? THIS is the house that needs restoration? The only thing insteresting about it is the front door!
I could understand if it was a Frank Lloyd Wright or a Neutra.
But that thing is a big beige elephant with a serious lack of windows.
I hope it gets moved soon.
Richard Silverstein said:
Don’t you just love the architectural historians weighing in on this thread? Such august knowledge. And wonder of wonders, he’s heard of Frank Lloyd Wright & Richard Neutra. I guess they’re the only architects whose homes are worthy of preservation by Steve’s standards. Thank God the California Supreme Court, which just turned down Jobs’ appeal, disagrees with you.
Steve_C said:
Making quite a few assumptions there Dick.
Heard of Wright? I’ve visited a few of the homes he’s designed.
The court didn’t rule on the merit of the architecture.
Just the right of the city to enforce it’s historical preservation decisions.
How many of GW Smith’s houses have been preserved? Just curious.
MJT said:
I’ve been restorating homes for years. It’s what happensWe’re talking about houses here people. Forget the architects and they’re monuments to themselves and
respect the fact that change happens. That old house and it’s poor systems is out dated. Same with most of FLW’s homes. Civilizations come and go, and so will this one.
Richard Silverstein said:
I take it you’ve been “renovating” homes & not “restoring” historic homes. Otherwise, you’d know the proper terms & not mangle the English language. I do hope your renovation work is better than your command of the language. When the new owner bids on restoration work for Jackling House do us all a favor & stay out of the bidding. I can’t imagine what you’d do to this beautiful piece of architecture.
Yes, let’s forget Frank Lloyd Wright, Richard Meier, Rem Koohaas. And let’s forget the artists too: Rembrandt, Picasso, etc. All those dank, old paintings.
Philistines comes and go & so will MJT.
Richard Silverstein said:
Insulting me by calling me “Dick.” Now that’s really cute…AND mature. And no one’s ever tried that shit before either. You’re the first one. Aren’t you original! And so thoughtful.
Well, good for you. So have I. What does that prove? That you can tell the diff. bet. a Wright home that is worth preserving & a George Washington Smith home that isn’t?
Yes, it did. The State deemed it worthy of preservation under State law. Jobs among his other claims challenged this assessment. He lost on all counts including in the highest court of the State, the Supreme Court.
Spend a day in Santa Barbara. There are quite a few of his public buildings and homes there. The entire city is virtually defined by his architectural style. But not enough of his homes have been preserved & there are none that I know of by him in northern CA. That’s one of the reasons this home is so important.
Steve_C said:
Isn’t Dick a nickname for Richard?
It proves I haven’t just “heard” of Wright.
GWS created Spanish Revivalist homes… and this one isn’t even attractive.
How can a buiding with so little merit be important? It’s boring and derivative.
The Supreme court kicked it back without comment from what I understand.
You didn’t really answer my question. How many of his homes have been preserved?
Richard Silverstein said:
You’re too cute by half. That’s not my name so don’t use it unless you want to be an asshole.
He didn’t just create Spanish Revival homes, he created the entire style. He is one of California’s most important historical architects & you have no grounds on which to judge whether this edifice is attractive or not. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, Uphold Our Heritage (organized by historic preservationists to preserve the Home), State of California, & Supreme Court of California disagree with you.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Jobs’ appeal. The Superior Court refused to allow him to tear it down. The Home is saved.
My job in life is not to answer yr questions. Go, do some research (which is what I’d have to do anyway to answer yr question). Buy a book about Smith’s work (I have links to this in my posts on the House) & e mail the author for the answer to yr question. Send an e mail to Uphold Our Heritage & they’ll answer it for you.
John C. Randolph said:
Do you people even admit to yourselves that your entire motive for pretending that you want to preserve this eyesore is your jealously of Steve Jobs’ achievements? Smith was a third-rate hack who wasn’t fit to shine the shoes of a real architect like Wright. Even if this building were worth preserving, the long and short of it is, it’s NOT YOURS. The house and land belong to Jobs, and it’s his right to dispose of them as he sees fit.
-jcr
Richard Silverstein said:
Which you know precisely how? Because you know anything at all about the house? Or because of your architectural training? Or your interest in California history and culture?
My opposition to the destruction of Jackling House has precisely nothing to do with Steve Jobs achievements. But along with those achievements you’ll find a greedy, mean-spirited, notoriously opinionated, self-aborbed individual who believes the world revolves around him. Even billionaires need to understand that they are human & not gods, once in a while. If this case does that for Jobs (as is doubtful) I’d be quite content.
You’re an opinionated boor who has no architectural bona fides whatsoever. Pls. tell me one actual legitimate reason why you believe this. Besides no one is arguing whether Wright was better or worse than Smith–except you.
I know that you twit. But it’s not precisely Jobs’ to do w. as he will either. And It’s NOT his right to dispose of them as he sees fit according to California law. As I’ve told other philistines who written the same drivel as you–if you don’t like California law, raise $30 million & run for governor or state legislator & get the law changed so he can tear it down. The highest court in the State has just said it’s not his right to tear it down. Until you get the law changed, you can talk until you’re blue in the face about what YOU think Jobs’ rights are or should be. Your opinions are worth about the value of the roll of toilet paper in my bathroom.
Tripp said:
I think if this house is worth saving, then the group wanting to save it should be able to collect enough money to buy it. It should not be the responsibility of the wealthy to bear the burden of salvaging every “historic relic” in the country. Mr. Jobs should have the right to replace and old house with a new one. I support the alternative of having it removed from the site by Mr. Smythe as reasonable, but the decision isn’t mine. It should be up to Mr. Jobs.
It cannot possibly be that every building that has remained standing for 80 years is of historical significance. If this one truly is, take some pictures, build a model, put a display in a lavish museum alcove for things of the past and raze the house to make way for the future.
kleinzeit said:
Mr Silverstein,
I’m not sue of your affiliation to whatever organisation wants to save this house. What I can’t bear is people who uphold themselves as arbiturs of taste. It’s a fairly attractive house, but doesn’t the fact that the rest of California has seen fit to pull them down and put up somthing ‘better’ an indication of this architects ‘importance’? This, however, is not my issue.
A man buys a house without restrictive covernents or historical protections (I’m sorry I find the whole idea of a 1926 house being of historical significance laughable, architectural importance perhaps) which is my understanding of the situation when Jobs purchased the house. I do then find it incomprihensible that a few years later a pressure group can be formed to legally chalange what he do with his proparty. I suppose if you have the time and money it must be a relaxing hobby.
As you pointed out to the last ‘philistines who written the same drivel’ I can always run for govoner, I do like a good political debate. I don’t think I will, however, I’ll just live somewhare more sane, where a building younger than some shoes I own doesn’t qualify for historical protection.
Also it may assist people new to this debate if you list some facts about how important the house is and details about protections afforded to it at Jobs’ time of purchase, this would at least stop uninformed idiots like me putting finger to keyboard. It is nice to know that Christopher (someone) had a nice summer there once. That almost makes the case on it’s own.
Anyway, best of luck with your campaign. I hope the house is saved, and Steve learns to love it for what it is.
Kind Regards
K
J. Botter said:
You sure do spend a lot of time insulting the people who read your blog.
Just an observation.
Richard Silverstein said:
@ Tripp:
Folks, I’ll repeat what I’ve written here & at all the other posts I’ve written about Jackling House. You can pronounce yr personal opinions all you want about Jobs’ absolute right to throw the House into SF Bay if he wants to–but he can’t. California law says so. California has a law that protects historically significant buildings and the House is protected under that statute. Rail at me all you want. Say it should be UOH’s responsibility to buy the House is it likes it so much. But you’re howling at the moon as far as I’m concerned. The law is the law. You might not like it. All I can say is if you don’t and you’re rich and you want to do whatever the hell you want in life then don’t live in California or get the law changed if you do (good luck).
The point of preservation law is to prevent the wholesale destruction of cultural objects like this House. The point is to allow them continue their lives as a legacy of our cultural past and civilization. Too many things are memorialized in museums that we’d be a whole lot better off for if they existed in the real world.
@ Kleinzeit:
Not at all. If San Simeon weren’t protected any developer could come along & & buy it & tear the Heart mansion down & build multi million dollar condos or resort homes in its place. Does that speak anything to the extraordinary importance of the place and the magnificence of Julia Morgan’s architectural design? No, it just means someone looking to make a buck has the wherewithal to buy it & figure out a way to make more money out of the property. That’s purely a commercial, & not cultural consideration.
The law was probably in effect when Jobs bought the house though I’m not sure. But that’s not even the point. Even if it wasn’t, once the law went into effect it covered everyone who owned a protected building. He’s not being singled out. He’s part of a class all of whose members were treated the same. If he doesn’t like the law he can try to get it changed or scrapped. He has enough money to do that. He’s chosen not to.
You’re completely misinformed about the nature of Uphold Our Heritage. It didn’t institute any changes in law. It merely forced the town of Woodside to honor existing law. The legal costs of the battle are being paid by small donations by individuals interested in historic preservation throughout the country. The lawyer is being paid at a steeply reduced rate because of the importance of the precedent involved in this case. We’re all volunteers. No paid staff. No Daddy Warbucks here. It’s Jobs who has the time & money to string this case out over more than two years and end up where he could’ve been if he’d merely negotiated in good faith.
I encourage you to do that. You go live somewhere where little or no value is placed on historical memory or cultural legacy. Go live somewhere where people can’t remember anything older than yesterday’s news. I don’t live in California (though I used to) now, but as for me a state that values its cultural & historical legacy is something that tens of millions of Californians & Americans DO value.
As for highlighting information about the architectural significance of the House, that’s a fair request. I wrote about this in my latest post where you can find some of these evaluations of its importance. I’ve also requested that UOH bolster the material it has on its website with a history of the home and what’s been written about it by architectural historians and the like. That should happen soon. There is such material there but it’s not put together into a suitable narrative format.
That surprised me considering what you wrote before that. But thanks for yr expression of support. We’ll do our best. I don’t think Steve will ever learn to love it. The best we can hope for is that he agrees to give it a new lease on life with a new owner in another location.
@ J. Botter:
My point in writing this blog is to express my personal values whether it be regarding architectural preservation, Israeli-Arab peace, U.S. politics or my Jewish identity. If people come along who find themselves inimical to those values & say so knowing that their prejudices will offend my values–well then, what’s a blogger to do? I don’t stand idly by & say “please, walk all over me and the things I hold dear.” That’s just not me.
However, people who disagree with me respectfully (& there are many who do) get a respectful reply. Perhaps you haven’t read enough of this blog to notice this but it IS the case.
J. Botter said:
You’ve got a point, and I apologize if my comment angered you. It was pretty much a spur-of-the-moment observation, which I hope will be rectified now that I’ve subscribed to your feed. Besides, I see that you’re an Obama supporter — that’s more than enough for me to pay attention to what you write. I need to find a graphic similar to yours to include in my blog.
Richard Silverstein said:
I appreciate the apology though it wasn’t you who angered me. I’ve written 10 posts or so about Jackling House & diff. people come along to almost every one & say pretty much the same things. It’s gotten to be oh so predictable. I wouldn’t mind if people argued in favor of Jobs position fr. a more informed or principled position. But they don’t. They have this crude laissez faire libertarian capitalist position that any old rich guy should be able to do pretty much whatever the hell he likes with what he owns. And California law makes clear that whether you’re David Geffen fighting for 20 yrs to prevent the public fr. accessing a public beach alongside yr Malibu home; or you’re Steve Jobs seeking to demolish a historic home–you CAN’T do it. You can negotiate an outcome that involves compromise. But you can’t do things by fiat.
I appreciate yr subscribing to my blog. I got the Obama graphic fr. the Obama site. You can copy it from me if you like & use it on yours (don’t direct link though–that doesn’t work here anyway).
Nick said:
Richard,
It seems from your posts that you are more worried about Jobs and Geffen doing things by fiat and upholding California law than about the Jackling house. People are attributing jealousy to you because you spend more time talking about the personalities than the house. I hope someone moves the thing and this whole thing dies because I cannot but see that whatever replaces it will be a lot more interesting. I’ve tried to like the house, but I just don’t get it. If it were mine and I had the cash I would try and put something better there as well. Good luck in your quest to have it moved.
Brian said:
This is a screwed up situation, on all sides. On one hand, Jobs owns the house and property, and from I have read, there were no covenent rules or protection laws at the time of purchase. So it’s very easy to make the argument that he is being unfairly punished and that if the law was in place when he purchased the property, he never would have done so.
On the other hand… It is a historic home. Whether or not everyone appreciates the historic values is secondary, since art is in the eye of the beholder. As a historic home, it deserves some protection from excessive changes/destruction/etc…
I do believe that some of the people working against Jobs are not doing it for the proper reasons. Many of the comments I’ve read in the papers give me the impression some of the people are simply out to punish Jobs. But it is the law… And, so far, the courts have spoken against Jobs and his case.
Lars Mandru said:
The house belongs to him, no one else. Not the state of California, not the town the house is located in. These lovers of architecture should have bought this house themselves if they were so concerned about it’s survival. If it were mine, and I wanted to rebuild, I would have no compunction about arranging a little “accidental fire” to take care of the problem, and get the but-in-skis out of my property and business.
Richard Silverstein said:
@ Nick
No, I’m not more or less concerned w. one thing or the other. Many wealthy individuals tend to believe the world revolves around them & as a result sometimes believe that the law either doesn’t or shouldn’t apply to them. Preserving Jackling House is as important to me as upholding the rule of law. In fact they go hand in hand & can’t be separated fr. ea. other.
But it is Jobs’ personality that is driving his entire legal strategy. How can you possibly separate the one fr. the other? If he were reasonable, he could’ve resolved the matter years ago. Plus, I’ve written many posts about the House and the legal battle. I have pictures of the house displayed, quotations from architectural historians who’ve written about it (in my most recent post), I helped found Uphold Our Heritage which is working to save the House. What more would you have me do or say about Jackling that I haven’t already done?
@Brian:
I’ve read pretty much everything that’s been written about this case and know personally the figures leading Uphold Our Heritage. It has NEVER been about punishing Steve Jobs personally. If we’d wanted to we could’ve tried to embarrass him in more public ways than we have. We deliberately chose to fight this battle in the courts all the while giving him every opportunity to negotiate his way out of the mess he’s gotten himself into.
If you’ve read something other than what I’ve written above I’d love to see a quotation or link to it.
Richard Silverstein said:
That’s really using your brain. You’d take care of the problem all right. You’d be free of the home you wished to demolish. But since you’d have not only violated a state law but a specific directive of the State Supreme Court, you’d prob. be liable for criminal mischief and a huge fine. Not to mention that yr behavior if you were CEO of a company as Jobs is, might cause you to lose yr job.
DanK said:
The house is beautiful. Steve, fix that baby up and enjoy!
ANN GHEQUIERE WELLS said:
HELLO:
MY PARENTS WERE FRIENDS OF THE JACKLINGS AND I PLAYED THERE AS A CHILD. THERE WERE STONE BUNNIES IN THE COURTYARD AND I USED TO PLAY IN THE THEN BEAUTIFUL GARDENS. PLEASE RESTORE THIS HOME TO ITS ORIGINAL BEAUTIFUL HOME. THANK YOU.
Historical? said:
“A city without old buildings is like a person without a memory.” (author unknown)
That said, all this furor about preserving an “historic” pseudo-Spanish mission from the 20’s has to be a joke! There are plenty of seedy motels that look better, and have been around much longer. This thing looks like a couple double-wide trailers stacked on one another.
In my concept of the US, if you buy something without restrictions, you buy the right to use it, or discard it, without restrictions. As long as there’s no environmental impact of dumping old trash, let the owner throw it out!
Come back east and enjoy structures constructed to last, and have done so since the 1600s. As my urban planner wife likes to point out- natural disasters are wonderful things for advancement: a good hurricane, flood or earthquake takes care of non-substantive development and produces a nice, clean slate for regrowth. (ever notice how hurricanes seem attracted to trailer parks?!) Maybe Jobs will be lucky enough to have a nice earth quake make all of this moot.
PS-
Lighten up everyone, this has become a gutter-scraping, personal-attack flame war! Did anyone bother to read the fine print of posting here (which obviously isn’t being enforced!)- “Profane, abusive or insulting comments directed at the author or other commenters may be rejected and result in being banned from future participation. Disagreement is fine. But play nice or don’t play.”
Richard Silverstein said:
And you know how much about California architecture?? Clearly nothing. You’re fr. the east coast, probably Philly, & prepared to extol yr ignorance about California architecture. That’s nice.
This “seedy motel” & others by the same architect fetch $10 million on the open market. I’ve never heard of a true seedy motel doing that.
No, that would better describe the ignorant notions stacked up in that brain of yours.
I’m so glad your “concept of the US” isn’t the concept that governs California. And do us all a favor & stay wherever it is you live on the east coast.
In that case, a nice hurricaine touching down right around Independence Hall in Philly & blowing it away should make your wife a very happy urban planner. Then she could plop down a nice KFC or office building in its place.