8 thoughts on “Jobs Destroys Jackling House, California Architectural Landmark – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Richard, what the hell do you have against poor Steve Jobs? And why does the Jackling House mean so much to you? And what does either have to do with the usual subjects of this blog?

    I am originally from California, and I’ve seen the Jackling House. There are as many such mansions in and around Santa Barbara and elsewhere in California, that one less “landmark” won’t make an iota of difference to the landscape. If Jobs owns the property he should have the right to do what he wants with it. If only the Israelis would give the same consideration to the Palestinians.

    1. That’s not the way California law works, Gene. If you own a historic landmark you can’t just decide to tear it down if others go to court & prove the distinction of the landmark you wish to destroy. The Superior Court ruled against him on this point numerous times. There is a value to culture, history & traditions in art, music, & architecture. I’m surprised you’re not one who understands this point as you live in a city that is full of such history & tradition. Steve Jobs is a barbarian. A smart one, but still a barbarian. And a self-centered, brutal one at that.

      As for why I write about this story, I actually have many interests outside the I-P conflict. One of them is historic preservation.

      1. Touché, Richard. I see your point. I didn’t know the history behind the landmark. Apparently, money talks.

        As far as my sensitivity is concerned, my educational formation is architecture (USC), and my travels around the world have only added to my cultural education. I do appreciate history and tradition.

        1. I’m glad to know of your fondness for architecture. Jackling House has a storied history both in Woodside & Calif. Its destruction is akin to tearing down Penn Station in the 1960s. Perhaps Jackling isn’t quite as distinguished. But still worth preserving

  2. If Jobs owns the property he should have the right to do what he wants with it.

    That’s precisely the notion rejected by preservationists. Historical landmarks, like works of art other than architecture, belong not only to their respective owner but in a sense to everybody, even though the owner may have exclusive use rights.
    It happens all the time that dominant powers claim, and consequently rewrite, history; so would you also say that not just tokens of history but history itself was the sole property of its “owners” and that it was right and proper for them to do with it as they please?

  3. Richard-I’d like to ask you about your animosity towards Jobs. I was reading your article “BANNED AT APPLE: BOOK STEVE JOBS DOESN’T WANT YOU TO READ.” Is your criticism based on the preservation issue, or does it extend to other issues?

    1. To find out, do a simply Google search of my site using the search terms “Steve Jobs” and/or “Jackling House.” In short, I think the worst character flaws of Steve Jobs are exemplified by the high-handedness with which he conducted this assault on this architectural treasure. I don’t know or care much about Steve Jobs in terms of Apple or the way he’s run his company. But it seems to me that the high handedness with which Apple acts in many of its business dealings, & with which Steve Jobs has acted in relation to the media and public are of a piece with his behavior in this circumstance.

      If Steve Jobs hadn’t destroyed Jackling House I would care very little about him one way or the other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link