Steve Jobs can demolish ‘architectural gem’

But Silicon Valley neighbours won’t give up fight to save the 1926 Spanish colonial revival mansion

LAST UPDATED 4:17 PM, MAY 14, 2009

Steve Jobs has won the latest round in his eight-year battle to tear down a Spanish colonial revival mansion and replace it with a much smaller home on the same plot. But local campaigners have vowed to fight on to save what they consider to be one of California's finest architectural treasures.

The CEO of Apple - the computing brand of choice for design-conscious geeks - has a less complimentary view of the 84-year-old, 14-bedroom Silicon Valley mansion. He calls it "one of the biggest abominations of a house I've ever seen".

Despite its abominable looks, Jobs managed to live in the house in Woodside, one of the wealthiest small towns in America, for 10 years after buying it in 1984 - the year the Apple Mac computer launched.

He then rented it out following his move to nearby Palo Alto, but in 2001 he announced his intention to demolish the by-now dilapidated property and in 2004 was issued with a permit to go ahead.

The old house was not without its friends, however, and it has a certain architectural merit. It was designed by George Washington Smith in 1926 for the copper magnate Daniel C Jackling. Photographs of the house taken by Jonathan Haeber and posted on Flickr show many original features intact despite the derelict interior.

Local residents, who formed a preservation group called Uphold Our Heritage, sued Jobs on the grounds that the initial Environmental Impact Report did not conclusively prove that restoring the Jackling house would cost more than demolishing it and building a single-family residence. Jobs's demolition permit was overturned and his appeal, heard by the California State Court of Appeals, was unsuccessful.

‘I love old Spanish revival homes – I have a couple of them myself’

In 2008, Jobs (net worth: $3.4bn), submitted a new permit application, which claimed it would cost $13.3m to restore the Jackling house as opposed to $8.2m to build a new home a third of the size.

It was this application which was approved on May 12 by a town council vote of 6-1, on the grounds that restoration was undesirable because of the large heating bills and because the council prefers small houses on large plots of land.

One of those in favour of demolition, Dave Tanner, said at the meeting: "I love old Spanish revival homes - I have a couple of them myself, and I've restored them. I can tell you it's a thing of love." However, he didn't see any reason to restore the Jackling house.

The only person to vote against, architect and local mayor Peter Mason, said he regretted that Jobs didn’t like the house: "It's really sad that we're going to continue to tear down historic resources in this town because they're old."

Comments

Hide comments

There is a point at which a house is a personal possession and another at which it becomes a part of something greater. At this point the individual has sometimes to bow to history and historical significance as overwhelming personal taste. Is one entitled to destroy a thing one dislikes while others revere it, or are all things to be potential victims to personal and maybe transitory taste? England is full of impractical, ugly and expensive buildings, but they are kept because they mean something to someone and because they give credence to the belief that we care about our history and our heritage. I am no-one, but if it were my 'impractical abomination' of a property, I would sell it to someone who 'could' love it, rather than destroy it on my (albeit considered) whim. It is a power to hold sway over the likes and loves of others. It ought not be taken as a personal matter when, as a custodian of a property such as this, ones desires do not match up with those who may well have greater generosity to their heritage and history. Should I trash my iphone because I don't like it or should I sell it on to someone who would use and appreciate it? Phones are not houses; they are not intended to outlast their owners, but a house, a house you will rarely outlive and this one could give pleasure for years to come... to someone else, of course.

Posted by Hamy at 11:20pm on May 14, 2009

Clearly, any planning application process needs to provide representative judgement on the historical/cultural significance of a property. I've no idea whether representative judgement was taken in this particular case. However, the notion that all historical property is of historical/cultural value is a nonsense. The present and future rank pari passu with the past. Problem in the US is that the only meaningful historiographical heritage of any cultural value is that of Native Americans, which doesn't tend to arouse European settlers. The result is a harking back to tasteless, dysfunctional edifices just because they're almost as old as my grandparents.

Posted by Rohan Moore at 10:41am on May 15, 2009