|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new savior has come on the scene with a draft proposal to rescue Woodside’s historic Jackling house from oblivion, its possible fate if owner and Apple Corp. chief executive Steve Jobs is not presented with a viable alternative to tearing down the 1925-vintage mansion and replacing it with something more modern.
Woodside residents Jason and Magalli Yoho have offered to relocate the house to 215 Lindenbrook Road from its current location on Robles Drive, according to a Dec. 21 letter to the couple from Woodside Senior Planner Deborah Dory.
The new site is in Woodside and about two miles away, just west of Interstate 280 and north of Woodside Road.
The matter comes before the town on Tuesday, Feb. 23, when the Town Council is set to confer in closed session on developments related to a 2004 lawsuit brought against Mr. Jobs and the town by Uphold Our Heritage, a preservation-minded group that has fought Mr. Jobs’ plans to replace the house.
The council is expected to report out of its closed session at 7:30 p.m. in Independence Hall at the corner of Woodside and Whiskey Hill roads.
The town has not yet received a formal proposal from the Yohos, Town Manager Susan George said. If and when it comes, it would trigger several significant procedural steps, but ultimate authority to go forward lies with Mr. Jobs, as the property owner.
This is the most recent ray of hope for the deteriorating and weathered house. Legal wrangling has run out the clock on a July 2009 three-way proposal among Mr. Jobs, the town and Gordon Smythe, a Palo Alto venture capitalist and enthusiast of Jackling house architect George Washington Smith.
Mr. Smythe had offered to dismantle parts of the house and reuse them in a new family home, if he were to find a “great piece of land” on which to build. Mr. Smythe and the town had signed the agreement, but it terminated after 60 days. It’s unclear whether Mr. Jobs ever signed it.
Mr. Jobs lost in court, but the matter remains unresolved in part over whether Mr. Jobs, still seeking to replace the house, took steps that satisfy the court’s original concerns in ruling against him.
In any case, the Yohos’ proposal would need review by the town’s History Committee, the Architectural and Site Review Board and the Planning Commission, Ms. Dory said in her letter.
The project would also require analyses of its environmental impact and the viability of moving it from its current location on a flat piece of land to what would be a slope, Ms. Dory said.
Representatives of Uphold did not have a comment on the proposal.
What a perfect location Lindenbrook would be for this historical gem. I looked at some homes in this location in the past when I was looking for a horse property. Wouldn’t it then be visible from the 280? What a treat for all that drive by and already feel that Woodside is the place to live. Good luck.
It would be laughable that this kind of expense and bureaucratic red tape is being spent to save an old, weathered and dilapidated privately owned home, if it weren’t so infuriating. If this house mattered so much to someone (“Uphold Our Heritage” included), they should have bought the house themselves in the first place. What right does anyone have to dictate that Mr. Jobs should do anything but tear down this old house if that is what he wants to do? And then there has to be an environmental study to move the house? Really? How ridiculous. Just tear it down. Stop wasting our tax dollars on frivolous claims like this. The world would also be better served if the Yohos would take that money they are proposing to spend and help someone who lost a job or needs a roof over their heads. There is no real public benefit to this sad saga, and we should be spending our money on things that really matter to health and well being of the Woodside residents. This is the kind of waste and capriciousness that needs to stop.
Mr. Jobs should face no opposition, historical or otherwise, in
carrying out his plans on the home.
If an old building is deemed an important historical treasure by our town’s historical committee, then it should be relocated & restored at the town’s expense to an appropriate location where everyone
can enjoy it. The town should pay the owner for the building and for the removal off the owner’s property. Without the above in place, it opens the door to use the historical designation unevenly.
It is not fair to require heirs or owners to take on any expense or responsibility of preservation. There are many towns that relocate their historic homes and understand that it is their responsibility to preserve them as a community. It makes no sense to place this burden on a homeowner.
“IT AIN’T EASY” puts it beautifully in his/her opinion of this, really BAD example of Jackling’s work as an architect—it is really hideous if anyone took the time to go and see it.A MESS.
Most of his best homes are in the Santa Barbara/Montecito area and are truly magnificent. I also believe he was involved in the design of the bar at The Top of the Mark which we REAL locals often would go just for its remarkable atmosphere and banquette seating.
There is a mission style building attributed to him which is far more interesting as is the story of Jackling’s life.
I commend Mr. Jobs’ handling or just ignoring these mortifyingly naive HERITAGE society members, for their squabbling, money spending attacks which cost him money for what was a crumbling, horribly laid out structure and all those wasted dollars which could have gone to the causes mentioned instead of trying to elevate the area by restoring this “outhouse of a shrine”.
Three quick points:
1. If you haven’t seen the Jackling house first hand, then you should. It is a total ruin and clearly not worth saving. Even the interior is incredibly tacky – it reminds me of one of the Bates Motel after it has gone to seed.
2. A key criteria for historic preservation is the fame of the owner. By that measure, Steve Jobs is one of the most famous people in the world. With all due respect to Mr. Jackling, any home that Mr. Jobs builds will be far more historic than a home built by some 1900 era copper baron.
3. One of the people behind “Uphold our Heritage” used to own the Jackling home. Her family sold it and made a boat load of money. When they sold it, they didn’t put any restrictions on it’s use or alteration when they cashed their check, did they. Interesting, now that she has her money from the sale of that house, she still wants to control it. It’s like selling a car and trying to tell the new owner what they can and can’t do with it while you’re counting your money. Only in America.
For those of you who don’t think this applies to you, just remember that if your home was built in 1960 or earlier, many local historians (and historic preservation provisions in the General Plan), believe your home is also historic and is subject to the same review. But you may not have the financial resources to fight it like Mr. Jobs.
Get your heads out of the clouds.
Mr. Jobs has every right to exercise his rights, but then so do the preservationists.
If only it were as simple as just letting property owners do what they want to do with their land. Of course that is not the reality of it, in this Town or country.
As a community we decided that property owners cannot just demolish historic structures.
The Jackling House is a work by one of the most important architects in the West. Period. While you may not appreciate the house, on one is asking that you do so. At least it is unique and much more interesting than MANY of the houses in Town. As far as tacky goes, please, have you seen some of the houses built in the last 10 years in this town, really. However, to each her own.
Don’t be so uncouth as to suggest how others should spend their time or money.
I agree with commonsensepreservation’s opinion, but that is not going to happen. So I say move it and make it beautiful, or not. At the end of the day, it does not matter one bit to me and my enjoyment of being lucky enough to live in this wonderful town. Get on with your life.
Good point, MtBikeLady. Then why don’t these faux preservationists (the Jackling home is hardly historic) let Mr. Jobs get on with his life and complete his project. This house is literally falling down and is a hazard to our neighborhood. It should have been condemned years ago.
Actually, as long as we act within the law, our ordinances and the general plan (which covers design and architecture), we should be able to do what we want with our properties. That isn’t the case here.
POGO……..Thanks for your NEW YORKER style of writing with all the humor you show in this tired and hackneyed subject.
Is it okay to say the house is just crappy? Have any of these preservationists taken the time to research this monstrosity and how it is the worst of Jackling’s endeavours?
As for the heritage member who called you “UNcouth” to speak of money as if there were 19th century manners still left in this world.Maybe with HER bridge partners who drip in diamonds surrounded by spilled petit fours. I wish she knew Gloria Vanderbilt, as I do, who is so far advanced and beyond cultured as to love hearing these stories I forward to her. She is what you once would have described as a “moderne” and is so hip at her age, she would probably love to see the HSR run directly through the house, and be done with it.
Meanwhile, stick to bridge.
Thanks, R.Gordon, for the light you shed.
I see, it’s okay for you to tell others how to spend their time and money AND to stick your nose where it does not belong, but it’s not okay for the preservationists to insist that the law is followed when a town council does a cursory job reviewing the permit application (that’s what the court decided). There is an old word for that too, hypocrite, or pick your favorite crass word, you hipster.
Why would the town do such a thing, because of his wealth and status? No… in your world are all people treated equally, or maybe the law is not a standard that you favor? Perhaps your own moral standard. Should we all adjust to your standard? Or would that make it difficult for you to pass judgement on us? Do you cheat at golf?
When the judge was seeking expert opinion on the historical value of the Jackling House, was your name on the list? If it was, then please share your name and your expert opinion. If not, zip-it, since you’re no more qualified to determine what’s historical than I am.
I’m a 47 y.o. mother of 3 girls, but yes, I believe in gently pointing-out the rudeness of others as opposed smacking them between the eyes, because I’ve noticed that despite how you say something, people only hear when/what they want to hear. I’m sure that would not apply to you though.
If you don’t like the preservation laws, vote for new politicians. They’re YOUR laws. (but please study the issues before you vote, because I can tell by your firm grasp of what’s going on here that you’ll need more than the 10 o’clock news).
Get on with YOUR life. Regardless of your sense of self-importance, I’m willing to bet that no matter what happens with the Jackling House, your life will not be impacted in the least.
MtBikeLady!..not too quick are we…?
I ride a Mountain Bike 5 days a week, my grandma plays bridge.
How does Gloria Vanderbilt like them apples! (ps name-dropping is pathetic, tell her I said HI, big fan)
MtBikeLady –
We don’t have to be experts to have opinions. You just have to know how to type.
If the law were followed as you suggested, the Jackling house would have been scraped years ago. We do have laws about condemnation, especially for what is deemed an “attractive nuisance.” It’s right there in the Woodside ordinances (and yes, I have read them). If some wandering kid gets hurt in that mess of a house, I suppose you’d be first in line to sue Mr. Jobs.
And maybe you missed it, MtBikeLady, but the judge’s decision is now moot because the Town Council was subsequently able to make and substantiate their findings in full compliance with the law. That finding was NOT challenged by Uphold. So, by your standards, that would be the new law, isn’t it?
I just hope that your remodel project is never challenged by a decades gone resident who lives in Miami Beach and her nuisance suit ends up costing you a couple of million dollars…
MtBikeLady….
Besides the Jackling house………what is your favorite effort of his you consider praiseworthy?
With three daughters to raise and inform of your views, are any of them in agreement with your fervor to rescue this house based on their own wisdom?
Google was suggested by another friend who wonders why your interests in the people around you who are really “eating it” and unemployed, hungry, homeless and unable to glory in your passion for what should be pictured as three wheelers?
That house is crap. Your motives are transparent.
They are so shallow, I anticipate that you have no interest other than to act as if you have “class”.
Thank you MtBikeLady.
Well stated post.
I for one do not support anyone standing in the way of property owner’s rights. However, I strongly oppose those who perpetuate a judgmental, uninformed and closed-minded opinion. Is this person really suggesting to judge how you are raising your girls??? It’s clear to me which of the two is more hurtful and damaging to society.
Makes me wonder if these are the type of people that will complain about how unfair is it to Jobs, then will turn around and hide behind an anonymous complaint about their own neighbor’s home improvement project…
Lastly, I’m sure that it is no surprise that you were right on with the line “…I’ve noticed that despite how you say something, people only hear when/what they want to hear.” Although I wonder if they command the prowess to comprehend your argument.
Thank you UberMom, but I do not that property owners should be allowed to do ANYTHING that they want. I believe in keeping our town safe and beautiful and we need some mutually agreed to laws to do that.
However, I believe that the town’s approach to this is fundamentally flawed. As I stated in previous posts, I think that commonsensepreservation’s post has the right idea. If the town (town’s residents) is unwilling to spend the money (or to find the funds) to preserve the house, then that should be the end of it.
The point of my previous post is two fold:
1. That the current situation exists because of the legal framework which allows it to exist. That might be a frustrating reality, but instead of getting mad at Jobs or the preservationists, accept that they are struggling within their rights to find a solution.
2. That in reality this is a fringe case and has no practical impact upon 99.999% of the people in town (unless of course you own a 17,000 sqft., historical unregistered home, designed by a significant architect for an industrial mogul). Therefore, you should not bother attacking 3rd parties who are trying to do something that they feel is important.
[We don’t have to be experts to have opinions.]
*Wrong, since this is a legal issue regarding the historical nature of the house, this is a matter of expert opinion.
[If the law were followed as you suggested, the Jackling house would have been scraped years ago. We do have laws about condemnation, especially for what is deemed an “attractive nuisance.” It’s right there in the Woodside ordinances (and yes, I have read them).]
*I appreciate your effort to be informed, but your assessment of the applicable code/law is incorrect.
[If some wandering kid gets hurt in that mess of a house, I suppose you’d be first in line to sue Mr. Jobs.]
*Wow, that is a big assumption and you don’t even know me. Well, I’ve never sued anyone for anything, but I have been sued by low-life bottom-feeders seeking to take advantage of my family’s hard work to the tune of $150,000. So, unless you’ve been through that kind of stress, don’t assume.
[And maybe you missed it, MtBikeLady, but the judge’s decision is now moot because the Town Council was subsequently able to make and substantiate their findings in full compliance with the law. That finding was NOT challenged by Uphold. So, by your standards, that would be the new law, isn’t it?]
*You are incorrect. This type of litigation is procedural based and as such requires corrective action and reassessment. Furthermore, stare decisis does not apply in the manner that you are suggesting.
[I just hope that your remodel project is never challenged by a decades gone resident who lives in Miami Beach and her nuisance suit ends up costing you a couple of million dollars…]
*Thank you, me too. (sarcasm noted)
R.GORDON – You are not hearing me. I don’t know who you are so angry with, but it is not me.
The Yahos and Gordon Smyth are just using this their suggested plot to stall until Jobs go away. This build is not even 100 years old, there are many more house that are more deserving to save that this huge and disgusting adobe dirt.
Wow, its amazing there are so many confused women out there arguing with their unreasonable and uninformed hypercritical self rightous opinions and then use their children to boost their pathetic sympathy sale tactics to reach other ignorants to justified their views. They sound like my wife when she really have no real nor just agrument in many of our discussions, they also sound like stupid young girls to use the word “BECAUSE”….