Town OKs Jobsian tear-down

6000 sq ft "eco mansion"?

How the hell can a 6000 sq ft, multi-million house be eco-friendly?

If he really wants to be eco-friendly then build something smaller and lower cost.

The thing is a wreck.

It was built before building codes were considered important, it has nothing resembling insulation or foundation, the current electrical system is entirely inadequate (knob and tube anyone?), there is dry-rot & soggy plaster everywhere, fresh & black water systems are augmented by greywater systems that flow into the grounds, and on top of all that the thing is bloody ugly.

Basically, it is a dump. It needs to be torn down & replaced with something more modern.

"Preservation" groups need to shut the fuck up ... it's a private residence, and the owner will never give tours, even if he decides to restore it ... and nobody else wants it enough to buy it. On top of all that, the neighbors would never allow it to become a museum.

I'm not a Jobs fanboy, but I agree with him on this one. Get rid of it. It would be an eyesore, if you could see it from anywhere important (which you can't).

Side note: I actually tried to purchase the property around the time Steve did.

Pictures are impressive.

I'me sure I've seen that bedroom in The Blair Witch Project and wasn't "Foyer, with refrigerator" the sequel to "Girl, Interrupted"?

Lots of expert here

In the years of reading this once fine online publication, I have noticed something that is peculiar to all "IT" websites; the majority of commentards know dick. I've given itthe name "Comic Book Guy Syndrome" - ill-informed bigheads that believe their actions and views are correct and all that matter, and that success is something to be attacked a scorned. More often that not these moron's have the chutzpa to suggest that they have better solutions and that they a superior to the people that conceived the idiocy in the first place, but forget that they just a support technician; not really IT, is it?

Examples:

Russell said; "... something beautiful and original, and replace it with something modern and anodyne.

How very American."

The existing building has *NO DISCERNIBLE ARCHITECTURAL MERIT* nor any real historical importance. Any of the contents that could be viewed as important is salvagable. The building itself is an ugly pastiche of 18th century style - *catagorically* unoriginal, especially when you consider it was built in arguably architectures most exciting period since the gothic revival.

Toastan Buttar said: " And I quote... “The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste; they have absolutely no taste."" Your point? Are you saying what is there is tasteful? IT'S THE 20's EQUIVALENT OF CHINTZ, MAN!!!

Oh, come on Steve, surely you can afford the $18 mil for the restoration? Why did U buy the house in the first place if you want to tear it down?

It's much older than most of us and it deserves to be preserved in the future!

AC Thursday 14th May 2009 07:47 GMT said: "Oh, come on Steve, surely you can afford the $18 mil for the restoration? Why did U buy the house in the first place if you want to tear it down?

It's much older than most of us and it deserves to be preserved in the future!" Perhaps, and this I admit is wild thinking here, HE BOUTH THE HOUSE FOR THE LAND IT WAS ON! There, that's wasn't too hard to understand, was it? Just because a building is old, it doesn't mean it should be "preserved for future generations". That's bollocks - perhaps Windows 1.0 - 95 should still be supported for future generation - it's the same premise.

AC Thursday 14th May 2009 02:05 GMT said "How the hell can a 6000 sq ft, multi-million house be eco-friendly? If he really wants to be eco-friendly then build something smaller and lower cost." What, exactly, has cost got to do with an object being environmentally friendly?

@Mac Phreak

Huzzah!

Had a quick shufti - the house was only built in the 20s and it's little more than an ugly ego-trip for the person that originally commissioned it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I thought America was forward thinking and didn't try to hang on to the past like its former master Great Britain?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair - 1920s barely qualifies as history in Britain; in the town in which I grew up the oldest church was late 11th century and there were at least 2 pubs that were 15th century. I seriously doubt that, on the merits of the building alone, it would still be standing in the UK. Or it would have been converted to flats. Certainly no-one would be making a fuss about it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

How the hell can a 6000 sq ft, multi-million house be eco-friendly?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A "6000 sq ft, multi-million house" might not be THE most eco-friendly building, but it'll be more eco-friendly than the current building would be if it were restored to it's original state - granted it could be converted and modernised but that would hardly be a "restoration".

@AC

"How the hell can a 6000 sq ft, multi-million house be eco-friendly?"

You can chain Al Gore in the dungeon so he isn't flying carbon-belching airplanes all over the world complaining about industrialization.

go East young man

My neighborhood would welcome somebody who'd tear down a monstrosity and build something smaller. And it's handy to shopping, recreation, and the US Capitol. To be sure, the McMansions I have in mind are post-2000.

The Britons among the readership should know that zoning wars are among the favorite preoccupations of the US upper middle classes. Except for the big name, and the unusual decision to build something smaller, this story happens every day everywhere in America that a bank will still write a mortgage.