Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner last week upheld a demolition permit first approved in May 2009. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the judge ruled that Jobs presented evidence proving it would cost millions of dollars more to renovate the mansion than to build his proposed new home. The Apple CEO also reportedly tried for four years to find someone who would relocate and restore the mansion.
The sprawling mansion has 30 rooms, 14 bedrooms and 13-and-a-half bathrooms. Last year, AppleInsider posted an extensive photo gallery of the home, which was discovered by a photographer with its gates, windows and doors wide open.
In 2008, Jobs attempted to prove that it would cost $5 million more to restore the mansion than build his new home. The home was built in 1929 for coper mining mogul Daniel Jackling. Jobs bought the home in 1984 and lived in it for 10 years before renting it out. It has remained vacant since 2000.
Demolition of the building has been blocked for years by a group called Save Our Heritage. The preservation society considers Jackling House too important to destroy as it reflects a Spanish Colonial Revival style that has few remaining examples left. Previously, COH accused Jobs of letting the building fall apart to make a new building easier to justify than maintaining an old building which he has openly disdained as an eyesore.
Save Our Heritage hopes that Jobs will agree to a new offer to dismantle the home and rebuild it on a 5-acre property two miles away. Jobs is said to be in negotiations over the matter, though his lawyers would not provide comment.
A lawyer for Save Our Heritage reportedly said that the organization could appeal the latest ruling, but it is hopeful that Jobs will accept the offer to relocate the home.
Jobs originally filed for a permit to demolish the building in 2001. He was granted approval in 2004, only to have it contested and rejected three years later.
210 Comments
It is his property, let him do with it as he pleases. If Save Our Heritage wants to to keep the mansion than they should pay for the relocation.
I can't wait to see what Jobs builds. A glass cube?
It is his property, let him do with it as he pleases. If Save Our Heritage wants to to keep the mansion than they should pay for the relocation.
Seconded
I can't wait to see what Jobs builds. A glass cube?
An iHouse, with no Windows..
S... Save Our Heritage hopes that Jobs will agree to a new offer to dismantle the home and rebuild it on a 5-acre property two miles away. Jobs is said to be in negotiations over the matter, though his lawyers would not provide comment.
A lawyer for Save Our Heritage reportedly said that the organization could appeal the latest ruling, but it is hopeful that Jobs will accept the offer to relocate the home. ...
As far as I know, this is inaccurate. Jobs has been approached several times to relocate the building, but they wanted him to pay all the costs of doing so. At one point, I believe he found a buyer willing to pay to have it moved, but that fell apart.
This story makes it sound like it's something Jobs has previously been "against" or refused to do when in fact he's been okay with that from the start. The trouble is that despite how valuable SOH thinks the property is, no one has actually cared about the building enough to pay for it to be moved or saved. If this "new offer" from SOH means they will pay to have it moved, then it will probably happen, if they still want Jobs to pay for it, then probably not is my guess.