The House That Steve Built

Here are the rough designs for Steve Jobs' new home in Woodside, California. He's tearing down the site's existing 1920s Spanish Colonial Revival mansion (14 bedrooms, 13.5 baths) and building an understated 5 bedroom house with a vegetable garden. From Gizmodo:

If anything, the conceptual plans submitted to the Woodside Town Council depict more of a small, private retreat than any towering glass-and-steel tech chapel or totem of wealth. According to these initial designs, Jobs intends to populate the 6 acres with an assortment of indigenous flora; a simple three-car garage; a modest 5 bedroom home with plenty of windows and decks; a network of lighted stone walkways; and even a private vegetable garden. Everything is neat, tight, pragmatic, and in its place.
While the pared down modernist home will occupy the same basic location as the existing George Washington Smith-built manse, nothing will remain of the estate's former grandiosity. In lieu of the 8 bedroom/9.5 bathroom main residence, Jobs has opted instead for an unassuming living/working space that's half the size. No chauffeur's cottage, no cook's cottage, and no tennis courts. In fact, when compared something like Larry Ellison's $70 million feudal Japan themed estate located right up the road, Jobs' new digs seem downright monkish–if not Buffettian.

"The Plans for Steve Jobs' New House"

David Pescovitz is Boing Boing's co-editor/managing partner. He's also a research director at Institute for the Future. On Instagram, he's @pesco.

MORE: Business

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

xzzy

On researching the home, it’s actually being relocated to another site. I guess that’s better than nothing.

Ignore my previous indignation!
pjcamp

“when compared something like Larry Ellison’s $70 million feudal Japan themed estate located right up the road, Jobs’ new digs seem downright monkish”

But, compared to my house, looks downright robber baronish and not at all modest.

I guess it’s all perspective. Reckon who has more?
Goblin

I reject the claim that a 5 bedroom house is “modest” Five bedrooms is still a mansion in most parts of America.
- Narual
  
  That’s a bit silly. If you go to any part of an old town or city built around the 1880-1920 timeframe, and probably beyond that, you’ll find lots of houses with 4-6 bedrooms. Bigger families, fewer old folks sent off to nursing homes.
  
  My Queen Anne is a neat old house, has 4 bedrooms (probably originally 5-6, because I think it was built before indoor plumbing became common here, and the master bedroom is large enough that it was probably originally two rooms, unless it was used as a sewing room or something). It also has a large unfinished third floor that could easily be finished into 3-4 more bedrooms and a third bathroom if needed. It’s only about 2200 square feet (not counting the attic space). There are other victorians and foursquares in the neighborhood that have 5-6 bedrooms and run 3000-4000 square feet, and no one would consider them mansions. There’s even one up for about 125K right now, a 5 bedroom with 4140 square feet: http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/304-W-Navarre_South-Bend_IN_46616_M30160-57346). That’s about 800 square feet and $8.3 million less than Steve’s new digs.
  
  Steve’s new house certainly isn’t all that modest, but it’s not a mansion. Looks like a nice comfortable place to live though, especially once all the landscaping is done.
  - bcsizemo
    
    I agree with Narual.
    
    I live in a 1910 Bungalow that has 5 bedrooms…perhaps originally four. Now it needs a lot of TLC, but hey now that I’ll soon be unemployed that shouldn’t be much of a problem.
  - Goblin
    
    Obviously, 1) you don’t live in rural America, and 2) you aren’t young and unemployed or underemployed.
    
    Even people “employed” my age (late 20s) can’t afford to think about a mortgage. By millennial, and dare I say current, economic standards five bedrooms is a massive and unaffordable mansion. We millennials are lucky if we even make enough money to live away from our parents. This is all in addition to the traditional job and unemployment issues that exist in many rural parts of America.
    
    5 bedrooms for 125K = unaffordable Mansion.
    - JohnnyOC
      
      “Obviously, 1) you don’t live in rural America”
      
      Hmm..I’m originally from rural America and I seen PLENTY of large houses which multiple bedrooms, some with large barns in the back, and even some with small man-made ponds. These houses are so energy-inefficient they probably need enough heat to warm a small city block. Don’t try to malign the man’s choice just because he’s not from a geographical location similar to you and he’s a success.
      
      “and 2) you aren’t young and unemployed or underemployed.”
      
      “We millennials are lucky if we even make enough money to live away from our parents. This is all in addition to the traditional job and unemployment issues that exist in many rural parts of America.”
      
      Guess what? It’s like that for almost EVERYONE when they at that age. Boo-frickin’-hoo. I was in the 2 other recessions previous and all of my cohorts were having the same trouble years and years ago with jobs, housing, etc. Also, if you’re in rural America then GTFO, find a gig, and stop complaining. There is a reason why there is a hollowing out of America. When you make enough cash and cachet boomerang back and give back to the community.
      
      I honestly think the culture is pumping up all of these outmoded and ludicrous expectations 24/7 about what constitutes success in the world that the younger generation just eat it up.
      
      It wasn’t til my mid thirties when I or my other friend’s families could afford a decent house in a nicer area and no it wasn’t a mansion. A typical house has 3 bedrooms..Steve has, the horror, 2 more than average.
      
      Compared to some of the insane building I see in some of the major cities in Cali this is downright tiny.
      - Goblin
        
        Guess what? It’s like that for almost EVERYONE when they at that age. Boo-frickin’-hoo. I was in the 2 other recessions previous and all of my cohorts were having the same trouble years and years ago with jobs, housing, etc. Also, if you’re in rural America then GTFO, find a gig, and stop complaining. There is a reason why there is a hollowing out of America. When you make enough cash and cachet boomerang back and give back to the community.
        
        This is all very easy for you to say. I am a vet, and it’s not like I have purposely sought unemployment just to peeve the elders! First off I can’t afford to move, I’ve been looking for work for the last 5 months. I know it makes sense to you that I move to greener pastures but what if that isn’t economically viable? What do you want me to do? So life was tough on you too OK I got it. Then you should understand and perhaps you could offer a little empathy.
        
        I honestly think the culture is pumping up all of these outmoded and ludicrous expectations 24/7 about what constitutes success in the world that the younger generation just eat it up.
        
        You’re right, as of right now success for me means I get to eat, and keep a roof over my head. Plain and simple. I am not sure If the threat of homelessness or being economically stagnated at the parents house loomed over previous generations or not.
      - Anonymous
        
        True dat.
        I had roommates thru my twenties, and couldn’t afford a house (@ 1100 sq ft) til I was over forty. I have friends who still can’t afford a house, and probably won’t be able to for the rest of their lives.
        C’est la vie, Goblin.
    - Narual
      
      Indiana’s fairly rural, but no, I think it was pretty bloody obvious that I was talking about towns and cities that had been around for a long time. There are probably farmhouses in rural areas with the same stats, though.
      
      I’m 33, so only a few years older than your “late 20′s”, and I could have bought a house 8 or 9 years ago if I’d been willing to go with a cheaper “starter house.” I finally went house hunting because it would be *cheaper* to own than to rent (though that ended up not being the case for me, because I decided on a more expensive house that had an attached rental property).
      
      It’s a bummer that you live in a hole of a place that has few opportunities. I had a job offer someplace around there once (well, rural Appalachia, but it was in West Virginia, so not really around there, but the same sort of area), and I almost laughed when they told me the salary was about 65% of what I was making for a similar job here (though the cost of living there is very low as well, so it wouldn’t be *that* bad). But don’t make the mistake of assuming that most people are in your situation — they’re not.
      
      hmm… maybe my comment was too long. I’ll split it into two.
    - Narual
      
      continued from above…
      
      And it sounds like you may not understand the economics of home ownership. Quite often, you can buy a house for less than renting, and you’re building equity at the same time. Even with an income of $12,000 per year, you can technically afford to purchase a ~45,000 house (part of that is because of tax benefits… not counting those, it’s around 38,500). On a $40,000 house, with 3.5% down, with a slightly higher than current interest rate of 5% (because you’d be doing FHA at 3.5 down) your mortgage payment would be $207. Taxes and insurance vary widely, but on a house that inexpensive it would probably be no more than another 70 or 80 per month. And actually, you’re a vet, so you qualify for a VA mortgage, where you don’t have to have anything down, and you don’t have to pay any PMI. And once you own a place, you always have the option of getting housemates. A couple of housemates can be enough to pay your entire mortgage and the utilities, too, and when you don’t need ‘em anymore, you can let ‘em go.
      
      Also, there are often assistance programs for low income people. In the same neighborhood as the house I linked above, you can receive up to 20% of the purchase price of the home through a foundation that promotes homeownership. They just require that you pay the mortgage on time, and attend a series of classes on home maintenance and personal finance.
      
      As for being stuck where you are… I understand where you’re coming from. But look at it this way — you’re unemployed with no real prospects… It’s not like you’re taking a risk by leaving a job, right? You could get on craigslist, find someone looking for a roommate somewhere where the economy is better, sell your stuff or borrow a few bucks from someone, get a bus ticket or get in the car and go. Maybe you live on ramen for a few months while you go from whatever easy to get job you started there with to something that pays better than you could have made back home. You really can do it. I can understand not wanting to… I don’t know that I would. But it is an option, don’t ignore it.
      
      And a mansion is a home of more than 8000 square feet. That’s how it’s defined… not whether or not you can afford it when you have near-poverty level income.
      - Goblin
        
        I understand that I “can” afford a house. It is always debatable by case if that is a “good” decision for someone. Anyway, I just wish you hadn’t taken my rhetorical point about a “mansion” so ungodly seriously. So congratulations, you’ve won!
        
        Yes you’re right, I “can” own a house at such low income, but that ignores all the other expenses of living. Part of homemaking revolves around creating a stable environment. Now, as I am sure you are aware, unemployment is not a “stable” situation. Never mind what you pointed out earlier that if things are “that bad” I should “GTFO.” So sure I can own a home if I cared to invest in this terrible houseing market, but perhaps as you suggest, rightly, I should move on to greener pastures. After all, it’s dog eat dog right? Only the High-Skill survive in this economy. The overarching economic problems, while I don’t blame them specifically for my situation, I can still use them to assess my options. And at no point in the next 5 years does homeownership look good as I will likely have a semi-nomadic existence in search of a stable “situation.”
        
        If you are really only 33 and really understand what many young people face now, (not all, of course), you might realize that you should be thankful for what you have rather then tearing into someone who hasn’t happened find your definition of success.
    - jackbird
      
      5 bedrooms for 125K = unaffordable Mansion.
      
      Shenanigans.
      
      If you put 5% down on a $125,000 house and get a 4.5% mortgage, you’re looking at about $750/month including average property taxes.
      
      Since housing costs should be about a third of your income, if you make at least $27,000 a year ($13.50/hour) you should be fine. And that’s not counting income from sublets to 20-something housemates in your 5-bedroom manse.
      
      If you’re carrying $100k of student loan debt at 8%, then it’s rather more difficult, I suppose.
      - Goblin
        
        The job I just interviewed for, and it is one of the higher paying ones where I live, out here in the foot hills of Appalachia in Tennessee, it pays 18,000 a year. As of right now I make $1096 a month on unemployment. assuming I get the job I still won’t match your own criteria for home ownership. The highest paying jobs in my area are generally in the $9-$10 hr range. 12+ is mostly an unattainable goal for someone of my age in my rural location. It is what it is.
      - Anonymous
        
        ok you failed to include PMI do to lack of legitimate down payment. You forgot standard hazard insurance, you forgot increased utility costs and you forgot maintenance costs. And 125K for a 5 bedroom home means hight utilities and high maintenance costs. You also forgot to add the costs of their time at 13.50 / hr for maintenance. It would be unwise for a single person earning 27K to accept that 120k mortgage liability. Unless of course, they carry no additional loans, are not saving for retirement, and do not regularly spend money for entertainment or high quality food. In fact, without 20-30K of liquid assets they would probably not even qualify for the mortgage, which renders your point moot.
    - Man On Pink Corner
      
      And you’re the CEO of which Fortune 500 company, providing jobs for _____ people?
jonathan29

Obviously it’s not a mansion, but it is still funny to see a 5 bedroom home described as “modest.” I guess the reality distortion field extends to real estate as well.
Anonymous

How humble of him to buy a piece of land with house on it, to tear it down and build a new one. no, even better. Moving the whole fucking thing. Why not get a site with actually NO house on it?
or, woho, another great idea: interior design-stuff, like removing walls, putting up other walls etc. that would be pragmatic i guess.
- Narual
  
  Anon, the house that was there was considered a historic home. It wasn’t really in very good shape inside, and Jobs apparently didn’t like it that much, but liked the location. He ended up being convinced (forced?) to have the house moved safely rather than demolished. It’s not that uncommon with historic properties. Completely gutting a historic house in order to remodel it inside to match what you want would be even worse than demolishing it to a preservationist. And you can’t really just move walls on most houses like that… they’re built much more strongly than a normal house… probably has cement and steel walls covered in plaster, not drywall over 2x4s.
  
  Also — seething with bitter jealousy much?
  - BWChicago
    
    No, preservationists would not rather see a historic house torn down than gutted. We also hate to see houses moved out of their context, but that’s still preferable to demolition.
    
    While it may need interior work, that’s still almost certainly less work than demolition. Regardless of what Jobs says; it’s easy to skew the numbers to make it look unfeasible. Think of all the energy required to move such a large house. It’s still less than demolishing it; there you’re moving the same weight but also using the energy to smash it up and fill a landfill. That rather negates any “sustainability” arguments. And the articles that I’m seeing suggest that it is not, in fact, being dismantled, but that was just a last-ditch hope by preservationists.
    
    No, the walls are probably not steel and concrete. They’re probably plaster over wood framing, or if it’s exceptionally solid, plaster over metal mesh over hollow clay tile.
  - Anonymous
    
    He can do whatever he wants, I just don’t think his procedure should be called modest or humble.
    His approach is of course better than wrecking the house (one way or the other) from a preservationist point of view. But since individualistic/minimalistic housing is somewhat quite more expensive, i never would call it “modest”. modest would be more like “Take what you get, make the best out of it (including compromises)”. Jobs’(s?) advantage is: He surely can afford having it absolutely his way. nothing special about the whole thing besides the “he is a very good guy, cos he doesn’t represent, while spending approximately the same amount of cash”-stuff.
    Yeah, and today I’m feeling particularly bitter, i have to confess. :)
    one question though: is it “5 bedrooms” aka “5 rooms for people to SLEEP in” or 5 rooms in total (plus kitchen, bath and the like)? makes quite a difference imho….
    
    Fun Fact about the apostrophe thing: Fancy difference between english and german. In german this case is the only one where a apostrophe is allowed afaik (no teacher, but still ;)).
    - Narual
      
      5 bedrooms means 5 rooms for people to sleep in, yes. A 4000+ square foot house with only 5 rooms would be a little bit crazy, wouldn’t it?
      
      A bedroom has to have at least 7.5 feet of head space with a minimum dimension of 7 feet by 10 feet. They must have at least two exits, one of which must be a door. If one is a window, it must be no higher than 5’7″ off the ground and open to at least 20 inches wide and 24 inches tall. In some areas, the requirements may be more strict, and there may be additional requirements, such as a closet. Older houses may have bedrooms that do not meet those standards but are still bedrooms because they were built before the code changed to that.
      
      If you’re asking specifically about the house I linked, it would appear to have 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms (1 full, 3 half), a living room, a family room, dining room, kitchen, laundry room, and a den… so 15 rooms.
      - chgoliz
        
        Bathrooms are not normally considered part of the count of rooms, so a realtor would list it as 11 rooms, not 15.
EeyoreX

IÂ´m pretty certain that the visable buildings are just serving as disguised entrances to his secret, sprawling underground lair, complete with a concert stadium, a private Starbucks and a shark tank.
- magnetiquewolf
  
  Ha. That was my first exact thought to: secret underground lair.
- thebelgianpanda
  
  Thanks, you just made me spit out my ramen :)
Anonymous

Not shown are the massive underground bunkers, or “pods,” complete with NORAD-style monitor walls and patrolled by the fanatical Jobs Corps, armored in shiny white plastic and brushed aluminum. Also, shark tanks and a doomsday device of some sort. Probably touch screen operated.
arikol

Because the old house wasn’t in great condition (requiring some renovation), not being very sustainable, and not suiting his lifestyle (thus requiring extensive modification yet probably never becoming his dream home) yet occupying a place which does fit his needs.
Oh, and being filthy rich so that he can do whatever he wants.

Seems like a very modest house for a billionaire. Also seems like it’s snug enough to feel like a home. A 14 bedroom house with 9 unused bedrooms would never feel homey.
And it’s only Americans who might view a house from the 1920′s as an old house (thus I’m guessing that xzzy #6 is American). There was some very nice architecture in that time but unless the house was something really special then it’s probably not worth saving, especially if it would receive extensive modifications leaving only the shell looking original.
Anonymous

Thanks Mr. Jobs for being practical and not trying to impress!
We all appreciate how much you have contributed to technology and the quality of our lives. It says alot when you don’t try to showcase your success with a momunment of your fortune & fame in contrast with the natural beauty of our town of Woodside!

Sincerely,

Judi Kiel
Woodside
technogeek

More house than you need is a liability. I applaud his realizing that he no longer has to prove anything to anyone and making the house and grounds suit his own needs.

Preserving old houses is a fine thing. But anyone with common sense buys a house to LIVE in it — and if it isn’t comfortable, you adjust appropriately. For most of us, that means moving to another house; he has the luxury of being able to move the houses instead, but it’s really Not All That Odd. Old houses are moved on a fairly regular basis — heck, Cambridge MA has seen houses rolling up and down Mass Ave fairly recently.

As far as 5-bedroom goes: Be serious. Number of “bedrooms” really is not a measure of a house’s size or complexity — or cost, or value except to those who particularly need the space divided up that way. My place is a 4-bedroom, technically. One of those bedrooms is my library, one is my office, one is a guest bedroom… but because they all have closets associated with them, they are considered Bedrooms in local real-estate parlance. (Heck, Cambridge would probably have counted my living room as another potential bedroom, and might have counted my dining room if it wasn’t open-plan.)

As far as whether the house is “historic” or not: I’m not convinced age alone grants that. The East Coast has a lot of pre-1900 housing stock still in active use; the West Coast, obviously, has less and the midwest probably has even less. Again, my own place is in that rage but so is most of the neighborhood since it was all developed at about the same time. This Old House would find _my_ old house completely uninteresting. On the other hand, there’s a house two blocks away which is considered an architectural landmark despite being (I believe) more recent than mine, and one three blocks away which is a slightly-significant historical site (but is not the original house on that site). Some things are historic; some are venerable; some are just old (but, if you’re lucky, still functional and comfortable). Whether someone’s willing to pay to preserve it is not a completely unreasonable test of whether it’s worth preserving.
bklynchris

“downright monkishâ€”if not Buffettian”. IMO “Buffettian” is a word (adjective) worthy of an OED new word submission. Bravo! Will definitely put that into circulation!
Anonymous

Reports that this might not be the house that will be built, as steve needed to submit a floor plan at the time of approval. But i agree with Molly Wood @buzz out loud (cnet), he seems like a pretty down to Earth, non extravagant guy so it could be legit. either way, its cool that he doesnt need a 20,00sq ft house and is going with a real livable space. just my 2cents. :)
Falkenad

In most American and Canadian cities I’ve been in, a 5 bedroom house is actually fairly common. Most are just common 4 bedroom houses that have an office that was used/converted to another bedroom. Granted, most of them cost maybe 3-5 percent of what “The House that Steve Built” will cost.
sdmikev

In the grand scheme of rich dudes building their dream homes, I guess this is somewhere in the middle..
Woodside has very strict rules. In fact, if I remember correctly, he originally wanted to tear down this historic home and build new but they said no.
They are also very strict on impact levels of all kinds. Generally, one cannot buy a piece of land and clear cut everything and build a monstrosity for the whole world to see. In fact, when you drive through Woodside (and Portola Valley for that matter) you’ll see more nature and views of the hills than you will see the big homes in the area. Which is nice. Given that both places were originally all pastureland and the like.
Also, lots of Woodside is right on top of the San Andreas fault. Literally.
ili

I, for one, welcome my new neighbor/overlord.
Flashman

The intent may be Buffettian, but the design is downright Murcuttian; as in, the architects are obviously fans of the vernacu-modernist Australian architect Glenn Murcutt.
As am I. This looks like it’ll be a nice place.
mkultra

I’ve worked in one of those ’20s Spanish Colonial Revival mansions, roughly on the scale of the original building we’re talking about here. They are hideous and grotesque, impossible to heat or cool with any efficiency, and just astonishingly vulgar overall. Good riddance. California is infested with them.

As for people complaining that a 5 bedroom home is a mansion… good lord, move out of the trailer park and see the world a little. It’s a nice house, but hardly a mansion.

There are very few buildings in California that honestly deserve historical status, yet it’s bandied about with little regard to the artistic or historical merits of the building involved. Just because it’s “old” doesn’t mean it’s “good”. A Frank Lloyd Wright or Julia Morgan? Sure, I’ll give you that. Beyond that, prepare to defend your claim of historical significance.
Donald Petersen

The House That Steve Built?

He’s tearing down the site’s existing 1920s Spanish Colonial Revival mansion (14 bedrooms, 13.5 baths) and building an understated 5 bedroom house with a vegetable garden.

The House That Steve Is *Having* Built, right? Unless he’s the hardhatted guy in the black turtleneck wielding the framing hammer…

But still, it is indeed refreshing to see a filthy-rich fella whose personal tastes and needs don’t lean toward the garish, palatial robber-baron conspicuousness.
JhmL

‘Buffettian’? O.o
JhmL

Ah… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
Anonymous

And to keep things even more simple, no .swf allowed.
Ugly Canuck

It’s not just about the house: the land itself has something to offer, no doubt: some good views, perhaps, judging from the “many balconies”.

I’ve been in some pretty decrepit buildings, which also happen to enjoy “million-dollar views” – it does not take much thought to decide what ‘needs to go’.
Anonymous

Thank you for not being a douche with your dollars, Steve.
chgoliz

Perspective, indeed. In the socioeconomic world Jobs lives and works in, he is choosing to live – relatively speaking – in a servant’s cottage.

That’s impressive. It shows he really does know how to think outside the box.
doingdoing

What do you expect from a guy that only has 1 black turtleneck…
inness

Not surprising, but not unappreciated on a human level, from a man who’s faced his own mortality. I am impressed and appreciative of the man’s priorities. That living space is a reflection of wisdom that in today’s culture is all-too missing from age.
Phlip

Regarding “Steve Jobs’”, with a trailing apostrophe…

The book /The Elements of Style/ says you make a trailing S into a possessive by adding ‘s (Jobs’s).

Except if the character in question is holy and revered since antiquity, such as Jesus’ or Moses’.

Good job, BB, for getting this rare and remote style point right!
- bobrk
  
  Yes, it’s the most annoying mistake ever, perpetuated by the AP Style Guide.
  
  In any case, this looks awesome. Can anyone actually be surprised?
- Jonathan Badger
  
  Appreciate the joke, but do realize that the current consensus on Strunk & White is that most of their suggestions have little historical basis — rather than being a set of objective rules based on research of historical documents, they are more or less just Strunk & White’s personal preferences. It would not surprise me if the “Moses” rule is no exception.
xzzy

I appreciate the low scale design he’s got going, but doing it on the site of a 90 year old building?

Old buildings are the best buildings, don’t tear them down!
- Ugly Canuck
  
  Only in California could a 90-year-old structure be considered “old”.
  That’s 1920, right?
  - Ugly Canuck
    
    Ah, but “historic” does not mean “old”, does it?
  - xzzy
    
    The Sistine chapel was only 90 years old once upon a time.
    
    Buildings can’t be old unless they’re allowed to get old, and in this day and age, something lasting 90 years is doing pretty good. Tossing it aside just because it doesn’t meet some arbitrary criteria for “old” is silly.
    - Stooge
      
      The Sistine chapel was only 90 years old once upon a time.
      
      Not really the best example you could have chosen: the Sistine Chapel only exists because Pope Sixtus IV decided the 95 year old Cappella Magna was showing its age and so chose to have it demolished and replaced.