Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google "Evicted" the Berlin Wall From Property It Bought

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-off-my-lawn dept.

theodp writes Sunday marks the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, which Google commemorates in today's Doodle. "Seeking inspiration for this doodle," notes the Google Doodle Team, "we took a short bike ride from our Mountain View, California headquarters to our local public library to study an actual piece of the Berlin Wall" (the Berlin Wall segments are featured in the Doodle). Interestingly, the post doesn't mention Google's connection to how the two sections of the Berlin Wall wound up at the library. After Google bought the Bayside Business Plaza in 2012, where the 12-foot-tall remnants had been kept for decades by German-born businessman Frank Golzen before his death, it reportedly gave the Golzen family until summer 2013 to get the Berlin Wall off its lawn. "Although the donating family has until next summer to remove the installation from the current location," reads a 2012 City of Mountain View Staff Report, "their preference (and the preference of the new owner of the property) is to remove it sooner." A recommendation to relocate the seven ton concrete slabs to remote Charleston Park, adjacent to the Googleplex, was nixed by the City Council, who voted instead to move the Berlin Wall sections to its current home in front of a downtown public library.

12 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. Good grief... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, Google bought a building and gosh wanted something that didn't come with the purchase removed from the building? HORRORS! Just more evidence of megalomania by the Google twins Larry and Sergey... Same, shame, shame...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Good grief... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Something" in this case isn't an old Camaro on blocks, it's a piece of historical construction with the blood of citizens on it.

      None the less, it didn't come with the purchase of the building. Thus, Google is correct in asserting that a proper home not in Google's building is appropriate.

      This has exactly nothing to do with if or not Google has, as a company, any opinion about this valuable and note-worthy artifact.

      By the way, I own a "vintage" and pristine Trabant (really!) ... May I store it in your garage for an undetermined amount of time rent free? You don't really need that space, right?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Good grief... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Also, they didn't ask to leave it there, so it doesn't seem it was ever even discussed to leave it there. They sold the property not including the wall for the express purpose of keeping the wall and moving it to a public location. It isn't surprising or notable that they would want extra time, as it is a large installation, and nor is it surprising or notable that the people taking over the property would prefer it moved sooner.

    3. Re:Good grief... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      Which might mean something, if its location at the time had anything to do with its history; it did not; the wall never divided Silicon Valley.

      That's a little silly. The wall never divided south London, either, but a huge piece stands in front of the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth.

      Also the wall never divided Burbank from Toluca Lake, but a piece of it was mounted right on the Warner Bros. lot, right across the street from the Starbucks and the Steve Ross memorial, where every employee on the lot will see it. Beside it is a plaque stating the obvious intention: "This is a piece of the Berlin Wall, which for 50 years prevented the free flow of ideas." This is a sentiment with which I would think Google would be broadly sympathetic.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  2. donor wanted it in a public place, not Google priv by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA says:

    The Golzen family believes the display will live up to Frank’s original goal of making the site available to the public.

  3. Obligatory by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    Get off my lawn!

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  4. Re:donor wanted it in a public place, not Google p by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not sure what the word "Evicted" is doing in the headline... looks like the city council ordered the move.

  5. Missing quote by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Mr Golzen, please relocate this wall."

  6. Re:donor wanted it in a public place, not Google p by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Informative

    And it wasn't evicted by anybody, in addition to the action being by somebody other than google. It sounds like they sold the property, not including the wall segments, and had asked for some time to move them before the buyer (google) took over.

    samzenpus must still be beta-testing his or her nerdiness.

  7. Should Google store someone else's property? by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    Okay - there are plenty of segments of Wall still around if people want to see them. Many exactly where they were built. These aren't part of that. They're just collectables. Google has no interest in these colectables and doesn't want to store them for someone else. It's up to the owners to put them somewhere they are wanted

  8. Google hate. Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yet another piece of Google hate gets posted on /. *Sigh*

    Disregarding the accusatory tone of the article, let's look at the facts:
    - Private company bought property in history-rich city.
    - Said property contained ruins of that city's history.
    - New owner didn't want the ruins in the property (because it didn't want the responsibility of taking care of it, or simply because it didn't like it).
    - New owner offered to allow said ruins to remain for a period of time until a safe removal could be performed (to preserve said ruin's historical value) bus asked that it be expedited.

    I don't see anything wrong. It's not like there are only 3 original pieces of the Berlin wall left, or that it's the first time they've been moved. Hell, there's a piece of it in front of the American consulate in Munich.
    In case you're not aware, the "Berlin wall" nowadays is actually few scattered concrete slabs: http://content.answcdn.com/mai...
    There are only a few places in Berlin where it actually still looks like a wall, but everywhere else has been removed and replaced with a line marking the original location.

    I guess Americans can be excused for not understanding this, but in Europe there's so much history that if you were to treat every single ruin as some sort of sacred cow society would just grind to a halt.
    Instead, what we do is to strike a compromise between preserving our legacy and develop towards the future. In that sense, moving a slab of concrete to a new location is a completely acceptable solution.

  9. Re:donor wanted it in a public place, not Google p by Maow · · Score: 3, Informative

    just another DICEy post

    Check the submitter.

    TheoDP often posts such material, complete with copious links, but weak on premise.