Paramount – $409k – AD Stenger

Listing info.

13 Responses to “Paramount – $409k – AD Stenger”

  1. David Mathias says:

    I think I’ve seen those storage cubes before. Has this property been on the market within the past several years?

    No offense meant to anyone, but I find that hearth uncomfortably out of proportion with the size of the room that it’s in. Maybe it’s more comfortable in person? The pictures make it seem a little overwhelming to me.

    Was that original to Stenger or the result of a prior remodel?

  2. chuck says:

    the hearth? do you mean the whole fireplace? I’m not clear on what you think is out of proportion as it’s the first time I’ve heard that; regardless, all is original except the clerestory glass: I added that last year.

    this IS our 3rd time on the market; we’ve done substantial upgrades between each attempt and we feel like we have it pretty right this time. we love this house but my activities and our growing kids are squeezing us out.

    we had an open house this past weekend (during which the power went out) and will likely have one again soon if you don’t have a realtor and aren’t actively looking. if you are, come on by!

  3. David Mathias says:

    Just thought that something that massive would have had a deeper room to balance it. Could be the pix, could just be my tastes, could be typical to Stenger, even. Just an impression. Good luck with the listing. We’re not in the market – just about to start year three in our strange .Mantissa condo.

  4. bs says:

    The hearth is appropriately scaled when seen in person. It dominates the living room but it’s got the style to do it gracefully. The rooms are small but characteristic of the neighborhood and age. I looked at this property a while back and it’s got some compelling features and some really beautiful design lines. Some buyers would want to update a few things, but with the right vision this place has incredible potential. The clerestory windows complement the original design and should have been part of it.

  5. chuck says:

    Ben I think it’s time for an old-fashioned meet-up! I’ve got the go ahead from all relevant parties (wife) and I’d love to show off the house while we still can.

  6. chuck says:

    okay it’s official: we’re happy to be hosting an old-fashioned ‘LiveModern’ meet-up! Please come by Friday evening 6-9 for a beer or glass of wine. We’re doing this mainly to show the house off; I would hate someone to buy it before I had the chance to share it with some of my fellow design afficianados.

    Think of it as an open house, in the evening, with drinks.

  7. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and enjoy learning more on this subject. If possible, as you acquire expertise, would you consider updating your weblog with more facts? This can be very helpful.

  8. Lulu says:

    I toured this house a few weeks ago when it was listed at $400k. I was intrigued by the beautiful lines of the house. Unfortunately, the inside did not fulfill my expectations. It was quite dirty, dark and had an unkept appearance. I do wish the owners the best in their quest to sell the house as I do believe it could be something really amazing with the right enhancements.

  9. chuck says:

    with all due respect Lulu, this house is never dirty; I have three children, one a four-year old and we keep it as clean as could possibly be expected with the level of activity we have. Laundry on the couch during the occasional viewing. Yes. California pottery collection being inventoried and photographed in the dining room for a few days? Yes. You call this ‘unkept’ as opposed to a bit cluttered inferring there is something inferior about our house. I call foul.

    I promise that whoever buys the house will have to deal with their own level of cleanliness as we will be gone, good grief.

  10. bs says:

    I saw this one a few months ago and was impressed. Genuinely puzzled about why no one’s snatched it up. The finish-out is a bit rough but not bad for the price and location. Could use a bit of brightening in the common areas, perhaps a couple of T8 fixtures or track lighting, but overall it’s a compelling property.

    Apparently the outside is attracting a higher class of buyer than the inside can support.

    Chuck, not sure if you’re aware there is a house on Dexter near Folts that appears to be the same original design but without the carport and breezeway enclosed. It makes an interesting comparison.

  11. chuck says:

    bs, I have seen that one, haven’t been inside but I think Ben P. talked to the owner and she said they insulated and closed over their exposed beams years ago, etc. to save on electricity. I’m not sure what year it was built; ours is ’53 – there is also a ‘cousin’ that was built 3 years later on Robert E. Lee (Drew Mayre’s old house) but had clerestory glass from the start (mine was added) and has a bit different set of intersections between the materials, slightly different proportions, he was definitely refining the look.

    thanks for the word about the house; we’re a bit puzzled too! :)

    (ps, good lighting suggestions – we’ve thought about a skylight or two: simple, effective, period even (good only in daylight though ;) .

  12. chuck says:

    man I gotta stop doing that smiley thing, looks very silly when it cartoons them.

  13. bs says:

    Not sure why anyone would cover up those beautiful beams when it’s fairly easy to add a foam slab above next time the roof needs replacing. Be careful of skylights as they can make bad cooling bills even worse. I think for most buyers in this area, functionality and stylistic consistency are just as important as period cred. In other words, they want a house that LOOKS mcm but has the various improvements that have come about in the last few decades.

Leave a Reply