Reader David Bobrow, who is a fan (”I love your blog. Practically lurve it” he writes — thanks David, we appreciate the sentiment), sent us an interesting tip on a home in Orinda. (In fact he sent it some time ago but a glitch in our email system prevented us from finding it until now.)
The 4/3, 3,291 sq ft house at 33 Monte Vista Road (pictured above) has been on the market for 130 days. It is priced at $1,899,000 with a last known sale just seven years ago for $610,000. We assume that a serious amount of upgrading has been done to explain that price differential. Or possibly there’s another explanation.
But what is really intriguing is the home’s backstory.
It was designed by Charles Moore in 1962 — a small house in a relatively wealthy neighborhood (pictured left). According to “Mechanics and Meaning in Architecture”, a book by Lance LaVine, the home was part of a series of early works by Moore who was “feeling his way towards an architecture that was to take issue with the orthodox modern design sensibilities that prevailed at the time”.
LaVine continues: “This departure is given evidence by the fact that, although the design won a Citation in Residential Design in the Progressive Architecutre Ninth Annual Awards (1962), the jury showed their hesitance to condone design work that lay outside the conventions of modern orthodoxy by likening the plan to painting and the interior design to stage design.”
The current iteration of the house bears little resemblance to the original, or to a painting for that matter. What, we wonder, would Moore have made of the plethora of Colonial columns?
David is correct with the reference to moored early work- the interiors far more exploited his experimentation with the skylit shower and extaordinary open plan incorporating strange associations.
however by the time we started to collaborate( kings road housing) and associated together at Ucla he was far more into an eclectic architecture- his condo on selby he jokingly called falling windows after wrights Pennsylvania residence.
he had done the piazza d’italia in new Orleans and his incorporation of historical references was well known by that time. in fact his own condo on selby was predominantly an interpretation of Michelangelo’s famous entry to his library.
so to answer dave’s question re Charles response to the addition – it would be hard to be certain- but my guess would be how the addition was specifically designed- if it was literal I think he would choke but if it was imaginative, light filled, not literal and whimsical he would celebrate!!!