What makes you dislike it so?

I find the disconnect between the exterior and interior too jarring- and I am one who likes juxtapositions. I love the NYC Soho loft look. There are lots of great buildings in downtown Palo Alto where you could have that look. You could even build a more modern looking house in the regular suburban part of town that would match that interior better. But the California cottage (not really a style, I know,) on the outside and the industrial loft on the inside seems really odd to me.

I find the disconnect more acceptable when it's a remodel rather than a new build. For example, a NYC brownstone with a contemporary interior, which isn't to my taste at all, but when it's well-done it looks great.

IIRC, Palo Alto is where they have the expensive tear-downs, and then build even more expensive new houses, yes?

For me, it's not so much the disconnect but a visceral dislike of the "transitional" style, especially in the kitchen and dining area, and all that black. And if that's what they think a NYC SoHo vibe looks like, bless their hearts lol.

This is a brand new house. Too funny about the SoHo loft look. You are so right, beckysharp.

Soho? No-ho....

But it is quite stunning, IMO.

Here's a Brooklyn Brownstone restoration with gobs of fashionable black and opened up to modern tastes.

My first thought on the California home is that, like Dr. Who's police box, it's larger on the inside than the unassuming exterior suggests. Toll Bros. would not approve!

I am totally fine with old, even ancient houses getting a super modern update. I love the look in many cases.

I wouldn't buy it, but don't understand the hate.

It’s a staged house. The things that are the most off-putting are mainly the furniture and some paint.

Decor and architecture are not the same thing.

Palo Alto real estate prices have long been in another universe. That said, it's a great location and an intriguing house. Oh, and did you check the propery tax amount for 2016?

As for the hype, it's all classic marketing hype--completely meaningless, but nice sounding, as one might want for a $5M listing.

I’d live in it all day. The price well that’s another story!

I think the house is okay. I find the interiors awfully flashy. Very current but in a boutique hotel kinda way.

I think the house is great as they obviously wanted to treat the neighborhood with respect so that the exterior looks like it could have been built years ago.

There appears to be a good use of space and actually is laid out in the manner a majority of people might opt for if they could reconfigure an older home.

I don't think it resembles a Soho loft whatever that means. It's obviously staged but the staging isn't glaringly modern - it's essentially just contemporary and seems to mix traditional elements with contemporary elements.

The interior certainly isn't glaringly offensive in any manner nor does it look completely out of character with the exterior or the interior. I live in a city where land values are high enough so that people do extensively remodel older homes and the interior and the furniture are more or less what interiors look like. The only homes that are restored are ones that have actual architectural value - the Spanish Colonials; Art Deco, really good MCM etc. but the ubiquitous home that was built for a middle class family after WW II but is now in a highly sought after neighborhood is not bought by architectural enthusiasts and is generally extensively remodeled to have a more open floor plan with contemporary kitchens and baths.

To answer the question in the title....

For me, it does, yes. Especially in a new build, regardless if it's tract or custom. With tract, I do the best I can with what I've got.

I'm just as bothered by, say a nearly 100-year-old Tudor with a modern/contemporary interior, as I would be with a Brutalist-on-the-outside house decorated French Eclectic on the inside. :-/

But I don't pretend to be anywhere near normal, lol, so consider the source.

In general I think there is a natural temporal quality to interiors that can be taken into account.

In America, most houses are probably Post WWII, with pockets of 19thc and early 20th c. house, so we have a little bit of a problem with the evolution of interiors because it's all so recent.

If you have a 300 or 400 year old house, no one expects the interior to look like it did 300 or 400 years ago, at least when it comes to decor.

So to put it in American terms, a High Victorian house with a more modern kitchen/bath or more modern interiors in general is okay. A glass box with a twee Victorian interior or bathroom, not so much. And the problem that I kind of have with the disconnect of millennial kitchens and baths is that the detailing tends to skew elaborate and Edwardian-early 20th c. and the detail is too much for the typical post war house being remodeled.

Alright, I will reconsider my thinking on this. Just so you know I am not opposed to a modern interior on an older house, here is my house, a few blocks away from this one. The house was built around 1925.

These pics are from the real estate listing when we bought.

@Rita - I am now completely confused since your home - at least to my untutored non-professional eyes - appears to have been extensively remodeled so that it has a pretty open floor plan with a contemporary kitchen. It is not unlike the house that you posted which you originally called an abomination.

Your furnishings also seem to be what is loosely termed "contemporary".

Why was your original reaction to the listed so negative?

Helen, What emerged from this conversation for me is that I don't have a problem with an old house having a modern, streamlined interior. It's that the Bryant house is brand new and has a very different interior- and clearly I over reacted judging from the feedback here from people whose opinions I respect.

The furnishings are not mine. The floorpan is not particularly open though. The pictures are from the real estate listing. My furniture is actually more traditional. Gustavian and Louis XVI with some modern Italian thrown in the mix. I am not at home, so no real pictures.

Rita! OMG and WOW.

I realize those are the previous occupant's furnishings, but I stand my previous comment -- "I find the disconnect more acceptable when it's a remodel rather than a new build. For example, a NYC brownstone with a contemporary interior, which isn't to my taste at all, but when it's well-done it looks great." Or a 1920s California Mediterranean villa with a contemporary area. Again, WOW.

In the case of the Palo Alto SoHo no-no, much comes down to the skill level and quality, or lack thereof, in the work -- architecture and interior design/furnishings. Another point, for me, is that an architect like Malcolm Davis is very good at sensitively updating the exterior while doing a more radical update of the interior. Though I would be happy with a more traditional, less updated exterior for many of his projects.

I'd love to see what some of the rooms in that house look like now, Rita, but completely understand if you don't want to post.

beckysharp, I will be happy to post pictures eventually. There are some things that are still undone and I am embarrassed because I have asked the good people here for advice and am still dithering, like with the dining room, where I still have the track lighting and want a chandelier and can't decide between a few really good choices. Plus the window treatments are not finished and it's been an eon since they were ordered, problems with fabric, then problems with workroom, yada, yada.

PS beckysharp, as usual you nailed it in your first comment on this thread. You clarified my thinking, not me ;-)

Rita, I was thinking more privacy than unfinished projects : ) .

beckysharp, I know, that's what you were thinking. But with this picture out now, I chose not to be private already.

But with this picture out now, I chose not to be private already.

lol : )

[...] want a chandelier and can't decide between a few really good choices.

Ooooh!!! Can we see what you're trying to decide between? :-D

(If you don't mind derailing your own thread, of course, lol.)

ODD, I will dig up the pictures from the last go around :-)

Well...when it comes to exteriors and interiors, I've found it often works best if every interior has an exterior. And if it's a habitable building the reverse is often good to consider early on.

No need to thank me.

Rita, your home is gorgeous.

On the listing, I think the decor is too dark and and cold. I feel like modern interiors need warmth and natural elements to keep it from looking too clinical, and that black kitchens are really hard to pull off, but that is just my preference. Also, I'm not sure I would want all those windows on a tiny lot with my neighbor looking at me.

kayce03, Thank you for the compliment. I agree heartily that a modern interior needs more warmth than the furniture shown. That said, the previous owners had much better decoration than these pictures show. I only know because the GC company that did the work showed the house as the PO had it in their portfolio.