It looks like it was decorated by a Bulgarian.

It's ugly. A lot of people have poor taste.

OP here. Super interesting to see everyone's reactions. I had a friend looking in this neighborhood who steered clear because it felt like too big a project inside (and ripping out higher end finishing, however outdated, is never a good feeling).

And I don't think it's nitpicking PP. They made VERY distinct design choices that appeal to a much smaller proportion of buyers. Particularly buyers who are looking for the features they usually find in a 1927 house. You clearly like it but that doesn't mean your taste is more "sophisticated".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering at the posters who insist that the remodel is really well done. If you want to argue that the materials are high quality, fine, I can't tell. But the design isn't just from a different era, it's fighting with the original architecture. It's what bugged me about the Joanna Gaines show.

The original architecture is all but gone and dwarfed by the expansion at any rate. I think you and most posters are objecting to the new exterior architecture not matching, stylistically, the interior. Which I get. But the reason you can think that is they built basically a new house but made sure that all of the new sections, from the outside, totally worked with the character of the neighborhood and even the small lot.

They did such a good job, you all are believing this is an old house with a new interior. But it’s not.

Please stop saying this.

You know who used to do a good job with renovations/expansions? Morris-Day. I'm not asking people to live Iike they're in Colonial Williamsburg; if they want modern conveniences and a modern aesthetic, go for it. But this is bad.

I'm admittedly puzzled by posters who write "please stop saying this" as if they have some kind of authority. They don't. Taste is always subjective. But as someone with a sophisticated appreciation for design and architecture and who greatly respects historic architecture, I rather like this house and find that the exterior renovation was well done. Especially by the standards of the early 1990s. Sure, I'd change the staircase and fireplace mantel but there's not much else I'd need to do with the house. Interior decoration will take care of the rest.

Stairs, mantels, light fixtures, tiled floors, awkward/subfunctional kitchen layout, dumb little arcs presumably intended to create visual unity -- there's a lot most people wouldn't want to live with. Some of it's not that expensive to replace, hich is the best that can be said of it

When you're reduced to nitpicking easily fixed (and subjective) design flaws then you know you've lost the argument. This house isn't perfect, but no house is either. I don't know who "most people" are in this category but I'd be fine with this house and main focus would be replacing the staircase and fireplace mantle and beyond that the rest is fine and my interior decoration style will make it beautiful. And I like the kitchen. It's a galley kitchen but easy on the eye and has a coherent design to it and I also don't live and die by shaker/DeVol kitchens (speaking as someone with a DeVol style kitchen).

Anonymous wrote:Does the price history say that it was sold in 2021 for $390,000? I am confused.

It never changed hands at that price. You should always double check with the source data available here:

https://sdat.dat.maryland.gov/RealProperty/Pages/default.aspx

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering at the posters who insist that the remodel is really well done. If you want to argue that the materials are high quality, fine, I can't tell. But the design isn't just from a different era, it's fighting with the original architecture. It's what bugged me about the Joanna Gaines show.

The original architecture is all but gone and dwarfed by the expansion at any rate. I think you and most posters are objecting to the new exterior architecture not matching, stylistically, the interior. Which I get. But the reason you can think that is they built basically a new house but made sure that all of the new sections, from the outside, totally worked with the character of the neighborhood and even the small lot.

They did such a good job, you all are believing this is an old house with a new interior. But it’s not.

Please stop saying this.

You know who used to do a good job with renovations/expansions? Morris-Day. I'm not asking people to live Iike they're in Colonial Williamsburg; if they want modern conveniences and a modern aesthetic, go for it. But this is bad.

I'm admittedly puzzled by posters who write "please stop saying this" as if they have some kind of authority. They don't. Taste is always subjective. But as someone with a sophisticated appreciation for design and architecture and who greatly respects historic architecture, I rather like this house and find that the exterior renovation was well done. Especially by the standards of the early 1990s. Sure, I'd change the staircase and fireplace mantel but there's not much else I'd need to do with the house. Interior decoration will take care of the rest.

Stairs, mantels, light fixtures, tiled floors, awkward/subfunctional kitchen layout, dumb little arcs presumably intended to create visual unity -- there's a lot most people wouldn't want to live with. Some of it's not that expensive to replace, hich is the best that can be said of it

The exterior is lovely but I have to say I wouldn't buy the house because I don't care for the interior. I have done several home renovations and could deal with redoing the kitchen, etc. but the staircase would be too big a project for me.

brutal..gorgeous house on the outside..looks like a cheap apartment for a Tik toker on the inside

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering at the posters who insist that the remodel is really well done. If you want to argue that the materials are high quality, fine, I can't tell. But the design isn't just from a different era, it's fighting with the original architecture. It's what bugged me about the Joanna Gaines show.

The original architecture is all but gone and dwarfed by the expansion at any rate. I think you and most posters are objecting to the new exterior architecture not matching, stylistically, the interior. Which I get. But the reason you can think that is they built basically a new house but made sure that all of the new sections, from the outside, totally worked with the character of the neighborhood and even the small lot.

They did such a good job, you all are believing this is an old house with a new interior. But it’s not.

Please stop saying this.

You know who used to do a good job with renovations/expansions? Morris-Day. I'm not asking people to live Iike they're in Colonial Williamsburg; if they want modern conveniences and a modern aesthetic, go for it. But this is bad.

I'm admittedly puzzled by posters who write "please stop saying this" as if they have some kind of authority. They don't. Taste is always subjective. But as someone with a sophisticated appreciation for design and architecture and who greatly respects historic architecture, I rather like this house and find that the exterior renovation was well done. Especially by the standards of the early 1990s. Sure, I'd change the staircase and fireplace mantel but there's not much else I'd need to do with the house. Interior decoration will take care of the rest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering at the posters who insist that the remodel is really well done. If you want to argue that the materials are high quality, fine, I can't tell. But the design isn't just from a different era, it's fighting with the original architecture. It's what bugged me about the Joanna Gaines show.

Yes, it's fighting itself within the inside. The moldings are different/inconsistent. They can't decide between straight lines and curves. The colors are all over the place. They wanted to be modern but didn't go all the way modern. The radiators are also confusing in this context.

Personally, I prefer this to when people tear down the house and put up a modern box that doesn’t match the neighborhood. This house blends in perfectly but maybe made the owners happy inside. Most of the house is pretty bland if you remove their furnishings.

Yes, the outside has 100% curb appeal! The debate at hand is the interior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering at the posters who insist that the remodel is really well done. If you want to argue that the materials are high quality, fine, I can't tell. But the design isn't just from a different era, it's fighting with the original architecture. It's what bugged me about the Joanna Gaines show.

The original architecture is all but gone and dwarfed by the expansion at any rate. I think you and most posters are objecting to the new exterior architecture not matching, stylistically, the interior. Which I get. But the reason you can think that is they built basically a new house but made sure that all of the new sections, from the outside, totally worked with the character of the neighborhood and even the small lot.

They did such a good job, you all are believing this is an old house with a new interior. But it’s not.

Please stop saying this.

You know who used to do a good job with renovations/expansions? Morris-Day. I'm not asking people to live Iike they're in Colonial Williamsburg; if they want modern conveniences and a modern aesthetic, go for it. But this is bad.

Anonymous wrote:It is just the stairs.

The furniture doesn’t stay and adds the most to the contemporary feel (minus the stairs(.

I love the kitchen but would redo the stairs. That house needs an amazing bannister and Newel post.

I'm intrigued and amused at some of the overreaction on here. Agree with you that all the house needs is a new staircase banister and probably a fireplace mantel in the living room if your goal is to make it look traditional inside.