Built for David Kelley, the founder of IDEO and Stanford Design School, and designed by the late Italian architect, Ettore Sottsass, founder of Sottsass Associati and the Memphis group, the postmodern Woodside home at 1250 Canada Road, which is hidden behind the five-acre estate’s equestrian center and barns, hit the market early last year priced at $14.995 million.

And having been reduced to $13.5 million in November, the sale of the pedigreed estate has just closed escrow with an $11 million contract price.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Serge

    Barns look great. Can’t say the same for the rest.

    • Posted by Notcom

      Yep: (“hidden behind the five-acre estate’s equestrian center and barns”) not hidden well enough.

    • Posted by Formerly Native

      Ha! Before I read your comment, I had the same thought

  2. Posted by Dandywhatsoever

    It’s like whoever designs the Kaiser Permanente buildings built a house.

  3. Posted by Mark F.

    Nice lot. I would tear down the house.

    • Posted by SFMichael

      There’s nothing wrong with the house that tearing it down to the foundation and rebuilding couldn’t fix.

  4. Posted by sfjohn

    those cabinets marching around the dining area freak me out

  5. Posted by kwmi

    I’m from the area and for where this 5 acre parcel is located, $11 million is almost tear down value.

  6. Posted by jenofla

    Perfect place to stage a house party with Duran Duran and A-ha cover bands. Stock the bathrooms with hairspray!

  7. Posted by Hancock

    No one here appreciates postmodern residential architecture! 😉

    • Posted by Footie

      it’s coming back big time — these people are so behind the curve

  8. Posted by BobN

    That’s quite a drop in price. Was there some urgency to accept an offer?

  9. Posted by Mike F.

    Art deco Bauhaus revival in a residential 1980’s color scheme. Not for me.

    Anyway, what is with the cabinetry in the kitchen? It looks as if those cabinets have had enough! and are waltzing out the door

    • Posted by Serge

      Wouldn’t even put the Art Deco label on that. 80s Bauhaus Revival does sound accurate, though.

      • Posted by Brian M

        Bauhaus Revival as in the Peter Murphy band?

        (LOL. I kid, I kid)

  10. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I like it though am flummoxed by that forest of cabinets in the kitchen.

  11. Posted by BobN

    Should have bought it, split the lot, resold the modern house, and moved into the guest house and horse barn.

    (If I had $11M sitting around)

  12. Posted by Frisco

    Convert the farmhouse into a residence and the Sottsass house into a museum.

  13. Posted by Jlasf

    Memphis design seemed dated before the paint was even dry. It left behind some well- intentioned monstrosities, like the Portlandia building in Portland. Sottsass was a great designer – if you wanted a teapot or bookcase. But it was folly to commission him for a house.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      I think that the Portland Building is considered to be postmodern. Not sure how much that overlaps with Memphis though.

  14. Posted by cleverpunhere

    The fact that everyone here seems to hate the architecture of the post-modern house is a virtual guarantee that it will be highly desirable in 30 years. This person just bought the house at the bottom of the market for post-modernism, apparently.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      Yup. Every architectural design innovation reaches its nadir a few decades after its introduction. Then after some great examples are demolished there’s a revival of interest. Lots of “tacky, out of style” streamline deco buildings were razed in the 50s and 60s. Then the googie wave brought in by those decades were trashed in the 70s and 80s. And here we are dissing pomo and memphis.

      • Posted by Footie

        totally agree with these comments

  15. Posted by dru anderson

    I loved the comments. The complete arc of reaction & prediction.

    The barns want to be Kentucky Derby stable mates, so why did the prior owner really want them ?
    As head of Stanford’s design school ? But mainly what was ‘up’ with his wanting a complete ‘modular’ furniture /cabinetry ‘tricked up’ Sottsass design ?

    Just another example of disposable capital – even w. time & effort invested as well – is no guarantor of
    anything simpatico or even livable. It would be interesting to know what else, architecturally Mr. Sottsass
    ever designed, that was built * if it was equally ‘odd’. Mostly the mobile cabinetry seems to’ve ended up in the dining area, but I believe some held a lot of kitchen storage. Ah, we should all have such ‘problems’.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles