In California, a John Marsh Davis-Designed Home Comes Up for Sale for the Very First Time
The Oklahoma-born architect’s Barbour House is unlike most Midcentury Modern buildings
The Oklahoma-born architect’s Barbour House is unlike most Midcentury Modern buildings
Nestled in a thickly wooded site in Kentfield, Calif., about 12 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge, the house commissioned by Donald and Nancy Barbour 60 years ago pairs the solidity of a barn with the intricacy of a pagoda. A giant wooden rectangle, its entry facade is made mainly of two giant glass doors. Some 16 feet high, the doors slide open so completely that inside and outside unite, with the living/dining room becoming a kind of covered porch. A vast skylight over the interior space further blurs the line between indoors and out. Bedrooms occupy a kind of mezzanine that seems to float, as does the extra-wide roof. There are supports, but a magician hid some of them in floor-to-ceiling bookcases and threaded others through wisteria-laden trellises. In that way, anything heavy either disappears or dissolves into filigree ornament.
The magician was the Oklahoma-born architect John Marsh Davis (1931-2009), who built some of the most original Bay Area houses (and a handful of Napa Valley vineyards) in the second half of the 20th century. Though labeled Midcentury Modern, his houses are nothing like the better known Midcentury Modern works of architects like Richard Neutra, which are composed of flat, white surfaces. And, though labeled organic, they are nothing like the better-known organic works of Frank Lloyd Wright, which tend to hug the ground. Mr. Davis’s houses aren’t flat, or white, or low. They soar, in a style that Hans Baldauf, the author of a new book about Mr. Davis, calls “wood expressionism.” Mr. Davis himself liked to call his approach Forgotten Modern.
Now Mr. Davis’s Forgotten Modern is being remembered. Mr. Baldauf, himself a successful Bay Area architect, discovered Mr. Davis when he was hired to design a visitor centre for the Joseph Phelps winery in Napa. He was enamoured of the vineyard’s main building, a dramatic barn-like structure split by a great trellis. To make his addition successful, he says, he wanted to know more about that building. Its designer, John Marsh Davis (a name he had never heard before), turned out to be “the visionary behind a whole series of buildings that I had long admired,” he says. Given access to Mr. Davis’s archive by his niece, Katy Davis Song, Mr. Baldauf learned enough to finish the winery project, then spent more than a decade compiling a book about the early years of Mr. Davis’s career.
“The more I dug into John’s work, the more I came to believe that it deserved to be more widely known,” he says.
One of the first buildings Mr. Baldauf visited was the Barbour house, which, he says, “bowled me over. Having designed a large sliding door on an early project, I knew the complexities involved, and here was one four times as large and almost twice as high that allowed interior and exterior to merge completely.” The residence, he adds, “is one of John’s masterpieces and established themes that he would go on to explore throughout his career.”
Mr. Baldauf couldn’t have known when his book, “Design Legacy of John Marsh Davis: Early Years,” was published in March that the house on its cover would soon come up for sale. In the wake of Donald and Nancy’s deaths, both in 2022, their three children are listing the five-bedroom, three-bath, 4,000-square-foot house on 0.75-acre for $4.995 million. (The sale includes an adjoining 0.43-acre lot.)
“The grand scale of the rooms and the views of Mount Tam will draw many potential buyers,” says listing agent Bitsa Freeman of Boulevard Marin, “Whether they can pay the price remains to be seen.” In 2023, the median sale price in Kentfield was around $4.2 million, Ms. Freeman says. “We have priced [the house] definitely on the higher end because of its esteemed architectural history.”
No one who knew John Marsh Davis as a child could have predicted his career path. Growing up, Mr. Davis later told David Sheff, a journalist who is married to the Barbours’ daughter Karen, he didn’t know what an architect was. And nothing about his birthplace, in Oklahoma’s western prairie, taught him about expressive architecture or dramatic topography.
But two things happened that had profound effects on Mr. Davis’s direction. First, when he got to the University of Oklahoma in 1951, the director of the school of architecture was Bruce Goff, a student of Frank Lloyd Wright who designed some very quirky houses, and encouraged his own students to be just as idiosyncratic. So successful was Mr. Goff as a teacher than an entire cadre of architects, who fanned out across the country in the postwar years, have together been dubbed “the American School” by scholars. Their archives (including Mr. Davis’s) are being gathered at their alma mater, now the Christopher C. Gibbs College of Architecture at the University of Oklahoma.
Second, as an officer in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1959, Mr. Davis was able to tour Japan extensively, according to his niece. Among the landmarks he visited was the five-story pagoda at Horyuji Temple in Nara, its vast overhangs cantilevered from a single cedar post, and its wooden joints loose enough to withstand earthquakes. After leaving the Navy, Mr. Davis spent a few years working in Oklahoma before moving to Sausalito, Calif., in 1961. There, he began building in a style that had roots in what he had seen in Japan. His first house, which he designed for himself, was an elegant wooden volume, shaped roughly like a Japanese temple, overlooking Richardson Bay.
In 1963, Donald Barbour, a young physician, and his wife, Nancy, were looking for an architect to design a house on a parcel of land they had bought in the hills above Kentfield. Ms. Barbour saw the house Mr. Davis had built for himself in Sausalito on the cover of “California Home” Magazine. She called him. Soon, says their son Steve Barbour, Mr. Davis was sketching the rough outline of the house, which included a wooden bridge over a garden as the only route to the front door.
To design that garden, Nancy called the renowned landscape architect Thomas Church, whose work included helping with the master plans for UC Berkeley and Stanford University. According to their son-in-law Mr. Sheff, “Mr. Church agreed to design the garden only because (he admitted that) he liked the sound of Nancy’s ‘husky’ voice on the phone; she had a cold at the time. He charged $100 and a bottle of vodka.” For that, Mr. Church planned a terrace garden with twisting Japanese maples in large wooden planters.
According to Nancy Barbour, Mr. Davis’s style went beyond architecture to encompass a way of looking at life. “John taught me how to see beauty in details,” she told Mr. Sheff. “As I grew up, I noticed every corner, the trim, the way the boards intersected…. John anticipated every sightline, the way the light would filter in at different times of year. Everything is lined up. Everywhere you look, there’s something dramatic and spectacular.”
As Mr. Sheff wrote in an essay in Mr. Baldauf’s book, Mr. Davis’s “relationship with the family didn’t end when the house was complete; he became a lifelong friend. He never stopped redesigning the interior of the Barbour home. He would show up with Hargrave lamps, Persian rugs and random objects from shopping sprees abroad or at flea markets.”
Steve Barbour, was only 12 when Mr. Davis began designing and building the house. At one point, as it neared completion, the banisters needed to be smoothed. Mr. Davis handed young Steve a router and said, “You can do it.” And he did it. Not perfectly, perhaps, but that’s OK. Steve, now 70, says, “The house takes your breath away. So you don’t notice any of the little things.” He adds, “It was always a joyful house. It’s emotional to see it go.”

As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
Sydney Children’s Hospitals Foundation CEO Kristina Keneally says Australia’s culture of large-scale philanthropy is becoming more sophisticated as Gold Dinner raises $75.5 million for children’s health, research and innovation.
The Federal Budget has created a supply freeze that could push rents higher, reduce investment and hand more of Australia’s housing stock to offshore institutions.
For months, I have been one of the few commentators openly stating what the data was already showing: property prices had begun to fall.
The latest figures confirm it. Cotality’s June 1 Home Value Index showed Sydney values down 0.9 per cent in May and Melbourne down 0.8 per cent. ANZ has cut its national capital city forecast to 2.8 per cent growth this year, down from 4.8 per cent in April. CBA has also downgraded its outlook.
So the Federal Budget arrived at the worst possible time, with the wrong prescription, to treat a problem it fundamentally misunderstands.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has suggested that making it easier for first-home buyers to get a fair crack at auctions is a good thing. The reality is more complicated.
Driving property prices down does not simply hand a discount to first-home buyers. It affects the 1.4 million Australians employed by the property sector, the 67 per cent of household wealth tied to housing, and the state government revenues that fund schools, hospitals and roads.
The government had a choice: tackle supply constraints, link migration growth to housing completions and reduce spending, or increase taxes on property investors. It chose the latter.
Property is not simply another investment class. It contributes about 10.6 per cent of GDP directly, up to 15 per cent when flow-on effects are included, and employs more than 1.4 million Australians. It also generates more tax revenue than mining and underpins consumer confidence through the wealth effect.
Against that backdrop, the Budget removed negative gearing from established residential properties purchased after Budget night and replaced the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with cost-base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax from July 1, 2027.
The government calls this fairness. I call it a misdiagnosis.
The policy is also internally contradictory.
Properties purchased before Budget night are grandfathered, allowing existing investors to retain full negative gearing and capital gains tax benefits until they sell. The logical response is simple: hold.
That means fewer properties coming onto the market, fewer rental listings and reduced transaction volumes.
The result is likely to be higher rents, reduced stamp duty revenue and further inflationary pressure at a time when the Reserve Bank remains focused on bringing inflation under control.
The government is attempting to fight inflation with one hand while fuelling it with the other.
What is often lost in this debate is who Australia’s property investors actually are.
According to ATO data, 71 per cent of investors own just one investment property. They are not wealthy property moguls.
They are teachers, nurses, police officers and small business owners who have purchased an investment property as part of their retirement strategy.
For many Australians, property remains the most tangible and trusted pathway to building long-term wealth.
Removing the incentives that supported that investment does not hurt a billionaire developer. It hurts ordinary Australians trying to secure their financial future.
It is true that housing affordability has deteriorated significantly over the past two decades. However, negative gearing is not the primary cause.
Research by economists Ross Kendall and Peter Tulip found planning and zoning restrictions significantly increase housing costs.
Their work showed zoning lifted detached house prices well above marginal construction costs in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.
Low interest rates, strong population growth, chronic under-supply and restricted access to development-ready land have all played a much larger role in pushing prices higher.
Punishing private investors does nothing to address these structural issues.
At the same time the government is reducing incentives for Australian investors, it has created a more attractive tax environment for foreign institutional capital through Build-to-Rent projects.
Under current arrangements, foreign institutional investors can access a 15 per cent withholding tax rate through Managed Investment Trusts, accelerated depreciation benefits and exemptions from the new negative gearing restrictions.
State governments have added further concessions, including land tax reductions and exemptions from foreign investor surcharges.
Australian mum-and-dad investors receive none of these advantages.
The cumulative effect is striking. Foreign institutions can access a range of tax benefits unavailable to Australian private investors, while local investors lose concessions they have relied upon for decades.
This is not solving the housing crisis. It risks transferring ownership of Australia’s rental housing stock from local investors to offshore institutions.
There are already signs these changes are affecting the credit cycle.
Major banks are removing negative gearing benefits from serviceability calculations for investment loans.
As market conditions soften, lenders become more cautious and investors find it harder to secure finance.
That matters because property transactions are a major source of state government revenue.
In NSW alone, transfer duty generates more than $12 billion annually. If transaction volumes fall significantly, the impact on state budgets will be substantial.
The consequences extend beyond stamp duty to GST collections, payroll tax receipts and land tax revenue.
There is another aspect of the Budget that concerns me.
The government has expanded first-home buyer deposit guarantee schemes, allowing eligible purchasers to buy with a five per cent deposit backed by the Commonwealth.
The intention is admirable. The timing may not be.
If prices in Sydney and Melbourne fall further, buyers entering the market with 95 per cent loan-to-value mortgages could quickly find themselves in negative equity.
They become trapped. They cannot sell without crystallising a loss, while the taxpayer guarantees the loan and the bank remains protected.
That is not wealth creation. It is a debt obligation.
After three decades working with debt and investment, I would never encourage my own children to borrow at a 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio.
The government had an opportunity to address the housing crisis by encouraging supply, reforming planning systems and reducing development costs.
Instead, it chose Robin Hood politics.
The optics may be appealing, but the economics are not.
Australians may ultimately pay the price through higher rents, weaker investment and a future in which an increasing share of the nation’s housing stock is owned by offshore institutions rather than local investors.
Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.
A&K Sanctuary unveils Kitirua Plains Lodge, a sustainability-focused luxury property shaped by landscape, local craft and contemporary safari architecture.
From Italian vegetable-tanned leather to real-world training insight, Australian brand PK9 Gear is redefining what luxury means for discerning dog owners.