Laurie Metcalf Lists Her Valley Village Home

by Deidre Woollard (RSS feed)
Feb 16th 2011 at 9:01PM

This week thanks to a little help from Oprah, the world was reminded of what a great television show "Roseanne" was. Although it was named for its star, Roseanne Barr, the show was really an ensemble of talented actors. Laurie Metcalf played Roseanne's sister Jackie and has had a successful career since the show, appearing on television and doing voiceovers for animated movies. She and her partner Matt Roth, also an actor, have listed their four-bedroom home in Valley Village, California. We don't often see much of a real estate deal in Southern California but this might be one. According to the Real Estalker, the couple purchased this home for $360,000. It's currently the most expensive home in Valley Village, listed at $1.925 million.

This home has a lot going for it. It was built in 1934 and is on .63 acres of land. Although the kelly green foyer is an unusual touch, mostly the decorating choices are casual, clean and make the most of the light-filled space. The master suite has a skylight and a rustic stone hearth. The master bathroom has a odd layout with a claw-foot tub flanked by two pedestal sinks. The Real Estalker points out that the home is surrounded on two sides by apartment buildings but the green backyard provides a surprisingly park-like retreat with stone terraces, a built in barbecue grill, an outdoor fireplace, grass-surrounded swimming pool and tennis court. The detached two-car garage has a second level game room with hardwood floors, a wet bar and a deck.

Gallery: Laurie Metcalf In Studio City

Tags: california real estate, celebrity real estate, laurie metcalf, roseanne, valley village

Filed under: Estates

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

JLS Feb 16th 2011 10:23PM

This home has incredible possibilities but needs some major work. I think the overgrown landscaping is a good idea if there are two apartment buildings on either side of it. It's got privacy and then some.

If I extract out the awful belongings and random clutter, I love it.

I could easily make it fabulous.

timmgirvan Feb 20th 2011 2:38PM

That is one incredible house! I'm sure they'd come down a little on the deal, but it is a sweet place.

hattie54 Feb 20th 2011 3:02PM

Love the house,esp.the backyard and pool.I guess she needs the $$ or living elsewhere.

Roc Feb 20th 2011 3:22PM

It is obvious she didn't spend any money on a decorator or landscaper. Cute house though, lots of potential.

dann Feb 20th 2011 4:33PM

Looks like it was abandoned from the outside. Pretty unimpressive for $1.9, even in California.

dann Feb 20th 2011 4:37PM

From the outside it looks abandoned. Pretty unimpressive for $1.9 even in California.

Hudsongrl Feb 20th 2011 5:25PM

After watching many episodes of Million Dollar Listings, I can say with some confidence, this one is overpriced. Outside needs much work and the inside looks barren. I'd be surprised if she gets more than $1.2 million for it and that would be a stretch.

dietrite66 Feb 20th 2011 5:27PM

alot of wood floor makes alot of cleaning and hey look at the pool where it is and see some leaves top of the water, alot of money to spend to keep it clean, house with wood floor and the pool, no thanks!! Maybe that is why she want to sell it!!

djmbos Feb 20th 2011 5:42PM

Looks like the gardner's been on hiatus. Laurie, ever heard of "staging"? Ouch! The place has potential, but the photos are all kind of wrong.

rrboyle Feb 20th 2011 5:55PM

Truly, truly, this house is a "disaster," and cannot possibly be worth the asking price of almost $2 million. I have to woner WHO decided to photograph it that way, showing the: overgrown foliage, dirty, small pool, tiny pool area, tacky, tawdry pool/yard furniture, bizarre, unattractive, unimaginative interior "non-decor," horrific furnishings, no art, gawd-awful master bath, odd physical layout of lower level rooms, and lots more. Any buyer interested in (possibly) making this a "great house" would have to spend an amount equal to the purchase price for a total upgrade (if not a total tear-down and rebuild)! Honestly, did this place ever make it out of its building year of 1934???