Where does the McMansion end and a true Mansion begin? (Dallas: apartments, new house)

[ThomasCrown]

Reading through a couple threads talking about McMansions made me curious where people draw the line at what is a McMansion versus an actual mansion. We're used to bigger homes here in TX, so I'm guessing that what we come up with will be quite a bit different vs other parts of the country.

First, does it need to be a standalone home to be called a mansion? In Chicago for example, a 6k sqft brownstone can run $2+million, and due to the condensed housing stock there, a lot of people would consider that a mansion.

Do you determine a mansion based on price, sq footage, acreage, or some combination?

For me, I'd say minimum size for a mansion would need to be 10k sq ft. Lot size is less important to me in my determination, but ideally at least half an acre, preferably 1+ acres. However, there are plenty of homes in University Park and Highland Park worth millions that aren't that big, that I'm sure a lot of people consider mansions.

Thoughts?

[nurider2002]

all I can say is, the new houses in north Dallas/Collin County are HUGE. I can't imagine why anybody wants such a large house. It's definitely a Texas phenomenon, never seen so many huge homes being built everywhere.

[TheOverdog]

90% custom built and greater than $750k if more than 1 acre or greater than $1.5m if less than 1 acre (city vs country pricing), and minimum 3k sq feet, minimum 2 stories and minimum ceiling height 9 feet.

If it is not custom built or custom-remodeled, then it's not a mansion even if it's purchase price is more than $750k or $1.5m.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by ThomasCrown

Reading through a couple threads talking about McMansions made me curious where people draw the line at what is a McMansion versus an actual mansion. We're used to bigger homes here in TX, so I'm guessing that what we come up with will be quite a bit different vs other parts of the country.

First, does it need to be a standalone home to be called a mansion? In Chicago for example, a 6k sqft brownstone can run $2+million, and due to the condensed housing stock there, a lot of people would consider that a mansion.

Do you determine a mansion based on price, sq footage, acreage, or some combination?

For me, I'd say minimum size for a mansion would need to be 10k sq ft. Lot size is less important to me in my determination, but ideally at least half an acre, preferably 1+ acres. However, there are plenty of homes in University Park and Highland Park worth millions that aren't that big, that I'm sure a lot of people consider mansions.

Thoughts?

To me it's a combination of size and finish quality. A cousin and his family live in a newish very large home (guess - 7,000sf) that looks like a cheaply finished dormitory - white sheetrock, linoleums and the worst carpet, popcorn ceilings, cheap doors and hardware, $30 ceiling fans, round toilets, cheap windows every corner cut in other words. It's perfectly safe, clean and decent and not a thing more.

An acquaintance has an "apartment" in Chelsea Manhattan, maybe 2,500sf that is finished out exquisitely - French enameled lava and amber counter tops, exotic woods everywhere, one of those tiny training swimming pools, air powered elevator, a salt-water isolation pod and so on......I'm sure the place cost $10 million and finish out was maybe another $3 million (just a guess but I bet I'm within a few percent either way). That place is much more of a mansion than the above.

There's a new very modern home on Strait Lane (north of Royal near Crooked) that's, just a guess 7,000 sf., and just beautifully done - that place is a mansion in my book.

[TurtleCreek80]

I agree with _EDS; its a combo of size and quality.

A true mansion is designed by an architect and built by a luxury custom builder. The quality of finishes are probably going to run in the $400/SF++ range. Size-wise, for a new construction mansion, 6500SF++. The setting is also important. You can't put a "mansion" on a 60x150 lot. Scale is important. I'm talking about Dallas mansions. Chicago or NYC brownstones were the mansions of their era and are certainly considered as much today if the full brownstone is still intact and hasn't been chopped into smaller apartments.

[BongoBungo]

Originally Posted by nurider2002

all I can say is, the new houses in north Dallas/Collin County are HUGE. I can't imagine why anybody wants such a large house. It's definitely a Texas phenomenon, never seen so many huge homes being built everywhere.

I'm with you. I just don't get what the point of a house is with more than 4,000 square feet, unless you have more than 5 or 6 people living in the home. If you're looking at a house for two adults, a 2,200 sqft house with 3-4 bedrooms and an office/dining room should be more than big enough and even that's overkill for most. At that square footage the room sizes won't feel cramped, even by Texas standards, and you have enough rooms for anything you'd probably need. Add two kids into the mix, and a 3,200 square foot house should be more than big enough if each kid has their own bedroom and bathroom. Maybe add in a game room and even theater room into the mix, and you're still probably under 4,000 square feet.

Coming from New York, I see families of 4-5 squeezed into 600 sqft. They make it work, and it's normal for them, although now that I've gotten accustomed to Texas it's just way too cramped to me and I could never go back to that. I tell my friends back in New York about the sizes of the homes here, and they don't even believe me until I show them the Zillow or Realtor.com listings. I had a friend who lives in NYC come visit me a couple weekends ago. He's spent his whole life in New England for the most part. Took him to Nebraska Furniture Mart. His mind was blown.

Past a certain point, the size of the house becomes less about practicality and more about status and decoration. Do you really need an extra sitting room that never gets used, a sun room, a second dining room, or a 4th guest bedroom? I'd rather retire early than have a massive home I don't need, but that's just me. If I had a net worth exceeding $20M perhaps I could justify it, but I see people making less than me who own these monstrous 6,000+ sqft homes, and my home isn't even 2,500 sqft... I guess they can have fun living with debt, never retiring, and having to work extra hours to pay for it all.

[UnfairPark]

1. Lot >1 acre
2. Area >10,000 SF
3. Price > $ 2 million to offer luxury finishes

My personal preference is to not have any turrets, if it ain't an ancient castle, those things look cheap and make owners look gaudy.

[BLDSoon]

Third vote for quality/Size.

Quality does seem to go hand in hand with custom but not always. Even custom builders have 'stock' homes that they can replicate though not at the rate of tract builders. For me it doesn't have to have multiple stories. Some creative architects have done amazing things with single story homes. Quality also does not mean tasteful as evidenced by many, many examples on magazines, TV and MLS websites

Mansion does imply scale however so it does need to be much larger than average homes in the area and considerably more expensive. So a McMansion in Dallas could be a Mansion in Chicago size wise, and a mansion in Dallas may cost 15mil while in Southern California it may have to cost twice that to qualify.

Separately though, why one would want to live in a house large enough to be considered a mansion in Texas defeats me. What would that be here anyway? 20k square feet? I'd have to entertain crowds every other day just to drown out that silence.

Or maybe take in 10 foster kids...under 8. Each with a nanny....and a pet.

[turf3]

Mansion: if it has a ballroom.

"Estate": if it either has tenant farmers, or can support a herd of grazing livestock.

[brainofjjj]

Originally Posted by turf3

Mansion: if it has a ballroom.

"Estate": if it either has tenant farmers, or can support a herd of grazing livestock.

That's a very old worldly definition and I like it.