As I see it - and I suspect some large portion of architects agree - no one in the West builds mansions anymore.
The word mansion connotes the kind of grand family house on a productive land estate that noble families and the super-wealthy handed down for generations. The size of those buildings didn't matter; they were just the crowning piece of an enormous mass of wealth which was often granted by the government in perpetuity. The land estates would be measured in square miles of farmland, forest, and grazing land - much more than 1000 acres.
These homes symbolized power in a way no private home in America can today, because no one has that same absolute ownership of huge tracts of land with de-facto control over law enforcement and essentially feudal laborers. There were mansions built in the 19th century by families like the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts which are called mansions, but I think the name was always more an aspiration by those families to establish themselves as aristocrats - which didn't entirely succeed. These giant houses weren't family estates like the traditional mansions; they were often summer homes and temporary residences. 100 years later few of them (maybe none) are still owned by the families.
The term McMansion is usually used for the kind of large but not extraordinary houses you're describing. It's derogatory, implying the owner thought he could show off his success by buying a house twice as big as any family really needs. Real wealth is measured in area of land, not area of house.
For reference, the Breakers - a summer home - is 125,000 sf and required a full-time staff numbering in the dozens to keep running. But it was only on 13 acres. And the granddaughter of the original owner essentially gave it away because she couldn't afford to keep it up. A real mansion paid for itself through agricultural production and small workshops.
The Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC. It was built by the Vanderbilts when some of them were trying to outdo each other in Newport, RI. The Biltmore is modeled on the French homes in the Loire and is set on 8,000 acres. the estate had its on church and village. it is stilled controlled by the Vanderbilts.
Time to invoke rule 34: ten posts required before a new member can start a new thread.
Although if that topic is a stupid question, additional posts should be required. In this case 10,000 would be about right. Especially when coming after the video toilet square footage topic.
Nov 12, 14 8:06 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
What is the starting point for a home to be a mansion to you?
As far as square footage goes, what is the starting point for a home to be a considered a mansion to you? 7,000, 8,000, 9,000, 10,000 square feet?
I find anything above 2,600 square feet to be large, but a 10,000 square foot home and greater would be considered a mansion to me.
As I see it - and I suspect some large portion of architects agree - no one in the West builds mansions anymore.
The word mansion connotes the kind of grand family house on a productive land estate that noble families and the super-wealthy handed down for generations. The size of those buildings didn't matter; they were just the crowning piece of an enormous mass of wealth which was often granted by the government in perpetuity. The land estates would be measured in square miles of farmland, forest, and grazing land - much more than 1000 acres.
These homes symbolized power in a way no private home in America can today, because no one has that same absolute ownership of huge tracts of land with de-facto control over law enforcement and essentially feudal laborers. There were mansions built in the 19th century by families like the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts which are called mansions, but I think the name was always more an aspiration by those families to establish themselves as aristocrats - which didn't entirely succeed. These giant houses weren't family estates like the traditional mansions; they were often summer homes and temporary residences. 100 years later few of them (maybe none) are still owned by the families.
The term McMansion is usually used for the kind of large but not extraordinary houses you're describing. It's derogatory, implying the owner thought he could show off his success by buying a house twice as big as any family really needs. Real wealth is measured in area of land, not area of house.
For reference, the Breakers - a summer home - is 125,000 sf and required a full-time staff numbering in the dozens to keep running. But it was only on 13 acres. And the granddaughter of the original owner essentially gave it away because she couldn't afford to keep it up. A real mansion paid for itself through agricultural production and small workshops.
BTW I live in a 600 sf apartment. I consider 1000+ sf to be a large home!
Here might be the contemporary equivalent to a mansion. It's in India.
The Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC. It was built by the Vanderbilts when some of them were trying to outdo each other in Newport, RI. The Biltmore is modeled on the French homes in the Loire and is set on 8,000 acres. the estate had its on church and village. it is stilled controlled by the Vanderbilts.
Good post Midlander. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it over breakfast.
Time to invoke rule 34: ten posts required before a new member can start a new thread.
Although if that topic is a stupid question, additional posts should be required. In this case 10,000 would be about right. Especially when coming after the video toilet square footage topic.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.