If you visit a lot of real estate venues you may have noticed a growing number of references to homes as mansions.
Mansionization isn’t a word, but then most homes that reporters describe as mansions these days aren’t mansions either. In recent blog posts I’ve seen the moniker applied to homes that count the basement among their piddling 3,500 square feet of space – not even enough to count as a McMansion or to garner a glance in many a mid-priced suburban subdivision.
The Theurer-Wrigley House, also known as the Wrigley Mansion and encompassing more than 16,000 square feet, is one of the very few single-family homes in the city that merits the title. The Dewes Mansion, at 12,000 square feet is, in my take, about the minimum size for a home that can be called a mansion without pausing to wonder whether the description is apt. Unusually lavish detailing, it needs to be noted, may elevate a slightly smaller home into the slim ranks of mansions.
When I was 10 years old my Uncle Johnny lived in a mansion. By the time I’d reached my mid-20s, he no longer did. Johnny didn’t move, but my benchmark did.
What’s the minimum size at which a home deserves to be called a mansion? Is it relative to its surroundings? Does it legitimately differ with an individual’s perspective or is there a more objective standard?