Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March 18th, 2006

Living in an Indoor Acre

A Wall Street hotshot recently tried to build a 39,000 square foot house in Greenwich, Connecticut. His plans were turned down. The house would have had 11 bedrooms and 16 bathrooms. I doubt he has 10 children (the Duggar family, who have 16 children, recently finished a 7,000 square foot house to accommodate their crowd), but I can see the wisdom in all those bathrooms; who wants to walk 15 minutes to the nearest john? My house, after 3 additions, is 2000 square feet. An acre is 43,560 square feet. If you can’t visualize that, a football field between the end zones is 48,000+ square feet.
This guy was essentially trying to live in an indoor acre. That’s a lot of dusting. I can’t imagine the heating bill. Obviously, cost is no issue to the guy, but I really wonder how much decadence one person can stand.
Given my chosen field, I have seen some tremendous homes. I am speaking of multi-million dollar mansions on rolling acres with restaurant-grade kitchens, master suites with his and her bathrooms and walk in closets with their own laundry, saunas, courtyards, lakes, you name it. To be honest, I find them to be devoid of warmth. I’ve been in homes I’d love to own, but I really don’t envy the suburban ego castles. It’s more like living in a museum than a home. To me, a home is comfortable and welcoming. What’s comfortable and welcoming about living in an airplane hangar?
If I had a vast fortune, I would probably build a dream home on some nice acreage, and I know that the current mcmansion standard of 3000-4000 square feet could easily be surpassed, but I am fairly certain I’d fall well short of 39,000 square feet. I’d also probably get an apartment on the upper west side and a country gentleman’s farm upstate. No matter what we’d do, even if we stayed put (which is likely) our efforts would be put toward quality and not quantity. It would have to feel like a home. 
Advertisements

Read Full Post »