Mansionmania Tournament: Round 1, Heat 10
 

Mansionmania continues. I'm going to show you the most expensive homes in every state and a few territories, with a few extras thrown in from the largest states to get the tourney up to 64. It'll be a single-elimination tournament.

You will choose among each pair of houses with the following assumptions:

• The purchase price for you is $0.
• All maintenance, utilities, property taxes, and cleaning is included.
• You must live in the home for the rest of your life.
• You can't travel more than 100 miles from home (via google maps drive time) other than 1 two-week vacation each year.
• You get $250,000 per year as a living allowance
• You get an additional living allowance at the cheaper home, which will be valued at 1% of any cost difference annually. I will note this amount in the poll.
• You get the furnishings. If unfurnished, you get an allowance that will give you mid-grade furniture in every room.
• You get any vehicles in the garage. But only the garage - nothing parked outside.

I encourage you to click on the maps in the listings to see the general location and neighborhood.

Also, I will only enter contestants if they have a sufficient number of photos to judge, as determined by me.

Your entries in this heat are:

Connecticut:

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...0_M39351-64621

Texas:

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...9_M89053-34550

That Connecticut place is ****ing cleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeean.

And **** Texas. How can people afford to even drive there? Went there last summer and if you even thought about using the highway you were charged $1.19.

Texas kitchen seems sub par for that stratosphere of house. I'm torn overall.

Blah to both of these.

The houses are about equal to me, but I wouldn't even consider living in Connecticut.

Both are very similar for me as well. I've lived in Texas. I'm not sure I would want to again. Give me Connecticut for this round.

I like both of these choices.

Connecticut - Classy house, and I wouldn't have to change a thing. The indoor swimming pool is awesome, and the views of the water are great. It's odd that they have both an indoor and outdoor pool, but hey, why not? Plus, I get this great house on the water and I'm only 30 miles away from picking up a Times Square hooker or seeing a Broadway show.

Texas - I don't know how big the Connecticut house is, but the Texas house is bigger. Because Texas. That's a big, big house, and it's really nice looking. I'd do a little redecorating, but not much, and it's also got an amazing indoor pool. I don't know which indoor pool is better. While I'm not a wild about living in Houston, it's got 5 peaceful acres inside a large metro area with all of its amenities, and I'm culturally a slightly better fit in Texas than in Connecticut. Plus, my annual stipend is twice the size in Texas.

There are no losers in this heat, but I'll go with Texas, ironically without any horses.

I'm surprised that some find these houses similar. CT is beautiful and on the ocean. TX is gaudy and near what looks like a septic runoff channel. Also, I've lived in Houston and I'm not looking to do it again.

For me it wasn't that they were physically similar. They both brought out the same level of "wow" factor.

Houston sucks so very, very much.

I didn't even get into the respective houses. I took a look at the satellite views and knew all I needed to know.

The Texas 500k stipend pushed me over the edge.

That would go a long way to making the home more to my personal taste.

https://hallhall.com/property-for-sa...91Y00001vwnfb/





Here is a Texas place for sale

This heat would definitely win a contest of most unique swimming pools, that's for sure.

I think I'll go with the Connecticut home due to proximity to NYC. I love NYC and I would probably never get bored exploring that city and all it has to offer. Plus the home itself is right on the water. I could spend a lot of time boating/yachting, etc. Aaaaand, I posted about this in another thread somewhere, but I'd definitely love to have a loft overlooking Central Park like this here:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/d8...d23ae729de.jpg

Could I blow my stipend on a proxy home and split my time between my main estate and this bitchin' condo? If not, I could still afford to rent out a place like this for a few weeks a year and that's pretty rad.

Not to mention, 100 miles doesn't get you jack or shit in Texas. That radius goes a lottttt further in the northeast.

I took Texas, well because its in Texas and not CT. That being said, I hate Houston but would still prefer it over CT.

OK, forget I said this. 100 miles from Greenwich, CT gets you to New Haven, Poughkeepsie, Camden, Newark and Trenton lol and a 100 miles North doesn't even get you to upstate NY or Vermont where you could get in some good skiing.

NYC is carrying so hard right now.

Both suck.

However Im pro Texas and **** all about the east coast NE

But for that money I can buy a ton of land and a great ranch home almost anywhere in Texas.

Hmm, there's no rule against that. $250k per year might not get you a whole lot in NYC, but you could certainly get something for that. Interesting concept.

This unit close to the park would set you back about $100k per year of your $250k: https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...9_M48211-97313 . I think I might consider just making the drive in and staying at a hotel a couple of times a week.

Sign me up for this dude.

Dunno why you couldn't. It's within 100 miles and there are no rules on where you have to sleep every night that I can see.

If the IRS believes the CT place to be your 'personal residence' then you should be golden. I like this plan. I mean - I'm not sure $250K/yr gets you even close to a condo overlooking central park. Moreover, unlike your CT home, your property taxes won't be paid (so you'd probably better rent...).

Then again, if you just used it as an AirBnB when you weren't there, it might just pay for itself.

Good thinkin'...

Jesus

I'd go Connecticut because the 100 mi radius would encompass NYC.

That indoor lap pool would go a long way in terms of making the winters easier to deal with.

Houston is a humid, smelly, dump. No offense to anyone who may live there, I'm sure it's great.

Another heat where I don't think either make it very far, but I guess it's Texas

Pretty much.

And come on, Greenwich. For 55 million, I expect more than 18 stupid pics.

I'm surprised at the shrugs of indifference in this heat. I think both of these houses are great.

I like the houses, but hate the locations.

CT at least has NYC, but it's crammed into a neighborhood.... and it seems like there are a lot of reasons living in Houston would suck, and then the house is next to a mansion museum and like half a mile from an outdoor mall/shopping center.

I voted Houston because it at least has the illusion of privacy and more land... and at this point I'm just going back and forth between "shitty hot/humid weather" and "cold as **** in the winter". Hamptons over Miami.... Georgia over MN (or whatever it was), so going back to the heat and humidity. :shrug:

Have some family in Houston, Galveston is close, great house, Royals games on occasion. I don't love Houston but it could be OK. Like the Conn house, the weather not so much.

So this place is insane.

It is no contest to me. CT. On the ocean, beautiful house. access to anything NYC has to offer.
I've been to the Houston area Hot and humid as hades. and mega obnoxious. The petrochemical business (which was my paycheck) completely dominates the coast for miles.
there are at least 10 breweries in Greenwich CT also, so I would be quite happy.

I went with CT because it's on the water and the fishing would probably be awesome.

Houston isn't all that bad if you know where you're going. I don't think I'd fit in with Bitsy and Skipper in Greenwich. Besides, I don't look good in a pink golf shirt with the collar turned up.

Hmmm I dislike both houses but took Connecticut for the area.



And the lack of dogs in cages.

Texas house is stuck in 1989. Hideous decor.