Mega mansions are amazing to look at, but what happens when they’re still unfinished? It’s hard to get a feel for what they would like if ever completed. These 4 massive mega mansions all sit unfinished/neglected. Which one do you prefer and could see having the most potential?

Unfinished Mega Mansion #1 – Dubbed Versailles, it boasts 90,000 square feet of living space and is owned by Timeshare mogul David Siegel. You can purchase it for $65 million as-is and finish it yourself! It has 13 bedrooms, 23 bathrooms, 3 swimming pools (one indoor), a 20-car garage, 1-story gatehouse with apartment, baseball field, 2 tennis courts, a 7,200 square foot grand hall with 30ft. stained glass dome, 2 grand staircases, 30-seat formal dining room, 1,110 square foot main kitchen, 10 satellite kitchens, his-and-her offices with 12ft. aquarium, 2-story wine cellar, rock grotto with 3 spas and 80ft waterfall, fitness center, a 2-lane bowling alley, an indoor roller rink, video arcade, children’s wing with home theater and multiple living areas, an adult home theater with balcony, and a 1/2 acre main pool deck.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LISTING

Unfinished Mega Mansion #2 – It is located on Meadowbrook Drive in Burr Ridge, IL and has been sitting unfinished for over 4 years now. It is owned by Freedom Mortgage Team founder Nick Memeti. It boasts 41,000 square feet of living space.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Unfinished Mega Mansion #3 – It is located in Portland, OR and is owned by Mark Wattles, the former owner of Hollywood video. It boasts over 50,000 square feet of living space and has been sitting unfinished since 1997!! An ongoing problem with the builder and in the end a lack of funding led to the shelving of the project. It was to include a gymnasium, a 4,000 square foot pool, a 19-car garage and a 10,000 square foot master suite.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW IT IN BING MAPS

Unfinished Mega Mansion #4 – It is located on Farr Drive in Haileybury, Ontario, Canada on the shores of Lake Temiskamingin and boasts 65,000 square feet of living space. It was listed in 2010 at $25,000,000. There’s no flooring, no finished bathrooms and few wall coverings. The home, which sits on 40 acres of land, boasts an indoor boat house big enough for a 40-foot yacht, two elevators, an indoor pool, a giant hot tub, 30-foot fireplaces in the master bedroom and living room, and an exercise room the size of a small gym. The property was once the dream project of Peter Grant, a forest products titan from nearby Englehart. He planned to use the building as a residence and corporate office for his family-owned business, Grant Forest Products Inc.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE

  • LAMONT BROOKS

    #1 is huge with 90,000 sq, feet but #2 is more my style.




    0



    0
  • Daniel

    Well this is a toughie. None of the homes looks particularly wondrous and the locations surprisingly are far from exclusive, at least to warrant building something so huge. If I had to choose, I think I’d go for #4 for the location.




    0



    0
    • Daniel

      Whoops. Meant to say *not* surprisingly.




      0



      0
  • NOVA Ben

    Well this is an absolute no-brainer. NONE OF THE ABOVE. Done.




    0



    0
  • Al Robinson

    My favorite is #3. I think it’s a cool location, right on a river bend, and hidden from the water. I know it’s not an ideal location considering that it’s not located near anything, but I kind of feel like that’s the point. Why would you want your mega-mansion next to a whole bunch of middle-class homes. The people near you would just resent you for building something soo large and increasing the neighborhood costs.

    I just would really like to see what it looks like on the inside, even in it’s current unfinished state.




    0



    0
    • Grrrowler

      I’ll be driving past Wilsonville next week and I’m going to see if I can get near this place.




      0



      0
      • Al Robinson

        Sweet! That’s awesome. Good luck Grrrowler. 🙂




        0



        0
  • marc22

    No. 1 should really remain as a shell to commemorate the era in which it was born, a symbol of excessive waste and grossly horrendous taste. If you ever happened to catch a glimpse of the finished renderings, you would pray that it remains a shell.

    They all should find a way to revert back into the soil from which they sprung.




    0



    0
    • Barney

      YOU, Sir, are EXACTLY right! I couldn’t possibly agree more……

      Regarding this ABJECTLY MISERABLE 1/3 completed, preposterous attempt at a home, have ANY of you guys seen the documentary about Seigel’s called “The Queen of Versailles”?? If not, ALL OF YOU MUST, seriously! I saw it about three weeks ago and a more damning, condemning, crystal-clear, nauseating portrait of some of the most pathetic people ever filmed by a camera, I have yet to see. If you really want to see a movie that’ll make you feel GREAT about whatever place you live in, and how you live by comparison…..GO see this movie. The EPIC slide into truly ghastly filth, delusion, ignorance, unrepentant greed, materialism, stupidity and flat out MEGALOMANIA is truly fascinating. Kenny, you should have a post JUST about the movie, the Seigels and the “house”, and nothing else. I’d bet you’ll get more posts than you could ever dream of, really! I know I’d post at least twice with my insights.




      0



      0
    • Cm

      They are finishing the house and moving in last I heard…. Don’t remember where but I read it somewhere that after halting forever, they have re-begun and are planning on occupying the house unless it sells.




      0



      0
  • John A.

    No Bel Air? Château des Fleures and all those?




    0



    0
    • Kenny Forder

      The poll is for homes that have been LEFT unfinished.




      0



      0
  • Grrrowler

    I would vote for D: None of these. If I had to choose it would be #4 just because it’s so different.




    0



    0
  • Cm

    They are all just awful, however, I find it very, very funny that every post about that hideous Versailles house everyone on here tears it about yet its winning! HA.

    Honestly the location on all four is the big reason no one is picking them up and finishing them…. while they are all less than desirable if they were in say LA area, some wealthy no class dude would buy them at the right price. Kenny… you should have put 901 N Alpine in Beverly Hills in this… another bust. House is ugly as sin. As I said before, this one will sell and be finished if the owner gets to reality. The house might sell for in the general ballpark of where it is priced if it were finished. Unfinished maybe $15m-18m.




    0



    0
  • lambskin

    Can you imagine the cost to get these places up to code after being vacant for so long? Exposure to the elements must be killer in regard to rot, mold, cracks and insects/vermin. What is the point of no return and demolition is in order?




    0



    0
  • DR.VEGAS

    Definitely:NONE OF THE ABOVE. I will however grant “effort points” to “D”. The architect is clearly trying to channel Gehry with the partial titanium skin.It’s different.




    0



    0
  • Otessa Regina Compton

    I love unfinished Number One, it has a coastal elegance that caught my eye. I love that shade of blue. If you ask me, it also looks and has the appeal of a hotel and spa. Well, the person and/or persons who purchase that mega mansion could portion a part of it off and serve some guests. Breakfast in bed anyone? I would love a glass of wine with my meal tonight.




    0



    0
    • NOVA Ben

      Well, zoning would rule out using this as anything but a home, but beyond that, how is a “hotel and spa” feel to this place AT ALL appealing? Sure, it’s nice to splurge and go to a place like that every once in a while, but why on earth would you want to LIVE in something like that? I mean, setting aside the fact that this “home” is absolutely grotesque and appallingly obnoxious and vulgar, of course. As for “coastal elegance”, I don’t think so.




      0



      0
      • ZigZagBoom

        “absolutely grotesque and appallingly obnoxious and vulgar”

        my thoughts exactly! It looks like an ugly timeshare condominium building in a Mexican beach resort town!




        0



        0
  • BJ

    It is disappointing to read how real estate in this range is deemed materialistic, megalomania, blah blah blah. Know any billionaires? I have been fortunate to know two through business deals. They’re pretty decent folks. That happen to have a lot of money. Where they put that money is often into real estate that is in many cases safer than a lot of other vehicles for investment and asset protection. Sometimes it isn’t. And when you have billions of asset wealth, a 40 or 50 million dollar risk is like a $5K risk/investment for someone who makes $100-150k annually. Which would buy you a decent mid range carbon fiber road or mountain bike. EXTRAVAGANT, RIGHT? Perspective and context. Vision and risk. These people have/had it and sometimes lost.

    That said, #4, the Canadian House is a risk I’d take on. Quickly too, before the Canadian Dollar gets much higher and the hate mail gets me bounced :-).




    0



    0
    • Daniel

      Thank you. Soooo many (not only on this blog) are quick to criticize those who have money and *dare* to spend it on something they desire. Whether it’s a gigantic house, a collection of cars, yachts, jewelry, etc, too many are quick to judge it as “greedy”. Would you call Liz Taylor greedy because she had hundreds of pieces of jewelry, yet donated/founded countless charities? It really makes my blood boil when people criticize those who have legitimately attained their fortunes and people write off their possessions as “greedy”.




      0



      0
      • NOVA Ben

        I tend to avoid value judgments on mega-mansions and whether they are moral or materialistic or greedy. Instead, I usually focus on the fact that the homes that get built in the 35,000 – 50,000 square foot range are usually extremely obnoxious. There are always exceptions, but a great number of them are truly ugly and overly flashy. I agree with BJ’s assessment almost completely, but somewhere in the road to riches, taste often falls by the wayside.




        0



        0
      • marc22

        I for one never would and never have lambasted any of the homeowners of these butt ugly homes for their money. I admire their business sense especially if they worked their way to the top and are self made millionaires or billionaires. Kudos to them. However, I do criticize the fact that with all the money of God and all the resources and talent available out there to build something truly exceptional and beautiful, the majority of these new billionaires end up over paying for everything and construct massive piles of dog excrement. Most have no redeeming architectural value and are disgraceful in their waste of materials and resources. If you are good at business, it doesnt mean you are good at designing a home. Hire the best and build the best. Instead we get a white elephants that even the owners cant afford to complete and the massive hulking shells rot away. Does that make any sense?

        Liz Taylor bought jewelry and spent her money on the best that was available. She earned it. No greed involved. What people on this blog criticize is the overwhelming and pathetic structures that all this money creates today. You might remember the Gilded Age in America, late 19th and early 20th century? What those millionaires and billionaires built have become architectural landmarks today and those mansions could stand for hundreds of years. This era’s crop of architectural mega-disasters will be lucky if they are still looking good 20 years from now.

        If you must build, at least do it well or leave it to somebody else.




        0



        0
        • ZigZagBoom

          What he said. I certainly don’t begrudge these people their money, however, I will point out if the “mansions” they live in are hideous overgrown sh-tboxes that do a disservice to the word.




          0



          0