Master Bedroom
Recently I completed the sale of 1522 S. Hobart Blvd, the magnificent Mission revival in Harvard Heights. Amongst its many fabulous features: a master bedroom (or master's bedroom, or, in the interest of non-discriminatory language,"owner's retreat") that conforms to today's standard--that is, large, multi-closeted, physically separate from the other bedrooms, and with a full bath attached. Such a thing, uncommon amongst my inventories of Pre War housing, seems increasingly desirable.
In the early 1800's the average American home was about 600 square feet, and children often slept 2 - 3 in a bed. Task separation dictated layout, as cooking and household tasks were divided, usually by a ground floor hall. An adjacent parlor, which sometimes doubled as the parent's bedroom, served as the space for dining and receiving guests.
Health-based concerns, but also just plain ol' affluence [insert five pages here on the connection between cultural values, morality, and consumer trends] contributed to the move to separate sleepers, and the trend continues still, with today's adult-focused sybaritic sensibility. Between 1970 - 2002 (according to the US census and the NAHB), the average household size decreased from 3.1 to 2.6 persons, yet the average new home size increased from 1,500 to 2,300 sq. ft. Privacy and separation are equated to status. Master suites today, multi-suites tomorrow.
"Where is the master?" impatient consumers would ask, whilst touring the grand Emard House (see earlier posts) on Oxford.
"The principal bedroom," I would answer, "is this one", showcasing the largest of the four second-floor bedrooms.
"But it hasn't an attached bath", they'd complain.
"Few did in 1904", I'd continue, "it wasn't then a consumer expectation. However, let me show the attic."
The attic, over 500 square feet, connected to a full bath. Most were satisfied, and most imagined the attic as owner's retreat. I was surprised really, because I prefer to sleep in the smallest rooms, so that I might spend my day in different, larger spaces. I also don't feel like banishing my kid to the houses' hinterlands.
I guess I'm in the minority. Again.
In the early 1800's the average American home was about 600 square feet, and children often slept 2 - 3 in a bed. Task separation dictated layout, as cooking and household tasks were divided, usually by a ground floor hall. An adjacent parlor, which sometimes doubled as the parent's bedroom, served as the space for dining and receiving guests.
Health-based concerns, but also just plain ol' affluence [insert five pages here on the connection between cultural values, morality, and consumer trends] contributed to the move to separate sleepers, and the trend continues still, with today's adult-focused sybaritic sensibility. Between 1970 - 2002 (according to the US census and the NAHB), the average household size decreased from 3.1 to 2.6 persons, yet the average new home size increased from 1,500 to 2,300 sq. ft. Privacy and separation are equated to status. Master suites today, multi-suites tomorrow.
"Where is the master?" impatient consumers would ask, whilst touring the grand Emard House (see earlier posts) on Oxford.
"The principal bedroom," I would answer, "is this one", showcasing the largest of the four second-floor bedrooms.
"But it hasn't an attached bath", they'd complain.
"Few did in 1904", I'd continue, "it wasn't then a consumer expectation. However, let me show the attic."
The attic, over 500 square feet, connected to a full bath. Most were satisfied, and most imagined the attic as owner's retreat. I was surprised really, because I prefer to sleep in the smallest rooms, so that I might spend my day in different, larger spaces. I also don't feel like banishing my kid to the houses' hinterlands.I guess I'm in the minority. Again.
Labels: The Modern World
posted by Adam at 1:04 PM | Permalink
<< Home