SAMPLE SUBMISSION - Interior Design Educators Council

SAMPLE SUBMISSION 

Journal of Interior Design 

This sample submission is being provided with the permission of the 

author. The article has been published in the Journal of Interior Design 

and all copyright laws apply. Its inclusion in JID’s on-line Submission 

Guidelines is intended to assist authors in the preparation of 

manuscripts for submittal to JID.

Date 

Jo Ann Asher Thompson, Ph.D. 

Editor in Chief, Journal of Interior Design 

Office of the Chancellor 

Washington State University 

Spokane, WA 99210-1495 

Dear Dr. Thompson, 

Please find attached a manuscript submission to the Journal of Interior Design entitled 

“The American Master Bedroom: Its Changing Location and Significance to the 

Family.” This manuscript has not been submitted for consideration elsewhere. 

The manuscript is 30 pages in length (including abstract and references) and includes 

eight (8) figures. See that there are 12 attachments to this email: Title Page, Contents 

Outline Page, Abstract & Text Document, Tables & Figures Captions Page, and eight (8) 

Figures saved as individual TIF files. 

Please direct all correspondence to my attention. Each author listed in the byline has 

agreed to the byline order and to submission of the manuscript in this form. As the 

corresponding author, I will notify the coauthors regarding all aspects of the review 

process including the outcome of the reviews and any revisions made to the document. 

Sincerely, 

Author Name 

Author Address 

Author Email Address 

Author Phone 

SAMPLE COVER LETTER

TITLE: The American Master Bedroom: Its Changing Location and Significance to the 

Family 

CATEGORY: Article 

AUTHORS: 

Author 1 Name (correspondence author) 

Institutional Affiliation or Place of Employment 



Author Phone (O & H) 

Author 2 Name 




Author 3 Name 




WORD COUNT: 6,131 words including the 218 word abstract 

STYLE: APA 

SAMPLE TITLE PAGE

The American Master Bedroom: Its Changing Location and Significance to the Family 

CONTENTS OUTLINE: 

1) Introduction 

2) Purpose and Method 

3) Literature Review 

a) U. S. Individualism 

b) Housing Theory 

4) Evolution of the American Master Bedroom 

a) The 17th Century 

b) The 18th Century 

c) The 19th Century 

d) The 20th Century 

5) The Owner’s Retreat 

6) Parent-Child Co-Sleeping 

7) Proximity of Parents and Children 

8) Conclusion 

SAMPLE CONTENTS OUTLINE PAGE

American Master Bedroom 1 

The American Master Bedroom: Its Changing Location and 

Significance to the Family 

Author Byline (Please insert in preferred order: authors’ names, credentials, and affiliations) 

ABSTRACT 

This article discusses the possible relationship between changes in the master bedroom 

and parenting values in middle class America. The authors review information from the US 

homebuilding industry, statistical data on housing trends, literature on the history of the bedroom 

from the Colonial period to the present, and literature on family sleep practices. The owner’s 

bedroom, one domain among various domains in the home, is an individual-private domain that 

functions to ensure adult privacy and increase physical barriers between parents and children. 

The authors contend that changes in the location and function of the master bedroom in the 

American home over the past centuries reflect the upward social mobility afforded by rising 

incomes, expansive and undeveloped land, and shared concepts of prestige held by home 

builders and homeowners. These influences have helped develop a purely American sense of 

parenting among middle and upper-income families that reflects their individualism. Middle 

class parents have encouraged more physical distance between themselves and their offspring. 

Consistent with this trend, they have shown a preference for houses with large master suites that 

are sometimes located at a distance from other bedrooms in the house. Using a model by 

Chermayeff and Alexander (1965), the authors examine the relationship between parenting 

practices and private space, highlighting the implications of this trend for home planners and 

interior designers. 

SAMPLE ABSTRACT & TEXT

Introduction 


The home has always reflected and embodied mankind’s most dearly held family values. 

In the United States (US) as in other countries, homes provide space for shared family activities 

and some degree of privacy for family members, particularly for parents. Home provides a 

setting for all of the mundane facets of family life—daily life, work, and play—and is a place 

where guests are received. Home is also a private refuge and a public display of affluence and 

taste (Marcus, 1995). It is natural, therefore, that change in the American home should parallel 

change in American values. 

Purpose and Method 

The purpose of this article is to move toward a general framework with which interior 

designers and home planning professionals can better understand the proposed important 

relationship that exists between the home sleep environment and familial cultural values. Such 

understanding will ensure home planning that more carefully addresses human relationships and 

the straightforward given(s) of room function or activity. As a result, the household unit may be 

strengthened. The authors take a first look at the current home planning trend in middle and 

upper-income American new single-family housing: the change, occurring in the late 1980s or 

early 1990s, in the location of the master bedroom with reference to most of the home’s other 

sleeping rooms. The topic is explored within the context of an overview of historical home 

planning patterns and parental sleep practices. The authors utilize information about the US 

homebuilding industry, statistical data on housing trends, reporting on the home, and parent- 

child relations. Sources include literature reviews, convenience samplings, and informal field 



observation of new single-family homes. The authors suggest future directions for examining the 

relationship between home planning, housing trends, and parent-child relationships. 

Literature Review 

US Individualism 

The evolution of American cultural values inevitably extends to consumer trends. 

American families now prefer larger vehicles (with the capacity to go “off road” if the urge hits) 

and larger houses with more spacious rooms. The luxury of being able to afford large homes, 

computers, televisions for virtually every room, and various enrichment lessons and activities for 

children results in an arrangement in which middle and upper-income parents and their children 

lead rather separate lives. Two prominent home builders in the authors’ region (Ohio and 

Pennsylvania) confirm a recent nationwide study by the US National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB) that parents for the most part desire a master bedroom that is large, luxurious, 

physically separate, and preferably on a different floor from their children (S. Conant, personal 

communication, October 28, 2003; M. Schumacher, personal communication, February 11, 

2003; NAHB, 2004). In short, American family members desire more space to maximize their 

individualism and autonomy—space in which to relax, work, play, and, more particularly, be 

alone. 

The US and Western Europe have been widely described as individualistic (Kagitçibasi, 

1996). A great deal of research, however, documents the broad range of variability that exists 

among Western individualistic cultures (Harkness, Super, & van Tijen, 2000; New & Richman, 

1996; Wolf, Lozoff, Latz, & Paludetto, 1996). In particular, the US is described as the most 

individualistic culture in the world. This value on individualism is reflected in the way middle- 



class Euro-American children are raised. During infancy, pediatricians instruct parents to expect 

their infants to sleep alone in separate rooms throughout the night (Brazelton, 1992) and amuse 

themselves in various infant containers and equipment (e.g., swings, walkers, and playpens) 

during the day (New & Richman, 1996). American parents have earlier age expectations for 

developmental milestones than parents of other cultures (Pachter & Dworkin, 1997; Schulze, 

Harwood, & Schoelmerich, 2001). Thus, Euro-American individualism manifests itself in every 

aspect of parenting. As Super and Harkness (1986) note, parental belief systems are an important 

aspect of the ecology of child development. 

The nature of individualism has changed throughout the years (Grant, 1998). The rugged 

independence that was part of the Puritan work ethic has been replaced by a distinctly new brand 

of individualism in which independence is achieved not through competition or even necessarily 

action, but through a felt sense of autonomy—what Harwood, Miller, and Lucca Irizarry (1995) 

refer to as “maximization of the self as an autonomous unit.” What parents now expect from 

their children is not success as measured by achievements alone but success as measured by 

happiness and personal satisfaction (Harwood et al., 1995). The millennium ushered in a new 

dilemma for families—one in which individuals struggle for personal fulfillment and self- 

expression as contrasted with achievement in the objective sense. 


Housing Theory 


Housing theory and home planning are broad subjects and include aspects of planning 

and design, economics, the sociology and psychology of place and identity, theories of cultural 

values, philosophy, history, family life studies, and the study of parent-child interactions. 

Although there is literature on home sleep arrangements and practices, there exists no study of 

the changing location of the master bedroom or the relationship between that occurrence and 

parenting practices. The work by two important architectural theorists is especially pertinent to 

such a study, in that it provides a useful model by which interior designers and home planning 

professionals can examine the interrelationships between: home planning theory used in the US 

since the turn of the 19th century, the master bedroom ideal and its changing location within the 

home, and the implications of these changes for household residents. 

According to Chermayeff and Alexander (1965) in Community and Privacy: Toward a 

New Architecture of Humanism, “every activity [is] contained in a tangible, physical zone, and . 

. . each zone . . . sustain[s] the activity it has been designed to serve” (p. 118). The authors 

proposed various conceptual and planning hierarchical choices by which buildings, exterior 

space, and interior space should be ordered. 

Of the six identified spatial “domains” to which the hierarchies apply, the first four deal 

with urban and group areas, while the final two, which are of interest here, are identified as 

Family-Private and Individual-Private. The family-private space is that within the home 

governed by a single family that shares all the activities of living together. The individual-private 

space is the “room of one’s own” in which the occupant may completely retreat from family. 

Within the hierarchy of privacy, the theorists proposed an Anatomy of Privacy, which 

stated that separate adult-private and child-private domains and a family community area should 



surround or embrace the “family hearth” area (see Figure 1, Anatomy of Dwelling: people). The 

first three areas are kept apart by “locks” or “buffers” which ensure privacy. These elements may 

consist of walled outdoor areas; entry or other hall space; hygiene, storage, and dressing areas; 

bed-sitting rooms; dining room or area, and other separating spaces. Here the authors 

recommend physical barriers between parents and child(ren) that ensure separation and privacy 

(Chermayeff & Alexander, 1965). These kinds of barriers are advocated by today’s home 

planners, builders, and pediatricians, but often fail in application, due in part to room 

arrangement and planning concept, construction methods, increasing land and construction costs, 

and even increasing house size. 

------------------------Insert figure1.tif about here----------------------- 

Chermayeff and Alexander (1965) described their concept of domestic domains, 

including bedrooms, as fulfilling all family members’ needs and differentiating between 

occupants only as follows. 

The integrity of domestic domains, which is to encourage concentration, contemplation, 

and self-reliance rather than inhibit them, must begin by respecting differences in age, 

sex, and interest. In particular, the integrity suggested by the word “bedroom” [is] its 

meaning as a realm of solitude, for rest, sleep, and love . . . . The lock or buffer zone 

necessary between the private world and the world of the family can accommodate all of 

these. (pp. 214-215) 


Evolution of the American Master Bedroom 

The 17th Century 


Colonial American housing for the average immigrant household at the opening of the 

17th century was minimal as compared to single-family homes of the 20th and 21st centuries. An 

early historian, Edward Johnson, remarked of the colonists, 

They burrow themselves into the earth for their first shelter under some hillside. Casting 

earth aloft upon timber, they make a smoky fire against the earth, thus these poor servants 

of Christ provide shelter for themselves, their wives and little ones, keeping off all the 

short showers from their lodgings, but the long rains penetrate through . . . yet in these 

poor wigwams they sing psalms, pray and praise their God, till they can provide them 

houses.” (Andrews, 1978, p. 35) 

More typically, however, the newly arrived settlers built shelters most likely modeled 

after a similar house type in England and consisting of one room on one floor in which all 

domesticity occurred. There, the occupants prepared and ate meals, accomplished other chores, 

lived as a family unit, received visitors, and slept. Toward mid-19th century Johnson declared, 

“[t]he Lord hath been pleased to turn all the wigwams, huts, and hovels the English dwelt in at 

their first coming into orderly, fair, and well-built houses” (Andrews, 1978, p. 35). 


By the 18th century the average American house had expanded to two or three rooms on 

one floor, with perhaps an additional loft, in a space rarely exceeding 600 square feet (see Figure 

2, Typical plans of New England Colonial houses). Room allocation or home planning occurred 

according to the owner's social status and not by household activity, as would later develop 

(Cromley, 1991). 



------------------------Insert figure2.tif about here----------------------- 

Status planning, practiced at all income levels, accomplished its objective by exhibiting 

the homeowner's best furnishings to guests and relatives, and, sequentially, established the 

owner's social standing or rank in the community. Most everyday dwellings from that period are 

long gone, but Andrews (1978) confirmed of those of distinction remaining, 

“[T]he eighteenth century has left the record of its impersonality in the plans of nearly all 

of its famous buildings. A house was then likely to be designed not so much for an 

individual as a representative of a certain social group” (p. xxvi). 

In the more common two-room residence, cooking and other household tasks took place 

in the ground floor hall, into which visitors usually did not go. The adjacent parlor developed 

into the room for dining and receiving guests, and served as the home office and sometimes even 

the parents' or elders' sleeping chamber. The parlor highlighted the family's finest fittings. The 

first floor setting was the best location, day or night, from which to monitor home security and 

the comings-and-goings of the household (Cromley, 1991; Garrett, 1990; Heck, 1997; Garrett, 

Larkin, & Webb, 2001). 

In the mid-1700s American families had on average six to seven living children. Colonial 

women of both the 17th and 18th centuries bore many more children than did their European 

counterparts or American women of the modern period. Parents were more concerned with 

childbearing than with childrearing. Incentives included the need for labor to farm the widely 

available land, and prevalent social and religious principles that held childbearing as the sacred 

role of women. Nurturing or “mothering” of children, with all of the associated emotional and 

psychological attachments, did not begin until the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Scholten, 

1985). 



Children in the typical family slept two to three to a bed with several beds in a room, and 

in a room apart from their parents—typically in an attic or loft, a lean-to addition, or on a second 

floor (Cromley, 1991). Infants and ill young children were brought into the parents' chamber for 

nursing and care and slept with them or in a cradle or trundle (Cromley, 1991; Garrett, 1990). By 

1825 the master bedroom was often a separate space, though still on the main floor, and 

connected to the parlor and a defined dining room. It was sparsely furnished with normally just 

the bed, a bureau or wardrobe, and perhaps a washstand. Children continued to sleep apart from 

their parents in shared rooms on an upper sleeping floor (Cromley, 1991). 


By the turn of the 19th century, as individuals' fortunes improved in the developing 

nation, the focus of home planning for those of means moved from social status to activity 

planning. Separate rooms for different domestic requirements became important, in line with 

Chermayeff and Alexander’s (1965) thesis. Accessible undeveloped land meant one's dwelling 

could occupy more space; houses of the well-to-do generally increased in floor plan size and two 

or more stories grew to be the norm. With added square footage, privacy became the new status 

symbol. Distinct zones of domestic activity emerged: the social zone included areas of the home 

open to the public, such as the entry, living and dining rooms; the service zone included kitchen, 

laundry, and general maintenance areas; and the private zone included sleeping and personal 

hygiene areas (Cromley, 1991; Garrett, 1990). The zones, defined somewhat differently by 

Chermayeff and Alexander (1965), are still today considered the standard demarcations for home 

planning. 

While homes for Everyman were much promoted from the mid-19th century, the 

audience was primarily those of means. Published works by various planners and architects 



offered many possibilities, such as Andrew Downing’s Cottage Residences in 1842 and The 

Architecture of Country Houses in 1850, Gervase Wheeler’s Rural Homes or Sketches of Houses 

Suited to American Country Life and Homes for the People in Suburb and Country (1851; 

1855/1972), Orson Fowler’s The Octagon House: A Home for All (1853/1973), Calvert Vaux’s 

Villas and Cottages (1857/1968), Solon Robinson’s Facts for Farmers (1869), and others. In 

similar ways, these plan-books advocated the several ideals of the day—with recommendations 

about styles, construction, architectural detailing, plumbing, ventilation, and space planning— 

with variations dependent only upon the prospective owner’s desire, location (city or country), 

site, and wallet. Like the numerous home planning magazines of today’s popular press, these 

books included floor plans for each model proposed. 

Housing of every cost, Vaux (1857/1968) instructed, should start with the same space 

planning premise of needing first a kitchen, an “[i]nclosed lobby” or entry vestibule, and then a 

bedroom. The next step up in comfort and status was the addition of a living area separate from 

the kitchen, a hall with stair, and bedrooms on the upper level. Further additions could include a 

porch or “veranda,” a second stair, bathrooms, servant’s bedrooms, and individual rooms for 

special purposes such as the nursery, playroom, or sewing room. 

Homes, Vaux (1857/1968) implored, should be built for the love of one’s children 

because they “are mostly at home; it is their storehouse for amusement, their opportunity for 

relaxation, their main resource; and thus they are exposed to its influence for good or evil 

unceasingly” (p.115). Child-oriented spaces, however, were restricted to the home’s upper levels 

in order to preserve main-floor Victorian decor involving vulnerable piano shawls and fragile 

bric-a-brac as well as to keep children safe from injury by these (Calvert, 1992; Clark, 1986). 

Fowler (1853/1973) continued the discussion by recommending separate sleeping rooms for 



every child, “and, indeed, [all] permanent members of every family, should have a separate 

room, exclusively to himself or herself” (pp. 62-63), including hired help. He explained 

Sleeping by themselves is also a first-rate plan, both for health, and to prevent their 

imbibing any wrong thing from other children; nor are their slumbers disturbed by a 

restless bed-fellow. Nor do they keep each other awake nights, or in bed mornings, by 

talking. In fact, many most desirable ends does this plan subserve—at least enough to 

require its adoption by every parent who can afford it. (Fowler, 1853/1973, p. 64) 

Fowler urged his readers to understand “how much better every body can study, think, do 

business, any thing, in their own place, than in a place not theirs” (p. 63). Today’s homebuyers 

who can afford it have embraced Fowler’s recommendation of one child to a bedroom, in 

agreement with Chermayeff and Alexander’s (1965) thesis of individual-private space. 

A typical explanation of Victorian home planning for those with middle incomes and 

above is Wheeler’s (1855/1972): “The arrangement of both ground and chamber floors shows a 

liberal supply of all that can conduce to comfort and convenience in living” (p. 102). A part of 

this newly recognized comfort and convenience was the higher degree of separation and privacy 

from the social zone achieved for families and couples—and for mothers’ emerging focus on 

childrearing—by moving the master bedroom to the upper or bed chamber floor—the private 

zone, where older children's bedrooms and often a bathroom were already located. Speaking of 

one specific plan, but applicable to plan-books of the day, Vaux (1857/1968) succinctly wrote, 

“The chamber plan will be found to contain bedrooms, with a linen-room, bathroom, and water- 

closet, all easy of access, but planned with a special regard to privacy” (p. 215). Visitors did not 

normally frequent upper floors; those were for family activity. When considering the owners’ 

privacy, Wheeler (1851) pointedly suggested that their sleeping, dressing, bathing, and storage 



rooms be arranged carefully to be separate from those used by domestics. Usually, household- 

help areas were kept apart from family rooms by a hall and a floor level difference of two to 

three steps. A third floor, attic, or upper floor in a wing was reserved for servants, storage, or 

child activity space. 

Though home planning guides did not have specific recommendations for the placement 

of the master bedroom in relation to other family bedrooms, except for suggesting they be 

located on the same floor, the guides did suggest that adjacent rooms could be connected to serve 

as a nursery, a small child’s room, a master bath, or the parents’ additional clothes storage. 

Under the new status-driven planning formula involving privacy, the owner's bedroom moved 

easily to the second floor. The parent’s bedroom continued to be the hub of control, where 

mothering could be more immediate, and it often included: a separate sleeping and intimacy 

area; a sitting, reading or writing space intended primarily for the lady of the house (Clark, 

1986); closets and dressing room; and bathroom(s) (Cromley, 1991; Scholten, 1985; Sies, 1991; 

Weale, Croake, & Weale, 1977). This arrangement is also consistent with the model presented 

by Chermayeff and Alexander (1965). 

Not all home planners restricted bedrooms to an upper floor. Plan-books often presented 

a scheme or two recommending a bedroom on the main level. The rationale of these schemes 

was that a main floor bedroom could be used as a library, study, accessible sick room, coat room 

during parties, or as a guest room for the occasional overnight visitor (Fowler, 1853/1973; 

Robinson, 1869; Vaux, 1857/1968). Robinson argued strongly for the farmer’s wife in this 

regard. 

No woman, during the years of child-bearing, who does much of her own work, or 



oversees it when done by servants, should be compelled to go up and down stairs every 

hour of the day. Her sitting room, or family-room, bedroom, dining-room, kitchen . . . 

should all be on the same level. (Robinson, 1869, p. 279) 

Planners of the day understood the value of the sentiment and usually offered the option in their 

designs. 

Houses of the rising class continued to grow in size and become more elaborate 

throughout the 19th century, mirroring the ever-burgeoning economy, accessible land, and 

builders' efforts to market dreams of success and prestige as portrayed in plan-books. Early in the 

19th century, one writer, complaining in the New England Farmer that even farmhouses were 

getting too large and showy, noted, 

There is nothing . . . more pleasing or delightful than a small house . . . . The wish to be 

thought of more importance than we really are, and the notion that this importance will be 

estimated from the spacious mansions in which we reside, is too prevalent among every 

class of society . . . (Small, 1997, p. 34) 


Housing became much more obtainable for the average family at the beginning of the 

20th century; homebuilders for the speculatively-built market helped fill the demand, as did pre- 

fabricated varieties such as those sold most notably by Sears, Roebuck and Company from 1908 

– 1940. Except for those of the very well-to-do, homes were smaller, simpler, and more 

streamlined in every regard than those of the century just past. This change reflected the nation’s 

increasing industrialization and the resulting shortage of adequate household staff. Only four 

high-end models offered by Sears planned service or servant areas. The standardization of 

building materials and factory-built components also helped keep construction affordable. In the 



main, new single-family average homes of the period continued to possess two-to-three family 

bedrooms and a shared bathroom on the compact upper level with perhaps the option of a 

bedroom on the main floor. The explosion of single-family housing, starting with this century, 

continued through World War I until the Depression in the 1930s (Clark, 1986, Volz , 1992). 

The ordinary house maintained a modest 900 square feet on average in new 

developments just after World War II (Weale et al., 1977; What is a House, 1999). Beginning in 

the 1950s with the post-war economic boom, the typical home grew to an average of 1,000 

square feet (NAHB, 2003; US Census Bureau, 2000). The increase in square footage may in part 

be attributed to larger room sizes, but more so to the addition of multiple bathrooms—several for 

family members, a separate facility for guests, and the bathroom of the homeowner off of a 

master bedroom suite. These additional “locks” or “buffers,” as outlined by Chermayeff & 

Alexander (1965), made the home’s private zone even more distinct. Throughout the 1950s, the 

master bedroom was located away from family activity and was the least accessible room in 

planning and concept (Clark, 1986; Weale et al., 1977). 

According to the US Census and the NAHB, between 1970 and 2002 the average new 

American single-family home increased from 1,500 square feet to over 2,300 square feet 

(AmeriStat, 2003; NAHB, 2003; US Census Bureau, 2000). However, during a similar period, 

1970-2000, the average household size decreased from 3.1 to 2.6 persons (US Census Bureau, 

2002). The size of new US single-family houses has been increasing about 500 square feet every 

20 years. As the size of new houses increased, the number of people per household decreased. 

The trend is continuing. Each family member now has more personal space in the house—the 

“room of one’s own”—in which to express their individualism and independence. 


The Owner’s Retreat 


The master bedroom is now often referred to as the “owner’s retreat," both in compliance 

with nondiscriminatory language required by US federal civil rights and fair housing laws, and in 

order to convey the sense of sanctuary. While the term “owner” accurately describes the users of 

the owner’s retreat, the term “retreat” implies an increased emphasis on the privacy and 

relaxation that the space is designed to offer. Designers of new single-family homes of most any 

size usually locate this bedroom on the main living level, often near the front door, and often as 

the only private zone on the primary floor (NAHB, 2004). Other bedrooms are generally found 

on a different level, or are greatly separated from the owners' sleeping quarters if on the same 

level. This shift back to 17th century space planning began in the mid-1980s or early 1990s. 

Wherever it is located, the owners' retreat of today occupies a disproportionately large amount of 

space in the home. Writing in 1995 about home planning for Progressive Architecture, architect 

Philip Langdon noted. 

The master retreat can be taken as a practical response to the lack of visual and acoustic 

privacy in the main portion of the house; here is a secluded spot that parents can escape 

to when children are nosily hanging out in the family room . . . .The master retreat 

reflects a profound change American society has undergone in the past 40 years: a 

movement from the child-centered orientation of the immediate postwar years, when the 

family room was invented for use by youngsters and parents together, to today's adult- 

focused sybaritic outlook. (Langdon, 1995, pp. 46-47) 

Indeed, it is not uncommon for the owner’s retreat to be outfitted with amenities similar to those 

of resorts, such as: double entry doors; a sitting or entertainment area; an office, study, or 

library; a wet bar or even a kitchenette (Remich, 2002); walk-in closets; dressing rooms with 



full-length mirrors; large his-and-her bathrooms with multi-headed or deluge showers; a fitness 

area; a fireplace or two; numerous windows; architectural elements such as columns and lighted 

niches; and luxurious interior finish materials (Langdon, 1995; NAHB, 2004; M. Schumacher, 

personal communication, February 26, 2003). 

The following examples are fairly representative of home planning concepts and square-foot 

sizes, if not architectural styles, of houses currently being built nationwide in the US (see Figures 

3-8). Note that the owners’ retreat occupies fully a third to half of the floor upon which it is 

located. 

----------Insert figure3.tif, figure4.tif, figure5.tif, figure6.tif, figure7.tif, and figure8.tif 

about here--------- 

Homebuilders report that they build only what new homebuyers request. This includes 

the owner's retreat on the main level, separated from other bedrooms. Findings of the nationwide 

survey of home buyer preferences conducted by the NAHB, What 21st Century Home Buyers 

Want (NAHB Economics, 2001), confirm the testimony of Steve’s Best Built Homes and 

Schumacher Homes, the two regional builders surveyed in the small convenience sampling. 

[The remainder of the manuscript has been omitted.] 


References 


Adams, B. (2002, October 13). Parents and grown children expand on the concept of two-family 

homes. Plain Dealer, pp. E1, E8. 

Allen, P. S., Stimpson, M. F., & Jones, L. M. (2000). Beginnings of interior environments (8th 

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Alsop, R. (1999, April 29). A special background report on trends in industry and finance. The 

Wall Street Journal, p. A1. 

Altman, I., & Chemers, M. M. (1980). Culture and environment. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. 

AmeriStat (2003, March). While US households contract, homes expand. Washington, DC: 

Population Reference Bureau. www.prb.org. Retrieved July 26, 2003, from 

http://www.ameristat.org/PrintTemplate.cfm?Section=Ameristat 

Andrews, W. (1978). Architecture, ambition, and Americans: A social history of American 

architecture. New York: The Free Press. 

Ball, H. L., Hooker, E., & Kelly, P. J. (1999). Where will the baby sleep? Attitudes and practices 

of new and experienced parents regarding cosleeping with their newborn infants. 

American Anthropologist, 101(1), 143-151. 

Brazelton, T. B. (1992). Touchpoints: The essential reference. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 

Calvert, K. (1992). Children in the house, 1890-1930. In J. H. Foy & T. J. Schlereth (Eds.), 

American home life, 1880-1930: A social history of spaces and services (pp. 75-93). 

Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press. 

Chermayeff, S., & Alexander, C. (1965). Community and privacy: Toward a new architecture of 

humanism. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. 



Clark, Jr., C. E. (1986). The American family home, 1800-1960. Chapel Hill, NC: The University 

of North Carolina Press. 

Cromley, E. C. (1990). Sleeping around: A history of American beds and bedrooms. Journal of 

Design History, 3(1), 1-17. 

Cromley, E. C. (1991). A history of American beds and bedrooms. In T. Carter & B. L. Herman 

(Eds.), Perspectives in vernacular architecture, IV (pp. 177-186). Columbia, MO: 

University of Missouri Press. 

Fowler, O. S., (1973). A home for all, or the gravel wall and octagon mode of building. In The 

octagon house: A home for all. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. (Original work 

published 1853) 

Garrett, E. D. (1990). At home: The American family 1750-1870. New York: Harry Abrams. 

Garrett, W., Larkin, D., & Webb, M. (2001). American home: From colonial simplicity to the 

modern adventure. New York: Universe Publishing. 

Grant, J. (1998). Raising baby by the book: The education of American mothers. New Haven, 

CT: Yale University Press. 

Harkness, S., Super, C. M., & van Tijen, N. (2000). Individualism and the “Western Mind” 

reconsidered: American and Dutch parents’ ethnotheories of the child. New Directions 

for Child and Adolescent Development, 87, 23-39. 

[The remaining references have been omitted.] 


FIGURE/TABLE CAPTIONS: 

Figure 1. Anatomy of Dwelling: People (Chermayeff, S. & Alexander, C. (1965). Community 

and privacy: Toward a new architecture of humanism. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books) 

Figure 2. Typical plans of New England Colonial houses (Philip White)(Morrison, 1952) 

Figure 3. The Annabelle. 2,183 square feet (www.Schumacherhomes.com) 

Figure 4. The Annabelle. Note the composition and prominent location of the owners' retreat 

in this one story. It occupies approximately a third of the home’s living area and is separated 

from other bedrooms by the wide-open social zone of the great room and dining, and the service 

zone of kitchen. (www.Schumacherhomes.com) 

Figure 5. The Homestead. 2,635 square feet (www.Schumacherhomes.com) 

Figure 6. The Homestead. Second floor plan. The owners' retreat occupies nearly half of the 

second floor. See that the walk-in closet is room-size. Other bedrooms are on the same floor in 

the private zone, but separated from the retreat by the stairwell and game room. 

(www.Schumacherhomes.com) 

Figure 7. The Olivia. 3,154 square feet (www.Schumacherhomes.com) 

Figure 8. The Olivia. First floor plan. Note the composition and prominent location of the 

owners' retreat in this two story. It occupies more than a third of the wide-open first floor living 

area. All other bedrooms are on a different level. (www.Schumacherhomes.com) 

SAMPLE TABLES & FIGURES CAPTIONS 

PAGE

SAMPLE SUBMISSION - Interior Design Educators Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?