Part of that is BECAUSE of the architectural style of many suburbs. I mentioned that I know a lot of people who have been inconvenienced by houses that have a large “master bedroom” and a bunch of smaller bedrooms, because that isn’t a good allocation of space for their living group. Some live in very old houses built before “masters suites” got so prominent. Some live in new construction where they were able to request approximately equal-sized large bedrooms. Some live in old city apartments. Few live in the suburban houses built in the 50s-90s.
Why should that be a reason to object to them?
This proposed change most certainly didn’t come out of nowhere, or out of the imagination of some lone member of the Real Estate Board, or even out of the joint imagination of all of them. It is indeed a response to changes in the culture. What you seem to be objecting to is that they didn’t wait until you think that the culture has already changed sufficiently. But the culture doesn’t change sufficiently without at least some such groups being part of the change.
And I can say that in the rural farming area where I live, there’s quite a high percentage of single-family houses occupied by one or more adults with no minor children; and some are occupied by adults with minor children but also with other adults not all sharing the same bedroom.
– statistics on this seem hard to come by; while there are statistics for whether there are married people in a household, there don’t seem to be any for whether there are additional adult family members, let alone who shares bedrooms or which of them gets to use the largest bedroom. From what I can find, well under half of the households in the USA have minor children; though it’s often unclear how the site’s defining ‘household’. So it does seem that your particular neighborhood may be like that; but overall it’s the minority situation. Your neighborhood may be designed to attract families with small kids, and the houses may be designed to best fit a family arrangement that’s made up of one couple with two or three kids; in which case that’s mostly who those particular houses are going to sell to.
My wife and I (empty nesters) are looking at houses again, having moved into a three bedroom condo three years ago and deciding we prefer a house.
Our condo, new construction, target demographic including some families, some empty nesters, some older moving to be near their adult kids and grandkids, some who leave to Floridian the summer … all three bedrooms with a larger room bathroom en suite … sold as master.
Looking there was a house with advertised Jack and Jill bathroom renovated in, and quite a few older homes with smaller bedrooms merged into a larger one some with with an en suite bath and one with a large sitting area with a gas fireplace. Yes advertised as master more than as primary. None of those for us but they will sell fast.
As empty nesters we want a small house with a decent sized room for us and two smaller extra bedrooms for when our adult kids and possibly future grandchildren come to visit and otherwise to use as office spaces. We found one to make an offer on. The smaller rooms wouldn’t fit the queen sized bed nor have enough closet space for the two of us. The biggest one does. One full bath upstairs is fine.
The housing stock responds to the market, it does not create the household structures. (Right now it seems the market is demanding fancy finished basements with bars; I just want a place to store my shit and to have my exercise equipment.)
As there is more demand for equal sized bedrooms you’ll see them on the market.
As for master vs primary - I understand both. No big deal to me either way. My wife says master bedroom and I’m not correcting her. I know better than that. I’ll personally follow common usage as it becomes the more common more likely than not.
This. I have never associated this term with slavery, it does call to mind a family pecking order. It’s not an issue I would fight tooth an nail over, but if there was a chance to adopt more neutral/egalitarian language, I would welcome it.
In 1989 or 1990, my parents and I were on a walk. We went to view a new house under construction (one of the first “monster homes” / “McMansions” to spring up in West Willowdale, then our almost unifromly post-war bungalow/sidesplit/story-and-a-half neighborhhood.) Believe it or not, the real estate agent pointed out an area designated as “the servants’ quarters”. At 9 or 10, I was quite taken aback by the notion. Such a posh living concept seemed out of place in a middle class neighborhood such as ours.
The only thing I could imagine would be a suite for a nanny, if the mom worked long hours. Does anyone have live-in maids/housekeepers other than the very wealthy?
My mother, who is old, feeble, and developing dementia, has had a live in caretaker since she returned from rehab, after having broken her pelvis.
Yes, she’s wealthy enough to afford that. But the other options are pricey, too.
I consider that in a different class, I guess. When I hear ‘servant’ in relation to a home, my mind usually goes to women who were only middle class (and maybe even SAHMs) who had their ‘girl’ helping around the house.
I guess, but her second bedroom has been switched from being her office to being the bedroom for the aid. If she actually had “servant quarters” we’d be using it as such.
I mean, i agree that it’s odd to have servant quarters in new construction. And I’m surprised they called it that, and not a “MIL suite”.