Cross-posted at Femme-O-Nomics
Vernacular house forms are economic diagrams of the reproduction of the human race; they are also aesthetic essays on the meaning of life within a particular culture, its joys and rituals, its superstitions and stigmas. House forms cannot be separated from their physical and social contexts. (Hayden 1984: 98)
The history of American home architectural design and the design of suburban space were never foregone conclusions. From about 1870 through 1930, American home architecture was the topic of heated debate. The homes that we live in today, their spatial arrangements, barriers, rituals, and traditions, and the shapes, uses, and meanings of our neighborhoods were fiercely debated topics. And the debates that emerged out of the late 19th century still structure our lives today.
What kind (of kinds) of home(s) Americans needed has always been a question without a simple answer—with many competing perspectives. The designs of our home not only allocates our belongings throughout the house, it structures the ways in which we interact with one another and the communities in which we live.
Dolores Hayden suggests that building programs competed to define American homes. Overly simplified, a “building program” is a statement concerning the spatial and architectural requirements of some built space, typically defining the type of building along with a list of the sorts of activities that the building is intended to shelter (sleeping, eating, cooking, playing, lounging, entertaining, etc.). At a general level, building programs communicate the requirements (economic, technical, social) of a building, including an explanation of how the built space accommodates the activities it is intended to house. But buildings do more than accommodate social interactions. They also structure our interactions, preclude or present the possibility of interactional flexibility, and make symbolic boundaries physical.
Inequality by (Interior) Design 