Courtyards, verandahs, dressing corners, meditation nooks—used every day, yet rarely prioritised in planning.
In most contemporary houses, usefulness has become synonymous with storage. A space earns its keep if it can hold wardrobes, appliances, boxes and excess things whose use is few and far between. Rooms are evaluated by how efficiently they absorb objects, and corners that do not store are seen as wasted. The assumption is simple: if a space cannot be filled, it is not doing enough. In this mindset, there is little room for spaces that exist not to contain things, but to allow movement, transition, rest, or simply presence.
If we look back at traditional Indian houses, space was never something to be filled indiscriminately; it was treated with hierarchy. Courtyards, verandahs, thresholds and semi-open rooms were essential to how a home functioned. Joint family systems meant homes were designed around shared occupation rather than individual optimisation. Spaces accommodated gatherings, rituals and moments of overlap. Neither fully private nor public, they were transitional and communal. Their usefulness lay in their ability to absorb people, not objects.
As families became more nuclear and homes more compact, planning shifted toward efficiency and fixed functions. Living rooms became formal and often underused, while bedrooms turned storage-heavy and inward-facing. What disappeared were the informal spaces that once allowed flexibility and ease. Contemporary homes now operate in extremes, between spaces meant to be seen and zones designed to conceal clutter and maximise storage.
There is little allowance for the human body in between, raising a fundamental question: if homes are designed to accommodate things, where do people actually live? Houses are often planned as collections of rooms rather than environments responsive to behaviour. In prioritising visual order and storage, we overlook the need for decompression and the physical and mental rhythms of daily life.
Reintroducing these so-called non-useful spaces does not require larger homes; it requires more mindful planning. It begins with questioning rigid zoning and moving away from layouts that assign every square foot a fixed function. Circulation areas can be widened to allow seating or informal use. Bedrooms can be planned with fewer storage-heavy walls to make room for dressing areas or natural light. Transitional zones between rooms can become usable floor areas rather than mere passage.
Designing homes around human living means acknowledging how people actually occupy space. Dressing corners, prayer niches, reading spots, window-side seating and open family zones are not luxuries but support for daily routines that do not fit neatly into the categories of living room or bedroom. These spaces are used repeatedly throughout the day, often more than formal areas that remain untouched.
Perhaps the issue is not the lack of space, but how narrowly we define its function. Indian homes have long relied on shared, in-between spaces to support everyday life. As homes become more compact and lifestyles more demanding, these spaces become even more critical. A home that makes room only for things will always feel full, yet never complete.
