From Wardrobes to Walk-Ins.
The majority of homes built in the past did not include closets as a typical storage space.
The belief that built-in closets were absent in historic homes because of colonial tax laws on additional rooms has become a common but false claim. Research conducted by institutions such as Colonial Williamsburg and Mount Vernon confirms that no such “closet tax” was levied in the American colonies, where this story often originates.
The lack of built-in storage in homes during this period resulted from economic factors and cultural and architectural practices of the time, which show how design affects consumption behaviors.
The Misunderstood Tax History
The “closet tax” confusion likely stems from misapplied references to actual European revenue policies.
The Window Tax: In England, the window tax was enforced from 1696 to 1851. Because the number of windows was used as a basis for property valuation, homeowners did brick up windows to reduce their tax burden. This legitimate tax on a visible architectural feature was likely conflated with the idea of a closet tax.
Historical evidence shows no indication that builders avoided constructing closets because of tax assessment rules that defined habitable rooms by size and lighting standards.
The actual lack of built-in closets was a consequence of how people lived and owned property.
The Real Factors Driving Architectural Design
Federal, Georgian, and other early American homes did not include built-in storage because of three main reasons.
Minimal Personal Possessions
Before the Industrial Revolution, making clothing required extensive manual labor, which resulted in very costly and long-lasting garments. Consequently, individuals, even the wealthy, owned significantly fewer articles of clothing than the average person does today. There was no practical requirement for a large, dedicated storage space to house seasonal or abundant fashion items.
Reliance on Movable Assets
Storage needs were fulfilled through free-standing furniture items, including armoires, wardrobes, chests, and clothes presses. These items served two purposes: they protected valuable belongings while simultaneously showcasing the owner’s status and taste. They also functioned as movable assets. Because people moved infrequently and property rules were less flexible, families preserved value in goods they could take with them, unlike permanent architectural components.The Function of Early “Closets”
The earliest “closets” were generally not used for clothing. These small enclosed rooms served as private spaces for reading, prayer, study, and safeguarding important items like documents and books. They were retreats for solitude rather than storage spaces for garments.
The Sustainability Implication of Built-In Storage
The built-in closet became a standard feature in homes after World War II. The post-war economic boom and the rise of consumer culture led people to acquire more personal possessions than ever before, and the construction industry responded by making fixed storage spaces a staple of contemporary home design.
This architectural transformation demonstrates how design directly affects resource consumption.
When homes are designed with very large storage spaces, they implicitly encourage maximum accumulation, which in turn necessitates larger overall home footprints. Larger homes require more construction materials and greater energy for heating and cooling.
A sustainable approach recognizes this dynamic. The primary goal of modern residential design should be to create efficient storage systems that meet current needs while avoiding unnecessary secondary spaces. Buying secondhand goods and right-sizing storage supports mindful consumption, leading to lower material and energy use.
Before the Closet: When Furniture Moved With You
A sustainable approach recognizes this dynamic. The primary goal of modern residential design should be to create efficient storage systems that meet current needs while avoiding unnecessary secondary spaces.