“Your room is your sanctuary—your bed, your desk, your space to breathe. Need silence for a long call? A corner to think? It’s waiting for you. And when you want a change of scenery, the garden room is there for a night away from it all, wrapped in the quiet scent of herbs and spice plants. Or when family visits, the large room opens up—bright, spacious, the kind of space that makes guests feel genuinely at home.”
— The architect, 2026
The science converges on a clear principle: communal living thrives when private space is protected, not sacrificed. Even a small personal space—a room one can fully control—provides the psychological “backstage” needed for restoration, identity, and growth. Without it, the sustained effort of communal performance creates chronic stress that ultimately undermines the very community it was meant to build. The ideal design is not a trade-off between community and privacy, but an intentional architecture of both.
The foundational framework here comes from Irwin Altman’s privacy regulation theory (1975). Altman defined privacy as a dialectical process of regulating interpersonal barriers, varying in relation to time, context, and length of contact—and crucially, the ability to control these interactions is closely related to self-development (Macedo et al., 2022). This means privacy isn’t just about comfort—it’s tied to identity formation and psychological health.
According to this model, the key is control—the ability to decide when, how, and with whom you engage. When there’s a mismatch between desired and actual privacy—too much isolation or too much intrusion—stress, frustration, or loneliness follows. In communities with high social density (shared kitchens/lounges), the ability to retreat to a private cell—no matter how small—allows an individual to reset their “social battery,” preventing social withdrawal or aggression (Altman, 1975).
Building on Altman, Alan Westin (1967) identified four functions that private space serves: personal autonomy, emotional release, self-evaluation, and protected communication. Darhl Pedersen (1997) later expanded this empirically, identifying five functions of privacy: contemplation, autonomy, rejuvenation, confiding, and creativity.
The “Backstage” Function of a Room of One’s Own
Research drawing on Erving Goffman’s (1959) sociological framework highlights something crucial about shared living: the home constitutes an important instance of the societal backstage, allowing people to relax from efforts of self-presentation in other domains of social life. It is generally accepted that some spaces within the home may have a more public character (e.g., the living room, the kitchen), whereas other rooms are considered private almost by default. Without a private room, a person is always “onstage”—performing for their housemates—which is deeply exhausting over time (Macedo et al., 2022).
Environmental Restoration
Navigating social nuances in shared spaces requires “directed attention,” which is mentally exhausting. According to Rachel and Stephen Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (ART), private spaces that offer “being away” and “compatibility” with one’s needs are essential for recovering this cognitive energy (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).
Research on tiny homes and micro‑units finds that people often accept very small private rooms because they value rich shared spaces and social interaction, but they still rely on their unit as a place to withdraw, store belongings, and feel in control (Green & McCarthy, 2015). Work on small homes in dense cities shows no universal link between space size and wellbeing; instead, people’s satisfaction depends heavily on whether their personal area meets their expectations and offers a sense of autonomy and security (Park & Selman, 2018).
Experimental work on personal space shows that people accept smaller distances with in‑group members than with strangers or out‑group members, indicating that social relationships can compress personal space somewhat without discomfort (Novelli et al., 2010). Even so, the core finding is that some boundary is always there; people only relax in particular trusted contexts, which suggests that a private nook, bed‑area, or very small room can function as a crucial psychological boundary inside a highly shared community. Very small private spaces can still be effective if they allow: closing a door or curtain, control over noise/light, storage of personal items, and a sense that “this bit is mine” (Street, 2022).
“A room gives you a place to sleep. Living here gives you something more—a community that shares skills, resources, and the occasional home-cooked meal.”
Log in and make yourself at home:
References
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Green, S., & McCarthy, J. (2015). Is sharing the solution? Exploring the opportunities and challenges of privately rented shared accommodation for single people in housing need. People, Place and Policy Online, 9(3), 159–176.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Macedo, P. F., Ornstein, S. W., & Elali, G. A. (2022). Privacy and housing: Research perspectives based on a systematic literature review. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(4), 1851–1881.
Novelli, D., Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2010). Come together: Two studies concerning the impact of group relations on personal space. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 223–236.
Park, J., & Selman, P. (2018). The health and wellbeing of residents in small homes. RICS Research Trust.
Pedersen, D. M. (1997). Psychological functions of privacy. Psychological Reports, 80(1), 147–156.
Street, E. (2022). How tiny living spaces affect our wellbeing – individually and societally. University of Reading Research Blog.
Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Atheneum.
