wiltshire
2025-10-16 00:04:21
- #1
A wonderful image, and I would agree with you if there were no wardrobes in the way. With a depth of 50, there is still 1.50 left. If you open a wardrobe door, you only have 1m at that spot, and if on the other side a drawer or also a door is opened, you have 50cm. And if you want to see yourself completely in the mirror, you also have no distance, because on the long side where that would be possible there are windows and a door. We have the wardrobe as a room divider between the head end of the bed and the entrance to the bathroom. There is about 1.5m of space in front of it. That is great for taking things out and putting them away, but I wouldn’t plan it as a dressing area. We laugh today about the small kitchens of houses from the 60s to 80s, which are now considered nonfunctional. The same will be true for the much too small dressing rooms and pantries in a few years. These rooms are luxury and cost extra square meters. In a tightly dimensioned house, I consider these rooms a priority to be questioned, as they take up too much space while fulfilling their function too little.With a width of 250, it is wide enough to hop around on one leg, then bend down extensively to take off your pants, positioned between two wardrobes opposite each other.