'Despite its seeming originality, the “ideal kennel” proposal drew critical comments from fellow dog fanciers. Significantly, these centered not on the need to reform kennel design per se, but on the extent to which the writer had focused on alleviating the work of kennelmaids rather than catering for the needs of dogs. A Kennelmaid’s most vehement critic, one Mrs. Normandy Rockwell, noted that she herself made “a hobby of planning houses, kennels and stables,” and that the proposed scheme seemed to “be designed for the saving of the kennelmaid’s legs” rather than creating a healthy environment. The square layout of the original plan, Rockwell contended, would mean that “half the dogs would be boiled alive in summer and the other half frozen to death in winter” and would create “air-stagnation.” She could “imagine nothing more boring, and nothing more likely to teach a dog to sit and bark aimlessly from that boredom, for it to have nothing but yard and other kennels to look at,” and suggested that this would “make for shyness [in the dogs] too.” Rockwell then offered her own bucolic vision, which had more in common with the sales pitches of suburban estate agents than the schemes of domestic architects. [note: 'Peter Scott, The Making of the Modern British Home: The Suburban Semi and Family Life between the Wars (Oxford, 2013), 108–27.']' (313)