It is ironic that we actually need to create these objects as scenery things, in order not to use them.
How about making only one such object as an omnipresent backdrop and then assign several names to it, through an “understand” rule?
The Attic is a room. "Thousands of useless crates and boxes suffocate the narrow space under the roof."
The Corridor is down from the Attic. "A narrow space dressed with old wall paper."
Unimportance is a backdrop. It is everywhere.
Understand "crate" or "crates" or "box" or "boxes" or "roof" or "wallpaper" or "wall paper" as unimportance.
Instead of doing something with unimportance, say "Nah, don't bother. There are more important things in this game." [Which sucks as a reply anyway, since it stinks of out-of-worldliness.]
Of course, this causes the problem of cancelling out every possible box or crate or roof the game could otherwise introduce in other parts of its geography.
I guess, the question I need to answer is, do I like such a reply? As I said, it is an out of world reply. It is not the narrator, but the story’s Great Architect who suddenly speaks…
This is resolved by:
Understand "crate" or "crates" or "box" or "boxes" or "roof" as unimportance when the location is the Attic. Understand "wallpaper" or "wall paper" as unimportance when the location is the Corridor.