Nothing half-baked
Living well in small spaces requires thinking big. That is particularly
true when it comes to designing kitchens, where the size of most major
appliances is a primary concern.
at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050...3333-8279r.htm

why?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nothing half-baked
> Living well in small spaces requires thinking big. That is particularly
> true when it comes to designing kitchens, where the size of most major
> appliances is a primary concern.
> at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050...3333-8279r.htm
>

wrote:
> Nothing half-baked
> Living well in small spaces requires thinking big. That is
> particularly true when it comes to designing kitchens, where
> the size of most major appliances is a primary concern. [snip]

Unless you're talking closet-sized kitchens this is a solution in
search of a problem. Our kitchen is very small -- one step from
refrigerator/freezer to sink to stove/oven. Counter space that
requires discipline to keep working space open. But all the appliances
are normal size and that presents no problems. I very much prefer it
this way and will never willingly have a large kitchen. Just stay out
of my way as I step and turn from one place to the other. -aem

aem wrote:
> wrote:
> > Nothing half-baked
> > Living well in small spaces requires thinking big. That is
> > particularly true when it comes to designing kitchens, where
> > the size of most major appliances is a primary concern. [snip]
>
> Unless you're talking closet-sized kitchens this is a solution in
> search of a problem. Our kitchen is very small -- one step from
> refrigerator/freezer to sink to stove/oven. Counter space that
> requires discipline to keep working space open. But all the
appliances
> are normal size and that presents no problems. I very much prefer it
> this way and will never willingly have a large kitchen. Just stay
out
> of my way as I step and turn from one place to the other. -aem

That's how real working kitchens are supposed to be (no wasted
motion)... consider the space to food prepared ratio in shipboard
galleys... an amazing volume in a very short time from a very small
space (next time yoose go on a luxury cruise check out the galley).
Most modern kitchens in homes nowadays are like three times larger than
they need to be, they're poorly designed functionally but great for
display/snob appeal.

Sheldon wrote:

> That's how real working kitchens are supposed to be (no wasted
> motion)... consider the space to food prepared ratio in shipboard
> galleys... an amazing volume in a very short time from a very small
> space (next time yoose go on a luxury cruise check out the galley).
> Most modern kitchens in homes nowadays are like three times larger than
> they need to be, they're poorly designed functionally but great for
> display/snob appeal.

Same as the older train galleys. I wish I could
have seen them work in action. I don't mean the
specialty dining trains nowadays, but the common
everyday dining car type trains run over 50 years
ago? I've always been fascinated by the idea.
Goomba

Goomba38 wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > That's how real working kitchens are supposed to be (no wasted
> > motion)... consider the space to food prepared ratio in shipboard
> > galleys... an amazing volume in a very short time from a very small
> > space (next time yoose go on a luxury cruise check out the galley).
> > Most modern kitchens in homes nowadays are like three times larger
than
> > they need to be, they're poorly designed functionally but great for
> > display/snob appeal.
>
> Same as the older train galleys. I wish I could
> have seen them work in action. I don't mean the
> specialty dining trains nowadays, but the common
> everyday dining car type trains run over 50 years
> ago? I've always been fascinated by the idea.

I rode on overnight train trips several times as a kid in the
'50s/early 60's. I certainly remember how small those kitchens were,
but the dining car wasn't huge either... I think 48 people is about
right.

sf wrote:


> I rode on overnight train trips several times as a kid in the
> '50s/early 60's. I certainly remember how small those kitchens were,
> but the dining car wasn't huge either... I think 48 people is about
> right.

I only did it once, and it was into the 70s when
they'd already been cutting back. But I recall
that they had *fabulous* apple pie a la mode. The
ice cream was a big square slab, I recall?
And the waiters made you write down your order.
You couldn't just tell them, for some reason?
Goomba

On 20 Mar 2005 11:44:41 -0800, "sf" > wrote:

(The first few articles in this subject haven't appeared in my
newsreader, so I'm piggybacking on your post.)

I found the article with Google. A couple of thoughts- I had to get a
new refrigerator about a year ago. I had been watching for about that
long because I knew it would be tough finding a refrigerator to fit.
The problem was depth: front-to-back measurement. Tall was fine,
there was some width flexibility, but depth... My problem is that the
kitchen is so small that the refrigerator front was flush with a door
jamb. Apartment-size wouldn't have the capacity I wanted. The
"counter-depth" or "built-in" refrigerators were pretty expensive. I
lucked out on a sale and have a counter depth refrigerator with more
space than my old one.

Ironically, my sister has a normal size kitchen and had a double
problem- not only front-to-back, but there were cabinets above the
refrigerator that limited the size. When her refrigerator went, she
ended up replacing the motor and whatever and keeping the unit.

I called manufacturers and asked them WHY is the new standard
refrigerator size so much bigger, when so many people have counters of
a certain depth. The answer was that the energy-efficiency
requirements meant more insulation and to keep the capacity the same,
the outside measurements were larger. I don't know, I don't see all
that much increase in thickness of the walls.

Having said that, I have noticed since I bought mine, there are more
"counter-depth" refrigerators in stores. Oh well, I still like mine
best :>

About small kitchens, of which I am VERY familiar... yes, they are
great to work in. The problem is storage. I'm fortunate in that my
basement is pretty convenient but I'd love to have all my stuff on the
same floor and right at hand. Also, everything in the kitchen is
nested so well that I have to disassemble stuff too often in order to
get a bowl!


Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Curly Sue wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2005 11:44:41 -0800, "sf" > wrote:
>
> (The first few articles in this subject haven't appeared in my
> newsreader, so I'm piggybacking on your post.)
>
<snip>
>
> Ironically, my sister has a normal size kitchen and had a double
> problem- not only front-to-back, but there were cabinets above the
> refrigerator that limited the size. When her refrigerator went, she
> ended up replacing the motor and whatever and keeping the unit.
>
> I called manufacturers and asked them WHY is the new standard
> refrigerator size so much bigger, when so many people have counters
of
> a certain depth. The answer was that the energy-efficiency
> requirements meant more insulation and to keep the capacity the same,
> the outside measurements were larger. I don't know, I don't see all
> that much increase in thickness of the walls.
>
Also - the newer ones have louder motors according to my mother, whose
refrigerator is newer than mine.

> Having said that, I have noticed since I bought mine, there are more
> "counter-depth" refrigerators in stores. Oh well, I still like mine
> best :>
>
> About small kitchens, of which I am VERY familiar... yes, they are
> great to work in. The problem is storage. I'm fortunate in that my
> basement is pretty convenient but I'd love to have all my stuff on
the
> same floor and right at hand.
>
I have medium sized kitchen. Plenty big to the common oogler, but not
big enough when you realize there is no dedicated pantry area.
>
> Also, everything in the kitchen is
> nested so well that I have to disassemble stuff too often in order to
> get a bowl!
>
Shades of my kitchen! I'm the only one who can "pack it" so everone
else has trouble when they put things away.

About small kitchens, of which I am VERY familiar... yes, they are
great to work in. The problem is storage. I'm fortunate in that my
basement is pretty convenient but I'd love to have all my stuff on the
same floor and right at hand. Also, everything in the kitchen is
nested so well that I have to disassemble stuff too often in order to
get a bowl!


Sue(tm)

Most folks simply have way too much "stuff", including me. As a very
small example I have more than 20 assorted coffee mugs in my kitchen
cabinets (just counted), not including the cups from dish sets. No one
needs 20 coffee mugs, most of which haven't been used, as in never. My
kitchen is far from cluttered but still I admit I have way too much
"stuff" in my cupboards... I don't even want to talk about what's in my
basement. I moved not two years ago and got rid of more kitchen
"stuff" than most people will ever have, yet I still have way too much
"stuff". And I don't put anything into the very bottom space of my
kitchen counter cupboards, "stuff" gets lost forever down there.

Sheldon wrote:

> And I don't put anything into the very bottom space of my
> kitchen counter cupboards, "stuff" gets lost forever down there.
>


What - you mean you don't invite the bears that frequent the woods up there
into those cupboards to hibernate for the winter...???

--
Best
Greg