stripping back kitchen joinery -...

M. A. Schnabel (ed.), Back to the Future: The Next 50 Years, (51st International Conference of the Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA)), ©2017, Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA), pp. 363–372.

Stripping Back Kitchen Joinery

Christina Mackay Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

[email protected]

Abstract: At the beginning of the 21st Century, new kitchen joinery was typically constructed of panels. The panels were fabricated of medium density fibreboard, using waste from the timber industry, and finished in melamine. The panel product does not patina well, has a short life and requires disposal in land‐fill because of its toxicity, but a large industry promotes and supports these ‘box’ system kitchens. As the world comes to terms with excessive consumption, unsustainable production systems and pollution, this kitchen joinery industry is an anomaly. The joinery design is ‘unacceptable’ for a sustainable world. In the context of the evolution of kitchen joinery in New Zealand and internationally, this paper proposes a new kitchen joinery system. Named Good Bones, the design does not have a ‘box’ carcase. It uses just drawers for storage, minimal robust materials and environmentally friendly finishes which can be user applied. The flexible assembly allows for design adaption to suit houses of different eras, personalization by consecutive owners, adaption to suit new appliances and possible relocation. Two prototype installations in Wellington, New Zealand are presented and reviewed. Users and joiners provide feed‐back, both on the design and possible implications for the current kitchen joinery industry.

Keywords: Kitchen joinery; sustainable design; design innovation.

1. Introduction

In 2010, the author reviewed the state of the New Zealand kitchen design industry and found problems with current joinery practice (Mackay, 2010). The sleek, shiny minimalist style may have been fashionable but it seemed unacceptable to continue to use melamine coated medium density fibreboard (mdf) to make ‘box’ carcasses. The product had a short lifecycle, contained toxins and was unable to meet ‘cradle‐to‐cradle’ best practice. With deleting global resources, it seemed unacceptable to waste material and energy in frequent kitchen re‐modelling. It seemed unacceptable for consumers to spend precious savings on overelaborate, over‐complex and expensive designs. During 2010, the author was involved in discussions and debates on kitchen design in New Zealand national media (Mackay, 2010). The question that was commonly asked by commentators and the general public was ‘what is the alternative to melamine board kitchen cabinetry?’ There was no easy answer.

The author acknowledged this challenge by experimenting with alternative joinery concepts. This paper presents the design process and rationale in the context of the evolution of 20th Century kitchen joinery. It presents prototypes for a new kitchen joinery system, named Good Bones. Prototype one bench

364 C. Mackay

unit was designed and partially fabricated by the author for her own home. A second prototype was designed for colleagues, but fabricated by a joiner. Interviews with the users and the joiner provided feed‐back on the joinery system.

2. Design Objectives

The objective of the design was to create an alternative approach to the current kitchen joinery panel system. To promote long term use, materials used were to be environmentally friendly, non‐toxic and durable. Selected materials should be able to patina gracefully but also be routinely cleaned and occasionally buffed up, re‐surfaced or repaired by the user. The system was to be economical in the use of material and be inherently flexible to allow alteration to suit new appliances or circumstances. The design was to recognize the strengths of traditional materials and fabrication but also make use of key 20th and 21st Century technological advances. Finally, the design system should be able to be customized to complement the design style of houses of different eras and to allow a degree of personalization by consecutive owners. The design process started with consideration of the sink bench and the cabinet underneath.

3. Changing Storage Patterns

Typically, early 20th Century sink benches made use of the space underneath to form a cupboard with double doors in the centre. (Figure 1).

Figure 9: This built‐in sink bench was match‐lined with the wooden top. (Source: Burt, ca 1932)

The unit often had a single shelf with more storage room underneath on the exposed floor; an area difficult to clean. The bulk of kitchen items were stored elsewhere. Crockery and cutlery were kept in a kitchen dresser and food and larger items in a safe; a large cupboard vented to the outside (Bell and Graham, 1905). Mid‐20th Century fitted kitchens integrated storage into a fitted kitchen, using cupboards

365


above the bench and a mixture of cupboards and drawers underneath. (Figure 2). In a wooden carcass, the wooden drawers were supported on waxed wooden drawer runners. To stop the drawers from falling out, the drawers could be only partially extended out of the cabinet. Over time runners wore down (particularly with heavy loads) and drawers jammed.

Figure 2: A design for wooden kitchen joinery promoted to carpentry apprentices in New Zealand from 1958 to 1975. (source: New Zealand Technical Correspondence Institute, 1958)

By 1977, factory applied polyester coated timber fibreboard panel systems became common and to improve sliding drawers were fitted on ‘easy‐rolling’ drawer slides (Conran, 1977). By the early 21st Century, European manufacturers Blum, Hafele and Hettich promoted highly machined double extension mild steel drawer slides which enabled drawers to be deep and wide, carry heavy loads, fully extend out the cabinet and to close softly. In 2005, Austrian kitchen designers, Blum, recognized the fundamental improvement in functionality offered by these drawer slides. They recommended that kitchen designs ‘avoid doors in lower cupboards (drawers and pull‐outs obviate unnecessary stooping and clearing)’ and ‘include fully extendable pull‐outs (these provide unrestricted overview and access)’ (Kesselring, 2006). Drawer slides continued to be secured to the side panels of a ‘box’ joinery system. However, these new runners also had structural integrity. They were not light profiles that required frequent fixings to a supporting rail or panel. The runners were capable of acting as a structural component between just two supports. Pairs of legs could support the drawer runners, as well as the bench top and any shelves required for supporting equipment (e.g. ovens or microwaves). In this case, the ‘box carcass’ made up of panels could be effectively redundant.

The storage concept of using only drawers supported on legs is the central idea of the proposed Good Bones joinery system and it has other implications for a kitchen bench design. The use of double extension runners allowed drawers to become wider and deeper. The storage efficiency of larger drawers is greater than for smaller drawers. Less space is taken up with drawer sides and runners and less material and components are required. Drawers of 600mm deep provide efficient storage for two rows of common

366 C. Mackay

kitchen items. Frequently used items can be located in the front half of the drawers and less used items stored in the rear. Allowing for a 50mm bench‐top overhang, a 15mm drawer front and tolerances, a 700mm deep bench top would result.

4. Bench‐top Considerations

Over the 20th Century, the depth of kitchen bench tops gradually increased. A 1905 sink bench was 450mm deep (Bell and Graham, 1905). In this kitchen, a central kitchen table was the main work surface so the sink bench was mainly used for rinsing and washing. Fifty years later, a 500mm bench was standard (NZTCI, 1958).The recommended depth then increased to 600mm to line through with standardized appliances (NKBA, 1996). In 2006, the space‐saving benefits of even deeper benches (725 to 800mm) were discussed. The extra width allowed work to be shifted to the back (Kesselring, 2006).

The Good Bones design proposal of a 700mm deep kitchen bench top has many advantages. There is space behind the working surface for the storage of commonly used utensils or appliances. A wall‐hung draining and storage rack for crockery can be positioned behind the sink. The drips can be collected within a swage and directed towards the sink. Typically a gas hob requires special non‐combustible lining behind the unit if the elements are closer than 200mm to the wall.A 700 wide bench can provide a distance greater than 200mm allowing the wall lining of the room to remain unobstructed. The increased depth also questions the need for a sink‐bench up‐stand or splash‐back. If excessive heat or water do not reach the wall then the bench‐top to wall junction can be reconsidered.

An early 20th Century sink bench top was typically wooden (Burt, ca 1932). New Zealand heart kauri could be scrubbed to a ‘velvet’ finish. Fixed plumbing pipework dictated the sink bench top should be built‐in so a timber bead was scribed to the wall. The terrazzo and stainless bench tops that followed were manufactured with an integrated up‐stand against the wall. This feature continued throughout the 20th Century in a wide variety of materials; plastic laminates, ceramic tiles, laminated timber and stone (Grey, 2004). More recently, the practice has been to laminate a sheet material to the wall and seal the gap to the bench top with silicon sealant. The New Zealand Building Code clause E3.3.6 requires the sealing of such joints stating ‘Surfaces of building elements likely to be splashed must be constructed in a way that prevents water splash from penetrating behind linings or into concealed spaces’. A ‘concealed space’ is defined as ‘any part of the space within a building that cannot be seen from an occupied space’ (MBIE, 2017).

Unlike a ‘box’ system, the ‘Good Bones’ kitchen bench has no concealed space behind or underneath it. Therefore, the sealing of the bench‐top to the wall is not required. However, a butt junction could gather dust or detritus and be difficult to clean. A straight bench‐top edge may not fit to an undulating wall surface in an older house. The simple solution is to separate the bench‐top from the wall with a 10mm gap. Such a gap provides a useful space to lodge the cords of kitchen appliances. It is wide enough to clean. On a rare occasion, an item dropped through the gap, it could easily be retrieved by removing a bottom drawer to gain access. A gap at each end of a wall bound bench top also allows useful installation tolerance.

While the gap to the wall is a significant feature, the Good Bones bench requires to be connected to the wall (and the floor) for its bracing. Bracing requirements have had a significant role in the evolution of kitchen joinery.

367


5. Changing Structural Systems

A built‐in 1906 sink bench unit inherently used the timber wall cladding and the floorboards for its bracing. Later, dowelled joints in timber framed cabinets ensured a rigid structure (NZTCI, 1974). ‘Frameless’, (or panel) systems rely on a sheet brace back panel. It also serves as a back to shelving. It allows for units to be fully assembled in the factory and be transported to the site as structurally independent ‘box’ units (Saxton, 2013).

The Good Bones system supports the bench‐top on ‘L’ brackets attached to the wall and legs which are precisely located (and secured) on the floor on adjustable feet. The pairs of legs are also stiffened through the multiple connections with the drawer slides and angle shelf supports.

Figure 3: Good Bones prototype 1. Following the removal of drawers and shelves, the legs (with drawer slides attached) and services are exposed. (source: Mackay, 2013)

In prototypes 1 and 2 stainless steel rectangular tube was selected for the legs. The legs could have been timber or mild steel, but stainless steel has the advantages of being durable, not requiring a coating, and stainless steel coordinated well functionally and visually with stainless steel adjustable feet. Holes were simply drilled through the tube section legs to take stainless steel machine screws and barrel nuts which supported the drawer slides or stainless steel ‘L’ angles holding shelves for the microwave and oven.

In prototypes 1 and 2, the layout of drawers fell into a natural pattern. Horizontal breaks were made at the base of the oven front and the microwave shelf. This allowed for three upper shallow drawers (for cutlery, utensils and cups) as well as a tall lower drawer (to take rubbish and recycling bins). The drawer under the sinks has an extended drawer front to conceal the sink bowls. The arrangement differs from current ‘box’ system in two ways. Firstly, all drawer sides and backs were just 90mm high. The drawers are effectively sliding trays. The feature uses minimal material, and provides a little extra space for bins or bowls to extend over the top of the sides or at the rear. Items are prevented from moving around by the use of non‐slip matting together with the soft‐close function of the drawer slide mechanisms. Should items ever become jammed behind a leg‐frame, the location can be easily accessed, unlike in ‘box’ joinery, via the adjacent drawer. The openness created by the minimal leg‐frames and low drawer sides is appealing. Nothing is hidden or closed off. The second unusual feature of the drawer layout is the absence of a recessed ‘toe space’.

368 C. Mackay

Figure 4: The good bones prototype 1 complete with a shelf for a microwave and timber drawers. (Source: Mackay, 2013)

The toe space was not a feature of 1900 kitchen bench joinery. The vertical match‐lining on the built‐in frame extended to the floor. Early experimental fitted kitchens of the 1920’s did not have a defined ‘toe space’ (Kinchin and O’Connor, 2011). In 1975, Terence Conran instructed that ‘base cupboards must have a continuous toe space along the bottom so that you can stand comfortably at the work area’ and defined the minimum size as ‘75mm high and 100mm deep’. More recently, ergonomics texts on kitchen joinery design, assumed the requirement for a recessed toe‐space without demonstrating the ergonomic need for the feature.Kitchen design guides continued to specify toe‐spaces (Baden‐Powell, 2005). In 2017, Austrian kitchen designers Bulthaup have created their b1 series with little or no toespace to cabinetry (Bulthaup, 2017).

The simple exercise of observing the position of one’s feet when standing in front of a bench suggests the ergonomic rationale is flawed. The space may look like a recess for toes but it existence is likely to be more to do with the relationship of the bottom shelf of a box unit and the floor. The Good Bones kitchen bench does not need a toe space. The top over‐hangs the drawer fronts by 50mm, allowing for the wiping of crumbs into an open hand. The drawers are positioned at a minimum of 25mm from the floor. The gap can increase if floors are not level. Its height is sufficient for the nose of a vacuum cleaner or broom for regular cleaning. Bottom drawers can be easily removed to enable cleaning right under the unit for an occasional ‘special’ clean.

6. Materials and Finishes

A wooden drawer system was selected for the prototypes. Drawer hardware manufacturers specify the design parameters as part of their drawer slide systems. Prefabricated steel drawer systems could work equally well on leg‐frames, but wood has advantages and appeal. Before the 1980’s, wooden kitchen joinery was prevalent in New Zealand houses and therefore its use is sympathetic in 21st Century renovations. As Terence Conran observed in 1977, wood is able to be re‐furbished by the home‐owner (Conran, 1977). It is also a sustainable choice. For economy (and in reference to the Edwardian tradition of using lower status materials in service and concealed spaces), prototype 1 used plantation grown

369


radiata pine for drawer sides and tempered hardboard for the drawer bases. While the prototype used solid timber drawer fronts, various different materials could be used. The drawer fronts are simply screw fixed from behind (or could possibly be held in place using the drawer handle fixings).This method allows easy personalization by owners.

Timber finishes changed over the 20th Century. Early cupboard interiors were left bare. Mid‐century cupboards were painted in enamel paint. Timber veneers of the 1970’s and 1980’s were sealed in polyurethane and factory applied lacquers. Recent advances in timber finishing provide new possibilities. Waterproof hardwax oil can be easily and safely applied and reapplied as necessary by the homeowner.

7. Services

In ‘box’ joinery, a duct to take pipe‐work can be formed between the wall‐lining and the joinery back panel.Penetrations in the panel must be made for waste‐pipes and sealed with a flange to prevent access by vermin. In the installation of the first prototype (as shown in Figure 3), the waste‐pipe is fully exposed but the ‘S’ trap runs parallel to the wall to achieve more space for drawers under the sink. Typically, under‐bench power socket outlets are installed on the joinery back panel in a second fix. The Good Bones design allows good access to outlets fixed directly on the wall behind.

8. Prototype 1

The site of the first prototype was in the author’s own kitchen in a 1906 timber villa. The south‐west facing room (3m by 3.6m) had remained an eat‐in kitchen over its history.

Figure 5: The setting of prototype 1 kitchen joinery. (source: Mackay, 2013)

The 2011 renovation repaired or restored the tongue and groove wall linings and reinstated the flooring using recycled matai floorboards. In the position of an original double‐hung window, new double doors, designed in the proportions of the original verandah windows, were inserted. The doors open to a courtyard and the evening summer sun. In keeping with the original 1906 kitchen layout, a central table

370 C. Mackay

was positioned for family meals and their preparation. The entry wall (to the right of Figure 5), accommodates a fridge/freezer and pantry shelving. The prototype bench opposite is 3m long by 700mm wide and has a stainless steel top.

Kauri drawer fronts were chosen to match other internal joinery in the villa. Drawer components were machined and given two coats of hardwax oil by the owner in a workshop. The components were assembled ‘on the kitchen table’ using a box template and clamps. With stainless steel countersunk screws, the elements were screwed together using a cordless variable speed drill. Wooden drawer pulls were designed to reference the simplicity of the original kitchen design and earlier New Zealand kitchen joinery (NZTCI, 1958).

Figure 6: The drawer assembly process on the kitchen table. (source: Mackay, 2013)

The manufacturing and installation was not straightforward. The stainless steel fabricator incorrectly mounted the stainless steel top in particle board instead of plywood. The strength of plywood is necessary to span between leg‐frames. The machined position of the some holes on the leg frames was slightly inaccurate. The ‘meccano’ type assembly requires a high level of accuracy. The drawer fronts were designed to have 2mm separation. While the drawer slider system allowed some height adjustment, the drawer fronts were not in exact alignment. Refinement of the installation system could achieve more accuracy. Using the right tools, the drawer assembly went smoothly. The hardwax oil finish, was stained by drips of concentrated detergent but it was easily sanded off and refinished.

After 4 years of use, the owners continue to enjoy their ‘good bones’ joinery. The efficient storage system has allowed a relatively small kitchen to become a much used living space.

9. Prototype 2

A second prototype was installed in a renovated cottage in Breaker Bay on the Wellington’s south coast. The layout allowed views from the galley style kitchen across the dining and living spaces to the seashore. The benches, 2400 and 3000 in length, provided 22 drawers in addition to an adjacent built‐in pantry cupboard. The island bench presented a challenge for bracing the Good Bones system. This was solved by butting and securing the bench to a 1050mm high timber console. The console was designed to take a tensioned woven flax panel to partially conceal the view of the back of drawers.

371


The owners chose a stainless steel bench top and locally grown macrocarpa timber for the console, drawers and drawer fronts. The timber was sustainability grown and used in joinery elsewhere in the house. The owners were invited to choose the drawer handles.

Figure 10: Prototype 2 kitchen was designed macrocarpa and stainless steel. (source: McDiarmid, 2014)

The selected joiner welcomed the opportunity to work with wood and not use melamine board. Although specified as low sided, the heights of the drawer sides were fabricated to match the drawer fronts. The joiner considered this as best practice. He was unaware of the considerable practical and cost benefits of using low sided drawers. The owners’ selection of a cook‐top and oven caused problems. The depth of the cook‐top interfered with a standard leg‐frame, which then required adjustment. The manufacturers of the oven, so accustomed to ‘box’ joinery, designed the cooling system to require enclosure. Ironically a plywood ‘box’ was required to be built to house the oven.

The assembly on site was new experience for the joiner. He felt uncomfortable about not pre‐assembling the units in the factory; the current practice with ‘box’ joinery (Saxton, 2013). In theory, accurately machined components should assemble without problems, but the set‐up and levelling of the leg‐frames must be accurate. Templates could be developed to aid in this procedure and shorten the installation time. The joiner advised that construction programmes would need to allow additional time for site‐assembled joinery installation, which is often the last task completed.

During the installation of prototype 2, the designed gap between the bench top and the wall caused consternation on site. The builder was sure it was illegal and that it would compromise the building consent compliance certificate. He was so accustomed to installing cupboard units with backs (forming concealed spaces) that he did not realise that because of the open frame, the gap was legal. The Good Bones system would require a change in thinking by many parties.

10. Conclusion

Over the 20th Century, the ‘box’ joinery system became the standard in the kitchen industry globally. Melamine board became the default material of choice. The sink bench evolved from a simple built‐in cupboard to pre‐assembled ‘box’ carcases which require, in their installation, plinths and toe‐spaces, up‐stands and splash‐backs. Benches deepened and cupboards underneath became difficult to access. The invention of double extension drawer slides solved this problem by facilitating deep and accessible

372 C. Mackay

drawers. The kitchen industry of panel manufacturers, joinery factories, kitchen designers and retailers continue to promote ‘box’ kitchen joinery; a product which supports the practice of the industry, but not the needs of consumer or the planet. The expense, the material, the toxicity and the waste are not necessary. The ‘box’ carcase is not necessary. Simple legs can support the drawer slides.

Two prototypes tested the application of this idea. The chosen materials of stainless steel and wood are non‐toxic, durable, recyclable or biodegradable. These materials patina gracefully and can be cleaned, resurfaced or repaired on site by the user. The design uses material economically with simple leg‐frames, low‐sided drawers, bracing to existing structure and without the need of plinths and splash‐backs. To adapt to change, the position of the legs can be easily altered and the width of drawers be trimmed and reassembled by re‐fixing screws. The bench can be relocated. The design uses the technical innovations of stainless steel, highly machined drawer slides and hardwax oil wood finish as well as the enduring qualities of natural timber. The design allows for customization. The material and finish of drawer fronts and the design of handles can be changed to suit tradition or personal taste.

The two Good Bones prototypes were appreciated by their owners, both for the functional and aesthetic design and their sustainable characteristics. The on‐site ‘Meccano’ like assembly offered challenges to current installation practice and the development of strategies are required. More significantly, the Good Bones design concept uses minimal material and no plastic laminate board. It has the potential to challenge and disrupt current kitchen joinery industry practice.

References

Baden‐Powell, C. (2005) Architect’s Pocket Book of Kitchen Design, Architectural Press, Oxford, 147. Bulthaup (2017) b1. Available from: <https://bulthaup.co/en/b1/ (accessed 31 July 2017) Burt, G. (ca 1932) Detail of a kitchen interior, in 1893 – 1968: negatives. Ref: 1/1‐015728‐F. Alexander Turnbull Library,

Wellington, New Zealand. Ca 1932. Available from <http://natlib.govt.nz/records/22743243> (accessed 2 June 2017)

Bell and Graham. (1905) Permit documents for 148 Upland Road, (Wellington: City Council Archives, 1905.) Conran, T. (1977) The Kitchen Book, Mitchell Beazley Publishers Ltd, London, 204, 47. Grey, J. (2004) Kitchen Culture – reinventing kitchen design, Firefly Books Ltd, New York, 40, 49, 55, 95. Kesselring, B. (2006) From Restrictive Norms to Greater Freedom, in K. Spechtenhauser (ed.), The Kitchen, Birkhäuser,

Basel, 121‐122. Kinchin, J and O’Connor, A. (2011) Counterspace – design and the modern kitchen, The Museum of Modern Art, New

York, 10. Mackay, C. (2010) Kitchen remodelling in New Zealand – issues of sustainability: Conference Proceedings of SB10 –

Innovation and Transformation, Wellington, New Zealand, May 2010. Mackay, C. (2010) Kitchens and the environment, Interview with Chris Laidlaw, Radio New Zealand, 2010. Available

from <http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2377354/christina‐mackay‐kitchens‐and‐the‐environment> (accessed 2 June 2017)

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (2017) Acceptable solutions and verification methodsfor New Zealand Building Code – Clause E3 Internal Moisture, 2ed., Amendment 6, Department of Building and Housing, Wellington, 4 – 9.

New Zealand Technical Correspondence Institute, Department of Education (1958) Carpentry in New Zealand, Government Printer, Wellington, 199.

New Zealand Technical Correspondence Institute (1974) Joinery Part 3 – Window Joinery Fitments. (Government Printer, Wellington, 99.

NKBA, (1996) The Essential Kitchen Design Guide, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 114. Saxton, M. (2013), prototype 2 joiner, personal interview with author, 23 January, 2013.

stripping back kitchen joinery -...

Documents