Maybe this is an impossible question! We're getting a new kitchen and
want a design that we not only like, but will not look hideously dated
in 5 or even 10 years time. We thought that was the case with our
current one when we installed it 10 years ago (a dark, shiny,
"cathedral" sculpted oak, admittedly cheap). Now it looks dated and
dowdy.

My thinking is that a natural wood finish is still a reasonably safe
choice. And given we want a lighter finish, maple seems like a good
choice (plus, we've seen one we like at a good price). Or is it a bit
too "Ikea-like"?

Can anyone look into their crystal ball and offer an opinion?

On 14 Apr 2006 12:31:52 -0700, wrote:

Maybe this is an impossible question! We're getting a new kitchen and
want a design that we not only like, but will not look hideously dated
in 5 or even 10 years time. We thought that was the case with our
current one when we installed it 10 years ago (a dark, shiny,
"cathedral" sculpted oak, admittedly cheap). Now it looks dated and
dowdy.

My thinking is that a natural wood finish is still a reasonably safe
choice. And given we want a lighter finish, maple seems like a good
choice (plus, we've seen one we like at a good price). Or is it a bit
too "Ikea-like"?

Can anyone look into their crystal ball and offer an opinion?

I like wood. Maple is a very nice choice.
If you're a slave to fashion then everything you purchase will be
outdated in 5 years time. That's how fashion works. You're supposed to
work harder and keep updating your goods and chattels. You know it
makes sense. How would the rich stay rich otherwise?

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.

If you want it to last then don't have a fitted kitchen but buy real
furniture instead. Tables, chairs, cupboards, dressers etc etc, Can be
cheaper new secondhand or antique, easily re-arrangeable, portable if
you move, can last a lifetime.

cheers
Jacob

keiron99 wrote:
Maybe this is an impossible question! We're getting a new kitchen and
want a design that we not only like, but will not look hideously dated
in 5 or even 10 years time.

Can anyone look into their crystal ball and offer an opinion?

Yes. Do not buy a "fitted kitchen". Buy separate items that look
as though they "went out of fashion" a hundred years ago.

On 14 Apr 2006 13:07:21 -0700, wrote:

If you want it to last then don't have a fitted kitchen but buy real
furniture instead. Tables, chairs, cupboards, dressers etc etc, Can be
cheaper new secondhand or antique, easily re-arrangeable, portable if
you move, can last a lifetime.


Quote the last plumber we had in. "Everything in a kitchen seems to be
made of the wrong material.

Certainly commercial chipboard cabinets deteriorate like nobody's
business in the presence of moisture, condensation creating a breading
ground for insects like something out of "Indiana Jones and the Temple
of doom" etc.

See also: http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/messkitchen/design.html

By Joe Stahelin.

Who doesn't seem to have been around for 5 or so years.

Hope he's OK.

DG

"Mike Halmarack" ... wrote in message
...
On 14 Apr 2006 12:31:52 -0700, wrote:

Maybe this is an impossible question! We're getting a new kitchen and
want a design that we not only like, but will not look hideously dated
in 5 or even 10 years time. We thought that was the case with our
current one when we installed it 10 years ago (a dark, shiny,
"cathedral" sculpted oak, admittedly cheap). Now it looks dated and
dowdy.

My thinking is that a natural wood finish is still a reasonably safe
choice. And given we want a lighter finish, maple seems like a good
choice (plus, we've seen one we like at a good price). Or is it a bit
too "Ikea-like"?

Can anyone look into their crystal ball and offer an opinion?

I like wood. Maple is a very nice choice.
If you're a slave to fashion then everything you purchase will be
outdated in 5 years time. That's how fashion works. You're supposed to
work harder and keep updating your goods and chattels. You know it
makes sense. How would the rich stay rich otherwise?

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Seemingly by _not_ updating their goods and chattles .... 'Here's the
original cabinet purchased by the first Duke in MCCCLIV .... "as 'they' are
always saying to the TV presenter

--

Brian

wrote in message
ups.com...
If you want it to last then don't have a fitted kitchen but buy real
furniture instead. Tables, chairs, cupboards, dressers etc etc, Can be
cheaper new secondhand or antique, easily re-arrangeable, portable if
you move, can last a lifetime.

Hurrah!

Mary

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On 14 Apr 2006 12:31:52 -0700, wrote:

Maybe this is an impossible question! We're getting a new kitchen and
want a design that we not only like, but will not look hideously dated
in 5 or even 10 years time. We thought that was the case with our
current one when we installed it 10 years ago (a dark, shiny,
"cathedral" sculpted oak, admittedly cheap). Now it looks dated and
dowdy.

My thinking is that a natural wood finish is still a reasonably safe
choice. And given we want a lighter finish, maple seems like a good
choice (plus, we've seen one we like at a good price). Or is it a bit
too "Ikea-like"?

Can anyone look into their crystal ball and offer an opinion?

If its popular, it will look dated, its in the designers interests to
make it so.

Rick


It's Ok, he wants to use Maple not Popular ;-)

ETV

wrote:

Maybe this is an impossible question! We're getting a new kitchen and
want a design that we not only like, but will not look hideously dated
in 5 or even 10 years time. We thought that was the case with our
current one when we installed it 10 years ago (a dark, shiny,
"cathedral" sculpted oak, admittedly cheap). Now it looks dated and
dowdy.

My thinking is that a natural wood finish is still a reasonably safe
choice. And given we want a lighter finish, maple seems like a good
choice (plus, we've seen one we like at a good price). Or is it a bit
too "Ikea-like"?

Can anyone look into their crystal ball and offer an opinion?

First. Can you not consider smartening up your existing units? Re
finishing? New doors?

If not then use solid wood, traditionally made up solid doors, and make
sure they are solidly fixed. Kitchen units have to be repairable if
they are to last. (And if they are repairable they are probably tough
enough to not need repairs.)

Then it comes down to planning. If you plan badly then however long
lasting the units are you'll find yourself changing them anyway.
Consider how long you'll stay in the house. The units should still look
good to the viewers even if they will rip them out.

Maple darkens a bit.

We moved here nearly 20 years ago and one of the first things I did was
to refit the kitchen. I used Maple units from Winchmore
http://www.winchmore-kitchens.co.uk/ . The ones we chose were their
Dalham design which I'm amazed to see are still available.

I'd used Winchmore in a previous house (c.1976) but then the units came
as "white" and needed finishing off. I chose them because they were so
extraordinarily cheap and because I liked the unusual construction.

In the mid '80s I chose them again but this time they came ready
finished and were a good deal more expensive.

I don't know how they compare on price now - but I'd choose them again
if I could possibly afford to. (If we stay here I won't need to.)

The chipboard carcases have a solid wood (detachable) door frame on the
front and the solid wood doors are hung on these with simple external
pin hinges. I think they are very solid.

Our idea was that the units would last out our time in this house. So
far they've exceeded the expected time and I can't see why they should
not last as long again.

One of the "features" I liked was the absence of door handles. Instead
the doors and drawers have shaped edges to provide a finger grip. I
think it looks very uncluttered like this. However now these parts are
beginning to show wear and my wife is beginning to find difficulty
opening the doors. So I'm considering fitting knobs and re finishing
the door fronts.

Good luck.

Edgar

wrote:
If you want it to last then don't have a fitted kitchen but buy real
furniture instead. Tables, chairs, cupboards, dressers etc etc, Can be
cheaper new secondhand or antique, easily re-arrangeable, portable if
you move, can last a lifetime.

cheers
Jacob

But less easy to work in. Tables are generally around 75cm high,
whereas modern units are 90cm high, and much less strain on the back.
Having long runs of uninterrupted worktop makes life easier and safer
in the kitchen. And sinks and cookers are going to need some degree of
fitting anyway.

Cleaning an unfitted kitchen is more difficult too. At least once a
week you should heave all the furniture out from the wall and clean
well behind, or else pests will become a problem.

And finally, if you plan to move house, remember that buyers expect to
see a fitted kitchen.

Pen

Had a look at winchmore kitchens. Hideous, expensive and CHIPBOARD
carcasses!!. Rubbish. At those prices you could fit out the whole
house with real furniture.

cheers

Jacob

wrote:
Maybe this is an impossible question! We're getting a new kitchen and
want a design that we not only like, but will not look hideously dated
in 5 or even 10 years time. We thought that was the case with our
current one when we installed it 10 years ago (a dark, shiny,
"cathedral" sculpted oak, admittedly cheap). Now it looks dated and
dowdy.

My thinking is that a natural wood finish is still a reasonably safe
choice. And given we want a lighter finish, maple seems like a good
choice (plus, we've seen one we like at a good price). Or is it a bit
too "Ikea-like"?

Can anyone look into their crystal ball and offer an opinion?

And decent solid wood will always look good, and can always be painted.

Laminate over chip.MDF will fall to pieces long before it looks any more
crap than the day its fitted,..which is why you can buy replacement
doors anyway.

I have attempted to solve this issue by making the whole house look like
it was built in the 17th century. It looked dated the moment it was built.