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!