r-î»! i f- !í^ « áS4i(.i *' ·-^ , ? ;.í ';■ fc rf,·' X\ ЛіГ'ѵ. ^ίίΙίΠί^Γ’ ' i> 4 . · Λ ñ j "t í ... ... • - i^ -í *' ^шт-<ёУ « *4«^ :^n íiH 'p'hr· . · г и L''wl
, 5 * 1 <
s
G\;
i
£U·':; '.
k ijt u
' *’^*·*Ν ■Ç .‘· * ’* V .;, ···.·'· ’··ItlE KITCHEN ACTlVniES m . NEEDS OF IHE MIDDLE-INCOME TURKISH HOUSEHOLD
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRO^^MENTAL DESIGN AND THE INSTITUTE OF FINE ARTS
OF BiLKENT UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF FINE ARTS
01
SiSeL GOVENC (KUTLUSOY) EEBEUML·. m z ^
S
Д/Я
« ^ 8 8
19^
г
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Fine Arts.
Assist. Prof. Dr. Halime Demirkan (Principal Advisor)
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Fine Arts.
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Pul tar
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, aş a thesis for the degree of Master of Fine Arts.
Assist. Prof. Mehmet Asatekin
ABSTRACT
THE KITCHEN ACTIVITIES AND NEEDS
OF THE URBAI>I MIDDLE-INCOME TURKISH HOUSEHOLD
Sibel Güvenç
M.F.A. in Interior Architecture
Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Halime Demirkan
February, 1992.
In this research, the kitchen activities and needs of the urban middle-income Turkish household have been examined, in order to improve space and storage facilities in the kitchens of social housing units. A field survey carried out on a sample population of 100 middle-incarie households has shown the inefficiency of social housing kitchens in Turkey.
Keywords: Kitchen, Middle-income household. Kitchen Activities and Needs.
ÖZET
ORTA GELİRLİ TÜRK AİLESİNİN
MUTFAK AKTİVİTELERt VE İHTİYAÇLARI
Sibel Güvenç
İç Mimari Bölümü
Yüksek Lisans
Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Halime Demirkan
Şubat, 1992.
Bu araştırmada sosyal konut mutfağında mekan ve depolama imkanlarının iyileştirilmesine yönelik olarak orta gelirli Türk ailesinin mutfak aktiviteleri ve ihtiyaçları incelenmiştir. Orta gelirli 100 hane ile yapılan anket sonucunda Türkiye'de sosyal konut mutfaklarının kullanım ihtiyaçlarım karşılamakta yetersiz kaldığı ortaya çıkmıştır.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Mutfak, Orta Gelirli Aile, Mutfak Aktiviteleri ve ihtiyaçları.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost, I would like to thank Assist. Prof. Dr. Halime Demirkan for guiding me during the preparation of this thesis. Secondly, I thank Rıza for the great patience he has shown, and the support he has given during the last two and a half years. Thirdly, I would like to thank my parents for all the love and support they have always provided. I would also like to thank Can Çam for the computer facilities he has provided in Izmir.
TABLE QE CPNTENTB
Abstract ... lii özet ... IV Acknowledgements ... v Table of Contents ... vi List of Tables ... x List of Figures ... xi 1. INTRODUCTION ... 11.1. Scope of the Research ... . 3
1.2. Structure of the Thesis ... ...6
2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN THIS FIELD ... 8
2.1. Theories of Rationalization and Scientific Management ... 8
2.2. Standardization in the Kitchen ... 11
2.3. Studies Related to Walking Distance in Kitchens .. 12
2,A. Domestic Research Abroad ... 1A 2.A.I. Related to Kitchen Area and Activities ... . 1A 2.4.2. Related to Storage in the Kitchen ... 19
2.4;3. Time Studies in the Kitchen ... 19
2.4.4. Adapting Standard Kitchens to Local Habits .... 20
2.4.5. Related to Ergonomics in the Kitchen ... 21
2.5. Domestic Research in Turkey ... 21
3. KITCHEN PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES OF HOUSEHOLDS ... 25
3.1. Concepts of Household and Domestic Research ... 25
3.1.1. The Urban Middle-income Household in Turkey .... 28
3.1.2. The Urban Middle-income Woman in T u r k e y ... . 30
3.2. Main Activity Centers in the Kitchen ... 32
3.2.1. The Sink Center ... ... 33
3.2.2. The Cooker Center ... . 35
3.2.3. The Refrigerator Center ... 3?
3.2.4. The Four Layouts of the Work Triangle ... 38
3.3. storage in the Kitchen ... 41 3.3.1. Base Units .... ... 42 3.3.2. Wall U n i t s ... ... 43 3.3.3. Tall Units ... 43 3.3.4. Special-purpose Units ... 44 3.3.5. Open Storage ... 44
3.3.6. Storage and Disposal of Waste ... ...45
3.4. Kitchen Activities ... 46
3.4.1. Main Activities and Subactivities ... 46
3.4.2. Side Activities ... 49
4. THE SURVEY D A T A ... 51
4.1. Analysis of the Household ... 51
4.1.1. Place of Birth ... 51
4.1.2. Age ... 52
4.1.3. Education ... 52
4.1.4. Occupation ... 53
4.1.5. Years of Settlement in İzmir ... 53
4.1.6. Size of Households ... 54
4.1.7. Number of Children Below 11 Years of Age ... 54
4.1.8. Average Fami 1 y Income ... 55
4.1.9. House Ownership ... 56
4.2. Analysis of Appliances and Equipment ... 57
4.2.1. Other Parts of the House Used for Storage Related to the Kitchen ... 57
4.2.2. Main Appliances in the Kitchen ... 58
4.2.3. Tools and Equipment in the Kitchen and Their Location ... 59
4.3. Analysis of Activities in the Kitchen ... 65
4-3.1. Number of People Who Work in the Kitchen ... 65
4.3.2. Time Spent in the Kitchen.... ... 66
4.3.3. Where Meals are Often Taken ... 67
4.3.4. Side Activities in the Kitchen ... 68
4.3.5. Using Other Parts of the House While Preparing Meals ... 69
4.3.6. Traditional Practices ... 69
4.3.7. Whether Pastry is Prepared in the Kitchen ... 70
4.3.8. Shopping Frequency ... 71
4.3.9. Shopping Amounts ... 72
4.4. Kitchen Preferences of Housewives... . 72
4.4.1. Whether Children Are Desired in the Kitchen .... 72 VI 1
k.k.2. Preference for the Kitchen... 73
4.4.3. Kitchen Plan Preference ... 73
4.4.4. Suitability of Worksurface Height ... . 75
4.5. Observations of the Kitchen ... 76
4.5.1. Kitchen Floor Area... ... 76
4.5.2. The Primary Worksurface... ... 77
4.5.3. Worksurface Beside Main Appliances... 78
4.5.4. Total Length of Shelves ... 79
5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY DATA ... 80
5.1. Outcomes Related to the Age of Housewives ... . 80
5.1.1. Analysis of Variance of Age vs. Type of Traditional Practice Performed by Housewives ... 80
5.1.2. Analysis of Variance of Age vs. Number of Traditional Practices Performed by Housewives .. 81
5.1.3. Analysis of Variance of Age vs. Kitchen Preference of Housewives ... 82
5.1.4. Analysis of Variance of Age vs. Kitchen-Living Room Combination Plan Preference of Housewives . 82 5.1.5. Analysis of Variance of Age vs. Preparation Place of Pastry of in the Kitchen ... 82
5.2. Outcomes Related to the Education of Housewives .. 83
5.2.1. Analysis of Variance of Education vs. Side Activities Performed in the Kitchen ... 83
5.2.2. Analysis of Variance of Education vs. Use of Other Rooms for the Preparation of Meals ... 84
5.2.3. Analysis of Variance of Education vs. Preparation Place of Pastry in the Kitchen .... 84
5.2.4. Analysis of Variance of Education vs. Preference for Children in the Kitchen ... 85
5.2.5. Analysis of Variance of Education vs. Kitchen Preference of Housewi ves ... ... 85
5.3. Outcomes Related to the Size of the Household .... 86
5.3.1. Analysis of Variance of Household Size vs. The Amount of Time Spent in the Kitchen ... 86
5.3.2. Analysis of Variance of Household Size vs. K i tchen Preference of Housewi ves ... ... 86
5.3.3. Analysis of Variance of Household Size vs. Kitchen-Living Room Combination Plan Preference of Housewives ... 86
5.4. Outcomes Related to the Average Monthly Income of the Household ... ... 87
5.5. Outcomes Related to the Amount of Time Housewives
Spent in the Kitchen ... . 87
5.5.1. Analysis of Variance of Time Spent in the Kitchen vs. Kitchen Preference of Housewives ... 87
5.5.2. Analysis of Variance of Time Spent in the Kitchen vs. Kitchen-Living Room Combination Plan Preference of Housewives ... . 87
5.6. Outcomes Related to the Side Activities Performed in the Kitchen ... 88
5.7. Outcomes Related to the Current Kitchen Floor A r e a .... ... 88
5.7.1. Analysis of Variance of Current Kitchen Floor Area vs. Use of Other Rooms for Storage ... 88
5.7.2. Analysis of Variance of Current Kitchen Floor Area vs. The Kitchen Preference of Housewives .. 88
5.7.3. Analysis of Variance of Current Kitchen Floor Area vs. The Kitchen-Living Room Combination Plan Preference of Housewives ... 89
5.8. Outcomes Related to the Total Length of Shelves in the Kitchen ... 89
6. CONCLUSION... 90
6.1. Summary ... 90
6.2. Discussion and Conclusions ... 90
6.3. Suggestions for Further Research.... ...■.•• 93
LIST OF REFERENCES ... 95
APPENDIX A ... 97
LISI OE lABLES
Table Page
LIST QE FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 2.1. Grouped Sink and Food-storage Area ... 9
Figure 2.2. Efficient and Inefficient Kitchen Plans ... 10
Figure 2.3. 'Fadenstudie' - Line Studies ... 13
Figure 3.1. The Sink C e n t e r ... ... 34
Figure 3.2. The Cooker Center .... ... 36
Figure 3.3. The Refrigerator Center ... 37
Figure 3.4. The Four Kitchen Layouts ... , 39
Figure 4.1. Distribution of Age ... 52
Figure 4.2. Distribution of Education ... 53
Figure 4.3. Distribution of Household Size ... 54
Figure 4.4. Distribution of Number of Children Below 11 Years of Age ... ... 55
Figure 4.5. Distribution of Income ... 55
Figure 4.6. Distribution of House Ownership ... 56
Figure 4.7. Distribution of Areas Used for Storage .... 57
Figure 4.8. Distribution of Main Appliances ... 58
Figure 4.9. Distribution of Number of People Who Work in the Kitchen ... 65
Figure 4.10. Distribution of Amount of Time Spent in the Kitchen... ... 66
Figure 4.11. Kitchen-Living Room Conbination Plans .... 74
Figure 4.12, Distribution of Kitchen Plan Preference,.. 74 Figure 4.13. Distribution of Kitchen Floor Area ... 76 Figure 4.14. Distribution of Primary Worksurface Length 77 Figure 4.15. Distribution of Worksurface Height ... 78 Figure 4.16. Distribution of Length of Shelves ... 79
The pr‘imary facts showing a countries' housing conditions are the numbers relating to whether the dwellings are able to satisfy the needs of the families, both in quantity and quality (Keleş, 1984). Current research on housing highlights a growing discordance between users' requirements and housing standards even in western societies. The nöjor cause of this discordance is the neglect by the designers' and planners' of dwellings of the individual differences in dwelling habits (Giuliani et. al., 1990).
In Turkey today, it is recognized that among all the dwellings in the country, 28.6% are still deprived of a private kitchen (Keleş, 1984). However, we must realize that the kitchen iş one of the most, important areas of the home. Although they are planned for food- related activities, kitchens are units which serve a great variety of functions. The kitchen is the place where the user, often the housewife, spends most of her time, in order to carry out activities ranging from cooking and preparation of food, to taking care of children. Therefore, the planning of the kitchen plays an important part in the design of the house (Baytin, 1980), as it is desired to be a pleasant and comfortable area in which the user can work smoothly and with little frustration or annoyance.
As L. Mack puts it, " although work - and more diverse and complex work - is probably carried on in the kitchen than anywhere else in
INTRC.DUCTION
the home, architects and builders often relegate this room to postage-stamp size as their first line of attack against space problems " (Mack, 1989; p:58).
Since the kitchen forms the core of a housing unit, its' standards must be kept very high, considering human health and hygiene. As a result of the activities carried out within it, the kitchen is also a space where the highest amount of noise, smell, heat, and vapor are produced. Therefore, its relations with other spaces in the home, the equipment stored in it, and the choice of materials to be used for kitchens and their surrounding spaces need special consideration during their design, production, and use. Also, for the same reasons, kitchens carry special importance from a financial and technological point of view. Because of the use of industrialized production techniques in the country, standardized kitchen units are being produced.and used. Therefore, the standards and perforirance specifications for kitchens need to be solved urgently. In Turkey, performance specifications and standards pertaining to kitchens have not yet been formed. Therefore, there are no standard national applications. This leads to leaving larger or smaller areas to these spaces, and to the carrying over of functions and activities of these spaces to other spaces in the house (Baytin,1980). The widespread use of balconies, in urban areas as storage places is an example. These practices lead to unnecessary use of other spaces in the home, and most importantly, to the loss of materials, labor, energy, and money.
During the years between 1960 - 1980, the urban population in Turkey has soared up three times, rising from 6.9 million to 20.3 million (Keleş, 1984). As a result, the state has started to consider the housing problems of low and middle-income families. For example, in the 1961 Constitution, the 2nd. article of the 49th. item subtitled
'Health Right' states that:
1 ■ 1.SCOPE OF TjdE RESEARCH
"The state takes precautions as to meet the housing needs of poor or low income families, considering proper health conditions" (Keleş,
1984; p:286).
Twenty-one years later, we see that the 57th. item of the 1982 Constitution carries the title 'Housing Right'. The text of this
i tem i s as fol1ows J
"The state, considering the properties and environmental factors within a planned framework, takes precautions as to meet housing needs. In addition, it supports mass housing activities" (Keleş, 1984; pp;286-287).
As we can see, the new arrangement considers housing, not as a part of the health right, but as an economic and social problem which directly affects the productive labour of an individual. The new arrangement is more appropriate to the understanding and development of our time. It is a positive attitude to perceive the house 'within environmental conditions' and to search for its relation with the plans, instead of seeing it comprised of four walls and a roof.
Also, giving the duty of supporting mass housing activities to the state is a result of believing that the mass housing method is for the use of society (Keleş, 198A).
As described above, far from solving kitchen problems of the middle- income household, Turkey still has not solved it's basic quantitative housing shortage. However, on the other hand, middle- income’ households are facing many spatial and storage difficulties related to the kitchen. According to Giuliani:
"Little empirical evidence is available about the way in which different groups of people actually organize and use their domestic space ... the kitchen in particular. A major cause of it may be the difficulty in describing the great variety of situations present in the real world, as determined by the interaction between household structure, spatial characteristics of homes, and personal values as well as preferences (Giuliani et. al., 1990; p:129).
For the inspection of the spatial qualities of a kitchen, it must not only study dimensional factors, but must also take into consideration properties pertaining to vapor, heat, aesthetics, sound, touch, and smell. These require special consideration and evaluation of environmental factors such as lighting, ventilation, acoustics, heating, materials, and safety in these areas. As for the
I
dimensional specifications of a kitchen, the activities carried out by the user and the spatial requirement for these activities as well as the dimensions and use of materials and equipment in these areas must be known. Thus, user requirements in these spaces, working areas in relation to user activities, basic movements and functional
movements pertaining to these activities, spatial dimensions, and dimensions of materials and equipments need to be studied (Baytin,
1980).
One of the major problems of todays Turkish household is the segregation of the housewife in an isolated kitchen, so this needs to be solved. The elimination of the isolated kitchen is closely related to the giving up of the isolated living room. The living kitchen may be a solution, since it combines the separate areas of activity into one (Çelen, 1980).
"The living kitchen seeks to make the kitchen an active center of household life, where a family can work, play, eat and spend 90% of its time in, and where, most important, a housewife can watch children and entertain without leaving her work. The living kitchen does this by combining four rooms which are kept separate; the laundry, kitchen, dining room, and living room" (Celen,
1980; p;5).
The basic concern of this research is the investigation of practices and facilities in the kitchens of social dwellings, those related to space and storage in particular. Although a kitchen plays an ifnportant part in the life of the middle-income household, on the whole, it has not been taken into serious consideration in the interior planning of social housing in which middle-income citizens live. Since space is very valuable in the small scale house, further research needs to be done in order to improve kitchen facilities and storage practices of these households.
This thesis is comprised of two main parts; a literature research, presented in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, and a field survey, presented in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, on the kitchen activities and practices of the middle-income Turkish household.
Chapter 2 studies previous research conducted on the subject, under headings such as Theories of Rationalization and Scientific Management; Standardization in the Kitchen; Studies Related to Walking Distance in Kitchens; and Domestic Research Abroad and in Turkey.
Chapter 3, also a literature research part, includes Concepts of Household and Domestic Research; Main Activity Centers in the Kitchen; Storage in the Kitchen; and an analysis of Kitchen Activities.
Chapter k is a presentation of the numeric results of the field survey, by the use of bar charts, under the sections titled Analysis of the Household; Analysis of Appliances and Equipment; Analysis of Activities in the Kitchen; Kitchen Preferences; and Observations of the Kitchen.
1.2. STRUCTURE OF JH£ THESIS
Chapter 5 is comprised of an analysis of the research data and correlation of numeric results obtained from the field survey, through the use of the Analysis of Variance method.
chapter 6 is the conclusion of the research and thesis, including a summary, discussion, and suggestions for further research.
2i PREVIOUS RESEARCH CQNDUCTEQ M IÜI1 FIELD
2.1. THEORIES Q£ RATIONALIZATION AND SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
The cumulative effect of all technological changes has been to transform the work and functions associated with the life and running of a family household. During the period between 1890 and 1946, an important social change is seen to have taken place in Europe. This was the disappearance of the servant class. With the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the proportion of the British population having a living in servant (20%) declined rapidly, as the middle class expanded, and as servants found other and pleasanter occupations in factories. As a result, the concept of rationalization was applied to domestic work, ending up with structural and formal changes. It became very important since domestic work had started to be carried out by housewives (Güvenç,
1988).
Studies of kitchen plan designs go back as early as 1896 when the Beecher sisters designed a kitchen work area, as well organized as a modern continuous-surface kitchen, allowing food preparation on one side and serving and cleaning up on the other. Their book suggested extensive changes in the organization and layout of kitchens, taking the ships galley with its compact and convenient arrangements as a model (Heskett, 1987).
cat m o
Figure 2.1.
Grouped Sink and Food-storage Area; After; Catherine and Harriet Beecher.
(Source: Heskett, 1987).
Following this, in 1912 Christine Frederick began to apply scientific management methodology to the study of household work. Her writings were very influential in Germany, where the rationalization movement was pursued with particular enthusiasm. Also, two American texts. Both published in 1915, Mary Patti son's The Business of Home Management and Christine Frederick's Household Engineerino were the earliest and best known of numerous books and articles in which it was shown how the breakdown of domestic tasks could lead to more efficient housework (Heskett, 1987).
Pl/NIA>9 RPOM
Figure 2.2.
Efficient and Inefficient Kitchen Plans; After: Christine Frederick.
(Source; Heskett, 1987).
Around the 1920's, we see the formation of several asspciations and working groups inorder to deal with the rationalization of the domestic environment. One of these is tlie Reichskuratoriurn fur Wi rtschaf111chkei t (State Efficiency Board), founded by the German government in 1921, which devoted many studies to domestic rationalization, producing specifications for household furniture and implements to facilitate easier cleaning, washing, and cooking. Later a team of architects and designers developed a complete 'Frankfurt Kitchen' which was made as a total standard unit to provide an efficient working environment in the minimum space, with built in storage space and continuous working surfaces. It was thoughtfully organized and therefore effective. As a result of these research and studies, the
kitchen Where function was to be more important than fashion, looked to technology and science for assistance (Heskett, 1987). Thus, started the research for the standardization and mass production of kitchen furniture and equipment.
2.2. STANDARDIZATION £¡1 £!£ KITCHEN
In 1933, Piet Zwart designed a full kitchen system for the Bruynzeel Company in the Netherlands. It's kitchen cabinets could be assembled under a continuous working-surface. Later, he realized that it would be more advantageous if kitchen furniture could be produced as a complete package, with standardized units designed for mechanized mass production. After his intensive studies with the firm's technicians, he designed the 'Bruynzeel Kitchen' that was produced in 1938. It was such a flexible design that for any kitchen area, an efficient kitchen including a dining area, fittings such as racks, drawers, clips, and hooks in order to accomodate the various equipment and appliances, could be produced. While most other systems dating from the time leave the gap for free-standing stoves and refrigerators, in the Bruynzeel range, these too were designed as HK>dular units, so that no matter how small or large a kitchen might be, they could be fully integrated. Zwart's intention was to create an attractive and functional environment, in whatever combination the components were assembled. He ainted to bring aesthetic quality, as well as efficiency into the kitchen (Heskett,
198?),
Later, with the effect of numerous studies, George Fejer in Britain launched the 'Hygena System 70' range in 1963, with its built in refrigerator, food mixer, split level oven, corner cupboards, swivel shelves, midway units, extension table, inset triple sink, and a waste disposal unit. It also had the advantages of modular, standardized production which allowed for adjustment, interchanging of parts, and adding extensions at a later date (Güvenç, 1988).
2.3. STUDIES RELATED IQ WALKING DISTANCE M KITCHENS
These studies were based upon the idea that with a suitable kitchen lay-out the amount of walking could be reduced and working time shortened. At the same time, these 'Transit' studies would form a basis on which to plan the arrangement of work places to suit natural movements during kitchen work (Grandjean,
1973).
Studies show that most frequent movements are those between sink, working surface, and cooker. Movements to the refrigerator and the larder are equally common. Particularly thorough studies were made by Steidl in the USA and Stuhler in Germany on this subject
(Grandjean, 1973).
The rational arrangement of working centers were checked by means of the distances between refrigerator, sink, and cooker. It was found that the sum of these distances should not exceed 7 meters in small to medium-sized kitchens, nor 8 meters in big kitchens
(Grandjean, 1973).
In Germany the so-called Fadenstudie (line-study) method has often been used, in which all the paths followed in the course of a particular job are recorded and drawn as lines in a ground plan of the kitchen. The more often a path is marked by a line, the more prominent it becomes on the ground plan. When assessing the results of a fadenstudie. the following characteristics were found as criteria that must be established (Grandjean, 1973):
J·
. d U ’
2-sided kitchen, 7 sq.m,
1 ,5 ,7 = places where things are put down, or work is carried on.
4 = cooker, 3 = sink
14, 15, 16 = crockery cupboard and refrigerator
U-shaped kitchen, 6.2 sq.m.
1,2, 5, 6, = places where things are put down, or work is carried on. 4 = cooker, 3 = sink
13, 14, 15, 19 = cupboards and refrigerator
Figure 2*3.
‘Fadenstudie· - Line Studies. (Source: Grandjean* 1973).
1 - Few paths crossing each other, 2 - Few long paths,
3 ^ High density of paths to a few working-places,
4 Closely adjacent starting points - but nevertheless not closer than 60cm. to each other - with dense bundles
of lines radiating from them, so as to allow ample freedom of movement.
In Steidl's study, relations between work centei's were examined and it was found that the highest traffic was between sink and cooker (22%), and then between sink and preparation center (Grandjean, 1973).
2.k. DOMESTIC RESEARCH ABROAD
Starting from the beginning of the 50's, a series of large scale surveys have been carried out throughout the world. In a number of countries, 'Labour-saving Kitchens' have developed more rapidly than in Turkey. The advantages of these improvements are now widely known and this has resulted in a growing demand for a fuller .consideration of the problems. The experience of one country in this field, however may not be directly applicable to another, and some changes in practice are usually necessary to conform to different local habits and custcuns. With thought, experiment, and reference to basic principles, such adaptations can be readily made (Çelen, 1980).
2.4.1. RELATED IQ KTIfflEN AEEA m . AÇTİVITIEŞ
In England in 194?, and again in 1961, Hole and Attenburrow questioned 5300 and 2300 people respectively ‘ about their behaviour in their own homes. The English survey showed that the whole family was almost never gathered at mealtimes, and this was
the main reason why the kitchen was so often used for meals. In fact in dwellings with a separate living room, meals were taken as follows (Grandjean, 1973):
“ always in the kitchen - kh% - always in the living room - 30% - i n either room - 26%
In homes with a dining room, meals were taken as follows:
- always in the kitchen - 19% - always in the dining room - i»3% -■ in either room - 38%
In another study in Switzerland, Bachtold studied 160 households in 1961. The great majority were two to four bedroomed dwellings. From his surveys the following conlusions related to the kitchen may be drawn (Grandjean, 1973):
a. The kitchen was being used increasingly for additional purposes,
b. Having tneals in the kitchen appeared to be related to its area: with an area of 8 square meters, 75% of those questioned ate in the kitchen, but in smaller kitchens only 40-50% took their meals in the kitchen,
c. Eating in the kitchen is related to income level. 70% of the lower and middle income level groups questioned took all their
rneals in the kitchen, while in families from the higher income groups only breakfast was commonly taken in the kitchen, and the other ineal s onl y rare! y ,
d. Washing and ironing were carried out in the kitchen as far as possible, the area of the kitchen being the deciding factor,
e. Only a minority used the kitchen as a play-space for the children, and as somewhere to carry on leisure pursuits. Here too, the area of the kitchen was important.
In 1964-67, in 235 newly built dwellings in Berlin, Meyer-Ehler carried out investigations intensified on room usage and the opinions of dwellers. Some findings can be summarized as the following (Grandjean, 1973);
a. It was found that there was an increased use of the rooms which contained the television set (this applies to the kitchen also),
b. 92 of the dwellings had either a dining room or a dining alcove, and these were used most frequently around 8:00 and
13:00 hours, and in the evening between 18:00 - 19:00 hours.
Between 1960 and 1965 Boalt carried out a much bigger investigation, studying more than 2500 households with the aid of questionnaires, surveys, and interviews. Some findings related to the kitchen are as follows (Grandjean, 1973);
a. On average, the kitchen was thought more of than the rest of the house,
b. The standard of kitchen equipments in the houses was just about the same in 1960 as it had been in 1950, but the newer houses had bigger working surfaces and bigger refrigerators,
c. The big kitchens were rated very highly, the best being those with 1? square meters of floor area, whereas kitchens of 9 square meters and built in seating were less popular,
d. Deep kitchens, with the eating place at the window and an adjacent working surface parallel to it were rated lower than kitchens with working spaces under the window,
e^. The kitchen was used for many other activities besides cooking,
f. Meals were always eaten in the kitchen on weekdays, and often also on Sundays, and when there were guests. The kitchen was also used for ironing, for using the sewing machine, and the children played there and did their homework and often brought their friends into the kitchen.
In 1965 Cornau and Patel carried out investigations in the immediate outskirts of Paris and in four other large towns in France, studying 1070 households each with \-U children. On the average, the evening meal, the time when the family was most often gathered all together was taken in (Grandjean, 1973):
- the kitchen - 52% - the living room - 38%
- a room designated as dining roojn - 7% - the kitchen and one other room - 4%
The Uirger the kitchen, the more often were meals taken there. In kitchens of less than 5.3 square meters, 30% took their meals there while in kitchens of more than 12.3 square meters, this rose to 79%.
In 1966 Henz and Vogt used k9U interviews in urban and semiurban areas of central Switzerland to make a study of multiperson households, in which the housewife was gainfully employed, but not self-employed. The information obtained from these interviews about the use of the kitchen were the following (Grandjean,'1973):
a. Even ..though, the kitchen was not really big enough, or was not designed for the purpose, 72% of those questioned took one or more meals there everyday,
b. The most common kitchen sizes lay between A and 10 square meters (76%), whereas more than half of those questioned about their ideal home gave priority to having a kitchen area of from
10 to 12 square meters.
Some studies made in India have studied kitchen facilities, correlating income with presence, absence, or degree of variability of kitchen size; arrangement and area of work centers; distance between work center and water facilities inside
kitchens; and ventilation and lighting in the kitchen (F reedman,1983).
7,k.2. RELATED IQ STORAGE Ifcl lUE KITCHEN
Studies of kitchen storage practices of middle-class households in India have referred especially to the amount and type of articles stored in the kitchen; the number and type of containers used for storing food and other supplies; and the type, size, and location of storage space in the kitchen and storeroom (Freedman, 1983). Another study, again in India, has examined space requirements and arrangements of utensils and supplies for mixing and frying centers in the kitchen, concentrating on storage space requirements, and determining counter height, width efficiency, and sink proximity (Freedman, 1983).
2.k.3. TIME STUDIES 1^ IhjE KITCHEN
Holm carried out a long investigation from 1951 to 1954 in several Swedish towns, in the course of which 600 people who lived in newly built two· or three roomed houses were questioned (Grandjean, 1973).
Fr'om a time study carried out partly by experts and partly by housewives themselves, a picture enierged of the time each member spent at home, in which room, what activities she carried on there and by what means. This study reveals the following regular pattern :
a. Women work for 11 hours every day, and have k hours of free time. Kitchen work (4 hours) and care of clothing claims a great deal of their work,
b. For the uses of individual rooms, it is particularly noticeable how much the kitchen is used (378 minutes), and how little the living room (65 minutes),
c. The comings and goings in the household were also analyzed and the kitchen was found to be the space entered the most,
d. A further analysis studied the habits of children at home. According to this enquiry, children at all stages of their lives spent little time in the living room. 2-6 year-olds were very often in the kitchen for upto 3 1/2 hours per day. Children in small houses usually played in the kitchen or the bedroom.
As a result of this work Holm reached the conclusion that two- roomed flats were unsuitable for families with children. He concluded by stating that the kitchen ought to be not less than ten square niters (Grandjean, 1973).
2.4J U ADAPTING STANDARD KITCHENS TO LOCAL HABITS
The objectives of an interesting study in India, of space location of working areas and storage facilities in the kitchen of the middle class families, was to assess the conditions of kitchens, with a view to adapting standard kitchen models to suit Indian conditions, by determining average kitchen size, assessing
utilization of space, storage areas and the location of work centers, identifying 1aboi— saving devices, and discovering in what aspects standardized kitchens should be adapted in order to suit
Indian conditions (Freedrnan, 1983).
2.^t.5. RELATED TO ERGaiOMICS Ihi£ KITCHEN
Ergonomic studies have concentrated on convenient work heights, length-of-reach for such kitchen tasks as stirring, chopping, rolling, kneading, and dishwashing, or vertical and horizontal reach measurements based on individual heights, arm length, distance from elbows to floor, and counter height in sitting position (Freedman, 1983).
2x5^ DOMESTIC r e sea r c h M TUBKEY
Erel has been occupied with some research in the Edirne and Ankara districts and the main part of her studies were concerned with the kitchens of urban and rural dwellings (Çelen, 1980). From her investigation in Edirne, studies on the kitchen can be grouped as studies on the distribution of kitchen floor areas, and studies of activities in relation to spaces in the house. Some of her findings are as shown in Table 2.1.
(1 tchen area Urban region Rural peglgn Total m2 % % % Less than 5 13.7 - 9.3 5-9 65.7 28.6 53.7 10-14 19.2 40.0 25.9 15-19 1.4 20.0 7.4 More than 19 - 11.4 3.7 Table 2.1.
Distribution of Kitchen Areas in Edirne; After; Sevim Erel.
(Source; Çelen, 1980).
It can be concluded that the kitchen is given more importance from the point of view of floor area in rural regioiis, that is when people design and build their own homes.
In Edirne the floor area of the 108 kitchens differed from 2 square meters to 4.5 square meters. On the other hand all of the kitchens are seen to fall in the 2.50 - 10.70 square meter standard accepted by 16 countries, or more.
As for the study of domestic habits in relation to spaces in the house, out of 456 rooms, 69.3% were used for more than one activity and the activities overlapped;
- Ankara: sitting, eating 6%
- EcJirne: sitting, eating - 15.3 %
Both in urban and rural regions, activities that overlap in usage of spaces show similarities and these activities are:
- sitting and sleeping,
- sitting, sleeping, and eating.
Activities concerned with services were found to be the following:
a. Preparation of meals: 76.4% of the dwellings in the research area had a kitchen,
b. 55.5% of the total 108 kitchens were utilized only for preparation of meals and washing clothes,
c. 25.9% of the families ate their meals in the kitchen,
d. Kitchens in the urban regions which were utilized only for service activities (61.6%) were more than kitchens in rural regions (42.8%). (This may be related to floor area),
e. 74.3% of the housewives in both areas carry on the preparation of food stuffs in the kitchen and was desired by 86.4% of the housewives. Other spaces where the activity takes place are the other rooms and 'sofa',
f. The cooking activity was carried on in 6.it% of the kitchens and was desired to take place in the kitchen by 90% of the housewi ves.
There is an important point that needs to be stressed about the Turkish kitchen. Preparation of goods to be cooked is not necessarily interlinked with the cooking of meals because the preparation of most foodstuffs, vegetables, etc., are time consuming and it is desired to sit down and carry on the activity
in a warmer space (Çelen, 1980).
In an ergonomic kitchen research carried out by İkbal in 1985 in İstanbul, it was found that kitchen measurements showed great differences, especially those between cooker and primary worksurface, and sink and pritiery worksurface. This was due to the variety of kitchen plans and the absence of the ideal work triangle (see 3.2./».). ikbal concludes her research, stating that:
“Since anthropometric measurements differ, each country should use its own standards in kitchen measurements. However, the placing of cupboards, :· work surfaces, cookers, etc, and the development of a working system always has a common aim. This common aim is one which does not differ fran one country to another and it aims to improve the working atmosphere and conditions of the housewife. These will as a result lead to containing her efficiency. Thus, all research carried out once the goals are set will bring great help into the subject"(İkbal, 1988; p.388).
KITCHEN PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES Q£ HOUSEHOLDS
3.1. CONCEPTS OF HOUSEHOLD AND DOMESTIC RESEARCH
There Is much confusion in literature about the usage of the terms 'famı 1y ' and 'household'. They are in fact, often used qui te interchangeably. This confusion is especially problematic in reference to the patterns of residence and the social relations of more than one related conjugal family unit. It is very often necessary to make a distinction between family and household in this context. We can define households as groups in which there is a high density of activity (Wilk, 1984).
Although certain activities such as economic cooperation or the preparation of food often take place among conjugal units living together, it is quite common in urban areas in many societies for such functions to be maintained despite the separate residence of such related conjugal units. It is important in such cases to emphasize the extended family character of such activities, and yet to have a way of differentiating residential unit from functional units if necessary. Duben refers to " the grouping together in one organizational (or functional) framework of more than one conjugal unit regardless of residence, as an 'Extended Family' " (Duben, 1982; p:94). He then refers to such an extended family which is actually living together as an 'Extended
Family Household' (Duben, 1982; p:94).
The field survey in this thesis is based on a statistical analysis of a sample of the middle-income Turkish population, via the use of a questionnaire. Selecting the household as a common focus for social scientific research and analysis has both practical and theoretical justifications. Households are readily identifiable, countable in a relatively simple and replicable manner, and logically comparable in size and type to one another. Therefore, there is a social unit that is well suited to understanding through scientific method. The variations among households in a community are straightforward and unambiguous enough to be specified, classified, and statistically analyzed·. Pooling and sharing of resources, food processing, cooking, eating tend to take place in the household, which has therefore become a standard unit of analysis for ecological, and economical purposes. Commonalities are visible in large samples, and the significance of variability can be statistically tested. The intense controversy about the changes in household patterning that do appear (single-person households, cohabitation by unmarried pairs, the tnatrifocal household, elderly parents in the household of their married children) should warn us of the cultural and emotional values that surround this grouping (McNelting et. al., 1984).
The idea to separate the concept household from family can be seen as an attempt to replace a culturally defined unit with one that is nx)re based on observation. Anthropologists first began to use the word household as a residual term to take up the slack
between ideal family types and the actual groups of people observed in ethnographic situations. The use of the term household acknowledged that sometimes there was a difference between kinship structures and the actual groups of people who lived together (Wilk et. al., 198k).
Research into domestic behaviour uses sociological methods combined with detailed surveys of houses to study the effects of particular types and layouts on the behaviour and habits of the occupants. The main objective of research into domestic behaviour is the analysis of the habits and reactions of people in relation to particular housing conditions and social factors. 'Domestic Habits' comprise all the customary behaviour of the people who use the’dwel1ings and include the usage of individual rooms. The main purpose is to establish people's requirements in the way of housing, . h o w it should be.planned, and.equipped. This, type of research has been particularly intensive in countries where there are extensive social programmes of subsidized house building (Çelen, 1980).
Domestic research allows us to see whether or not domestic habits arise in conformity to the design of the dwelling, and hence the results of domestic research could provide a basis for planning. Doinestic research should always analyse reciprocal influences between domestic details and human reactions, and should seek to ascertain how the building reacts upon its occupants (Çelen, 1980).
There are also some critical views stating that from the
sociological point of view, the opinions expressed by those questioned tell us little about their real needs, because they are based only on those features that the respondents happen to know about (Çelen, 1980).
3 .1.1. IÜE URBAT-I MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSEHOLD IN TURKEy
A study by Timur, using data from a 1969 national survey, indicates that the ratio of households that are extended in the three · major metropolises in Turkey is 4.6% . Timur's study also reveals the fact that 12.4% of all metropolitan households that are not classified as extended are more complex than nuclear family households, that is, they contain either both parents, a single parent, or a sibling or other relative of one of the members of the married couple. If we add these percentages to those for the extended family households, the figures for household types larger than the nuclear are 17% for the three metropolises (Duben,
1982).
A small scale field research based on an interview-type questionnaire administered in Istanbul in 1979 resulted in the following information (Kuyas, 1982); the population classified as middle class consists of nebulous and inter-related sectors in terms of occupation and cultural background. There are two major groups constituting the middle strata, regardless of the relative changes in income or life style. The first group consists of families who either posess small means of entrepreneurial production or of commercial exchange, but not
on a scale to appropriate the labor power of others. It is the group traditionally called the 'Small Bourgeoisie', The second group are people who have sufficient education or· training to enable them to provide skilled bureaucratic, technical, or service-type salaried labor to either the public or the private sectors. This is the group called the 'New Middle Class', most of whom are also either of rural petty bourgeois or of peasant origin (Kuyas, 1982). In the Turkish context extended family households imply cocnmon consumption, often joint econoniic activities, and a common budget. The classic type is the three-generation patrilineal extended family household (Duben, 1982).
While it is unusual for more than one nuclear family (or more than one nuclear family with an elderly parent) to live in the same flat., in .a city nowada.ys, there is. evidence that middle-income and well-to-do households in major Turkish cities in the 19th and early 20th centuries were quite large. The capacious size of most of the wooden houses in which families of these classes lived speak for this. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, households were very large indeed, containing grandparents, married uncles and aunts, nieces, and various servants. At present, despite separate residence, it is quite common for parents and their married children, uncles and their married nephews and nieces, and various sorts of married cousins
)
to live with their nuclear families in separate flats in the same or adjacent apartment buildings or in the same neighbourhood. From Kongar's study (Duben, 1982) of the family in İzmir, we learn
that 11% of all families have such close relatives in the same building, 35% in the same neighbourhood, and a total of 6i*% have such relations at least within an adjacent neighbourhood. Significantly, it is middle-income rather than gecekondu or upper income families that show the greatest desire to live close to these relatives. Such families visit each other with a remarkable frequency as compared with similar families in the West. Nearly third of all the families in all classes in the İzmir study visit close relatives every day, and 60% at least once a week. In a study of the family relations of university graduates in the three major metropolises, Dirks found that 64% of all females and 68% of all males interviewed see their own parents at least once or twice a week. A quarter of the females see their parents daily (Duben, 1982).
3.1.2, Ih!E U B B M MIDDLE-INCOME WOMAN IN TURK£Y
In Turkey, sex differences in the division of labor and spatial segregation are quite nerked in the domestic environment. For example, food preparation for the family, cleaning, childcare, etc. are almost exclusively women's work. Also, for the same reason, virtually all maids in homes - where contact is primarily with women - are female (Olson, 1982).
If more organized jobs were to become available to low-income urban women, this would drastically alter the opportunities of middle or upper middle class women who rely on the availability of
I
relatively unfettered by dcxnestic obligations (Kandiyoti, 1982).
For the lower middle-class and traditional middle-class women, as a by-product of segregated urban female leisure activities, special visiting patterns create networks. Studies of the reception day or kabul günü when women receive guests on a regular, alnxist rotational basis, suggest that structured visiting among women serves extra-domestic social functions (Kandiyoti, 1982).
The proportion of women, especially married women, who are in the work force has risen steeply through the last generation and the same tendency is seen in higher education. There have been parallel tendencies in the family and community developing in ways which make it easier for married women to work outside the home if they wish to do so. Shopping, housing, and other services are improving, husbands are taking a larger and less patriarchial part in the running of their homes, and the number of large families and births after 30 are falling since wives tend to have fewer children. However, role segregation which is still widely seen in the life of middle-income Turkish families, leads to a strong preference for the house-wife at home (Celen, 1980).
Another reason for the neglect of the kitchen, may be the fact that housework, cooking, and childcare are the primary responsibilities of women, but houses are designed by men, who have very .little to do with the work which goes on in them. That is
why, perhaps, women's essential problems are so often ignored (Çelen, 1980),
Under modern conditions, almost every housewife must be prepared to do her own work, including cooking, cleaning, and washing. Moreover, many in addition, undertake full or part time outside etiployment, so that the kitchen must be efficiently organized, inorder to operate in and to keep clean (Çelen, 1980).
" The main consideration is the inefficiency of the Turkish wonen's kitchen. Spending such a long time in the kitchen, and benefitting so little from modern developments in this field is quite unfortunate and primitive. ... The problem of household duties is further complicated by the ever increasing number of housewives who go out to work (Celen, 1980; p:6).
M M N A c m i n cENiEEs m i m KiTotoj
The activity centers have evolved as the end product of the organization of the work process in the kitchen. The assembly of the work centers, considering the flow of work, composes the cnodern layout of todays kitchen. A kitchen assembly is described as a group of appliances, storage cabinets and counters which form a kitchen unit. This unit is cotnposed of three main areas of activity - the sink, cooker, and refrigerator - representing the major work process centers during the preparation of a meal.
placed in a logical relation to each other, to other related activity areas, and to traffic patterns. Each major appliance, together with necessary.work counters and storage for tools and supplies, forms a work center. Storage of the equipinent within work centers forms a great advantage for the speed and ease of the person who works in the kitchen. The most important point to be considered in storage location is the place of the items used most frequently. They must be put where they are easy to see, easy to reach, and easy to grasp.
All items in everyday use should be stored between shoulder and hip height so that the user is not constantly bending and stretching. Wall cupboards should be fixed AO-45 cm. above base units so that they are within easy reach, yet leave enough space above the worksurface for small appliances in use (Mack, 1989).
3.2.1. THE SINK CENTER
At the sink center, at least 60cm. of worktop must be provided on each side of the sink for preparing food and stacking dishes. If the worktop surface on one side is in the form of a ridged drainer, the worktop on the other side of the sink should be at least 90cm. long. If ridged drainers are set on both sides of the sink, an additional worktop length of 60cm. will be needed for food preparation. For a sink which is placed near a corner, at least 35cm. should be allowed between the sink center line and the corner (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
Figure 3.1. The Sink Center.
(Source: Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
The sink, being the main activity center, accounts for h0~h6% of all kitchen work time (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985). According to Packard, “the functions of the sink center are most comnx>n to the other two centers. It is recommended therefore that the sink center's location be convenient to each of the others (usually between them)" (Packard, 1981), within 120-180cm. of the cooker, and within 120-210cm. of the refrigerator. The dishwasher should be located within 30cm. of the sink, for convenient loading, and it
should not be set at right angles to the sink, or the user will have to move away from the sink every time she wants to open the dishwasher door. Dishwashers will also need to be pulled in and out of position for servicing, so they require adequate clearence for this: for a standard-size 60cm. appliance, 65cm. should be allowed (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
The food preparation and washing up area generally accounts for about half the total run of fittings in an average kitchen. Crochery, pots and pans, knives, tin openers, strainers, peelers, plastic bags, string, paper, implements, washing-up bowl, empty bottles, refuse container, cleaning materials, potatoes, onions, draining board, etc, are some of the equipment used in this center.
3.2.2. lUE COOKER c e n t er
At least 30cm. of worktop should be allowed on each side of the cooker for resting pans, or up to 60cm. on each side if space permits. For a cooker next to a wall, a safety margin of at least AOcm. from the center of the nearest burner should be given. If the oven is a separate unit, there should be a worktop at least AOcm. long beside it. If the cooking zone also functions as a serving zone, an unbroken run of worktop at least 60cm. long will be required for setting out dishes. On either side of the cooker, the worktop should have heat-resistant areas for hot pots and pans
(Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
The Cooker Center.
(Source: Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
Although there is plenty of activity in this area, the number of appliances and equipment is comparatively small. Frying pans, saucepans, casseroles, pressure cooker, cooking implements, and seasoning are mostly used in this center. In addition to these, L.P.G. (bottled gas) is used in many parts of Turkey as cooking energy, and these are usually stored within this center. It is best for the cooker center to be near the dining area in the kitchen.
Items such as china, glassware, cutlery, serving sp<x>ns, table mats and linen, bread, jam, salad-oil and vinegar, trays, electric toaster, salt, pepper, etc. are used.
3 . 2 . 3 . jug REFRiOEfiATPR CEiilEfi
At least AOcm. of worktop should be provided on each side of the refrigerator for setting out supplies. If this area must also form part of the mixing and food preparation center, an uninterrupted run of worktop between 90-120cm. long should be provided. (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
-i::·
0 O ■100 l2D0iiim
Figure 3.3.
The Refrigerator Center.
(Source; Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
The refrigerator should be located at the end of a worktop, where it will not cut the available work space into several small, cramped work areas. Freestanding refrigerators require ventilation, and must
not be enclosed. They must be set at least 7.5cm. from the rear wall, so that heat from the condenser coils at the back of the refrigerator can disperse. 2.5-5.0cm, should be left between each side of the refrigerator and an adjacent unit, or wall, and the ventilation grille which is sited at the back of the top panel should not be obstructed (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
The refrigerator center is best located near the entry since it is the receiving area. It is usually in combination with the sink center, since food preparation is carried out in this area also (Packard, 1981).
The equipments used in this area are utensils and minor appliances, mixing machines, food processors, kitchen scales, and packaging materials.
3.2./t. THE FOUR LAYOUTS QE THE WORK TRIANGLE
It has been estimated that a family cook walks about 250 kilometers during the course of preparing a year's meals (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985). Therefore kitchens must be highly efficient to use and the key to any efficiently designed kitchen is its work triangle. This is the logical inter-relationship of the cook's three main aids: the sink, cooker, and refrigerator. These appliances should be sited so that the user has access to each without having to take too many steps to circumvent obstacles in the process of fetching, preparing and cooking food, and washing up. The three appliances are positioned on the points of an imaginary triangle, which should be
coiTpact as possible within the limits of free movement between the points (Joyce» 1987), and should provide adequate working and storage space.
THE SINGLE-WALL KITCHEN THE L-SHAPED KITCHEN
a
r :
□
L J . J —J ['
THE GALLEY KITCHEN
J.
□
, □¡¡\ n ;/ia
\i Figure 3.4.The Four Kitchen Layouts. (Source:Joyce, 1987).
An efficient kitchen will have its major fixtures and appliances in one of the four basic layouts shown in Figure 3.4. - the Single wall, the Galley (or corridor), the L-shaped, and the U-shaped. In each layout, the lines joining the three activity centers form the
work triangle. With good planning the sides of the triangle should measure 360-660cm. (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
The single-wall layout is the only type of kitchen which cannot incorporate a work triangle and works best in an area less than 366cm. long. If the arrangement is strung out to gain more units and longer worktops, the distances between work centers become too great for efficiency. Narrow appliances can be used to provide maximum worktop and unit space, and steps can be saved by locating the refrigerator at one end, the hob at the other, and the sink in between, with most of the worktop space situated between the sink and the cooker (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
In the corridor type arrangement, usually found in a kitchen that also serves as a passageway, appliances and units are distributed along two facing walls. Because the work triangle will be broken by traffic, the cooker and the sink - the most active work centers must be located along the same wall. The aisle should be at least 120cm. wide to provide adequate clearance between unit and appliance doors. In aisles narrower than this, the three workcenters should be staggered so that appliance doors do not interfere with each other (Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
The L-plan is best for small square kitchens, in large ones it provides a work triangle isolated from traffic and frees the rest of the room for dining. Its main drawback is the long distance between two of the work centers. The centers should be arranged with a sink in the middle, creating a refrigerator-to-sink-to-cooker work flow
(Editors of Time-Life Books, 1985).
In the U-plan, units and worktops set along three walls keep the three activity centers accessible to one another and out of the way of other traffic. The back wall should measure between 2/tO-kOOcm., allowing from 120-280cm. of work area between worktops. A tighter arrangement creates cratnped work areas while a looser one requires too many steps between activity centers.
3.3. STORAGE IN ^ E KITCHEN
Although kitchens - like all other living spaces - appear to get smaller and smaller, storage requirements in this room have increased dramatically in the last few decades (Mack, 1989). Storage is one of the most important aspects of a well-designed kitchen, therefore intelligent planning and close attention to detail are vital in the design of a storage system (Joyce, 1987).
A method to cope with the inadequacy of storage is to define the way in which households shop for, cook, and serve their meals. The number of people the housewife cooks for, how often she cooks, how often the household goes shopping, and how often they entertain are some important points which may lead the designer to inportant solutions. For example, if the housewife is working full time and prepares only a simple meal for one or two persons in the evening, but can not shop more than once every few weeks, she will need a large fridge/freezer and plenty of storage facilities, but smaller space for dishes and equipment, and a smaller preparation area may
be adequate for her needs. However, if the housewife is at hane, cooking three elaborate meals a day for a family, she will need the maximum possible working space and plenty of room for crockery, saucepans, and utensils, but she may be able to shop frequently so large-scale food storage will be less important (Mack, 1989).
There are four categories of storage units for kitchens: Base Units, Wall Units, Tall Units, and Special-purpose Units.
3.3.1. MŞL· m i s
These are dual purpose, providing both storage space and working surfaces. The heights and depths of base units vary, and are usually dictated by the dimensions of built-in appliances. For the U.S. the standard height is 90cm. and the standard depth is 61cm. - the minimum clearences required for appliances (Joyce, 1987). However, the average elbow height for the Turkish population is 96.31 t 0.k9cm. (Gönen, 1990). The ideal worksurface height is generally proposed to be 10cm. below elbow height - therefore worksurface height for Turkish kitchens should be around 86cm.
Height of base units may also differ according to the activity taking place on them - a higher worksurface will be required for chopping, whereas a lower worksurface will be required for kneading. However, standard kitchens produced in Turkey today tend to have a single height for all their base storage units.
3.3.2. WALL UNITS
These are units wall-mounted above work surfaces and appliances. Their height depends on the ceiling height of the kitchen and personal preferences, but standard heights are usually 60cm. and 90cm. Depth can vary from 30cm. to 35cm. - narrower than base units for countertop working convenience. The wall cabinets shortest in height are the most suitable for fitting over the sink, cooker, and refrigerator (Joyce, 1987).
The average high reach distance for the Turkish women population is stated to be 183.66 + 0.89cm (Gönen, 1990). This should be the height where the least commonly used items should be stoi'ed. The general application of wall units in Turkey is to mount the base of these units at 165-170 cm. from floor level. This allows for the storage of frequently used items to be stored on the lower shelves, while other less frequently items are stored on upper shelves.
3.3.3. lALL m i j s
As their names suggest, these are units extending from the floor to the top of the other wall units, or even higher, depending on personal preferences and ceiling height. In the U.S. the standard height is 230cm., and the standard depth is 61cm. (Joyce, 1987). The general application for these units, in order to provide comfortable usage, is to have pull-out shelf units mounted inside, allowing the shelves to be used from both sides. This application also overcomes problems related to the depth of these units.
3.3.4. SPECIAL-PURPOSE UNITS
There is an almost limitless variety of designs, especially among the base units: cabinets that house a sink; accomodate a built-in microwave oven, range, eye-level oven, or fridge; units with pull out boards; with roll-round, slide-out, pull-out racks; corner carousel units; knife-storage cupboards, and most useful of all, units that come with adjustable shelving. The interior arrangement of units is all-important, and flexibility is the key to space saving - a packet of cornflakes, for example needs a lot more headroom than a tin of sardines. Movable shelves permit maximum econoniy of storage space (Joyce, 1987). Another popular unit is the appliance cupboard, which fits on the counter between the base and wall units and houses the toaster, blender, kettle, and so on
(Joyce, 1987).
3.3.5, O E M s t o r a g e.
The number and type of shelves and racks installed depends partly on the plan of the kitchen, and partly on practical considerations. Sharp kitchen knives, for instance, should be racked (well out of reach of children) to prevent blunting, while pots and pans hanging from hooks are conveniently ready to hand. However, from the hygiene point of view, it is best to avoid open shelving, as the items on display are not protected from dust and grease. The optimum depth of open shelving is approximately 20crn. (Joyce, 1987).
