Kitchen cabinets for small cabin

[Holmes Anderson]

What cabinets would you put in a small (probably under 500 sq. ft.) log cabin? Cost and space efficiency are both concerns. They want to look at real wood so melamine and painted MDF are not on the table. Usually I would think of frameless as the low material cost, low labor option. However, frameless waste a lot of expensive plywood on backs and abutting sides, and the internal dividers created by those abutting sides create small inefficient storage spaces. The kitchen is so small that storage efficiency is important. I'm thinking of suggesting something like traditional built-in-place-by-carpenter cabinets. I probably wouldn't build them in place or use face nail joinery but each run of uppers would be a single FF carcass with solid wood tops, bottoms, and shelves (using a solid wood that is less costly per bdft than cabinet plywood). Lowers similar, maybe with each lower being either all drawers or no drawers. No backs - just nailers top and bottom. I might suggest going without doors altogether on the uppers to reduce cost.

[John TenEyck]

Built in place cabinets always have faceframes, at least the ones I've seen, and those openings limit what can do through. To me, that's a much bigger space waster than frameless cabinets where it's wide open from side to side. Frameless allows for the widest drawers possible to be installed for the least wasted space. But, yeah, it's hard to beat the cost of built in place cabinets if the labor is free. If you're paying for a trim carpenter to build them, however, I doubt the cost would be less than stock contractor grade cabinets or RTA's. Maybe do half contractor cabinets for the base and built in open shelves for the uppers.

John

[andy bessette]

Perhaps put up open shelves and add doors later.

[Dave Sabo]

However, frameless waste a lot of expensive plywood on backs and abutting sides, and the internal dividers created by those abutting sides create small inefficient storage spaces.


What the heck are you talkin about ????:confused:

Carcasses are what they are , and you can use expensive, medium, or low priced material whether that's plywood, melamine, mdf, wheatobard, or solid timber. By your rational - isn't the use of solid timer on the built in place face frames "a waste" of expensive hardwood ?

If you're using thick/expensive ply for the back of your cabinets - the problem is with your design, not the material ! Same thing with these internal dividers you mention...........poor design.

Furthermore. if your frameless cabinet actually NEEDS a divider , the comp. framed cab will also need a rail and it will be bigger than the frameless divider so ya ain;t wastin space w/frameless. You need to drop that notion real quick.

You may prefer the look of , or even prefer building framed cabinets, but frameless cabinets represent the most efficient use of material and storage space. It's not really open to debate.

Find yourself a melamine supplier in your area if you want to save some money. And 1/4" backs are plenty good for frameless cabs.

[Michael Burnside]

I built a set using knotty alder for my cabin. Looked great IMHO. I would have used ply but couldn’t get anything that was “rustic” enough around me.

Don’t think ply carcasses would really be all that perceptible in terms of lost space though, so I wouldn’t let that affect the decision. Factoring labor I don’t see ply losing that battle and that’s the direction I would have went if I could.

[Holmes Anderson]

What the heck are you talkin about ????:confused:

Carcasses are what they are , and you can use expensive, medium, or low priced material whether that's plywood, melamine, mdf, wheatobard, or solid timber. By your rational - isn't the use of solid timer on the built in place face frames "a waste" of expensive hardwood ?

If you're using thick/expensive ply for the back of your cabinets - the problem is with your design, not the material ! Same thing with these internal dividers you mention...........poor design.

Furthermore. if your frameless cabinet actually NEEDS a divider , the comp. framed cab will also need a rail and it will be bigger than the frameless divider so ya ain;t wastin space w/frameless. You need to drop that notion real quick.

You may prefer the look of , or even prefer building framed cabinets, but frameless cabinets represent the most efficient use of material and storage space. It's not really open to debate.

Find yourself a melamine supplier in your area if you want to save some money. And 1/4" backs are plenty good for frameless cabs.

Maybe we misunderstand each other. Are you familiar with the type of cabs I'm describing? The width of a frameless upper is limited by the practical width of doors and the span across which the top, bottom and shelves can reach without sagging like grandma's titties. That's maybe 3 feet wide max? A FF carcass can be as long as the lumber. 8 feet, 12 feet, 24 feet, no problem because the FF provides structural support that is lacking in frameless. So carcasses aren't just carcasses. But traditional FF cabs only make sense if you build one very wide carcass for each long run. Building a bunch of little boxes to screw together as is done with frameless wouldn't make sense because the FF isn't needed for structural support in a small box and it is extra lumber and effort to build.
Maybe that's what you're picturing but that's not how it's done. The wasted space is not about the door openings. Say we have an 8' run. The carpenter style FF cab has 8' of unobstructed shelf width. That same 8' run is probably 4 frameless boxes, each with short 2' widths and two sides. When the sides of two boxes are fastened to each other it creates an internal shelf divider. In other words, the dividers are the sides of the cabinets. 4 frameless cabs joined together = 3 dividers. Those dividers interfere with storage. I have removed, built and rehabbed this style cab in a few houses, including a couple houses with original cabs built before electrical power was invented so I've seen what carpenters used to build and the difference in storage capacity. That 8' run of frameless has 8 sides and 4 full backs. The traditional FF for the same run has only 2 sides and 2 nailers, which is a lot less lumber. The original purpose of frameless was to use less hardwood. The price for that is small boxes. Many small boxes require more secondary lumber than fewer large boxes. That isn't open to debate. Did I say they would be built from expensive hardwood? All the traditional built-in FF cabs I've seen are either pine, painted poplar, or an inexpensive hardwood (4/4 ash is currently less expensive than 1/4" plywood).

I would add that I had the cab space argument with an architect years ago. He insisted frameless were more efficient until he saw the type of cabinets I'm describing firsthand. Then he agreed with me. how many 10" dishes fit across an 8' run? 9? How many across four 2' runs? 8?

[Cameron Wood]

Uppers: pine boards, doors with cleats, surface mount hinges on stiles- no bottom rail.

Lowers: plywood boxes, pine end panel, doors as above, drawers rabbet fronts, nail sides on.

[John TenEyck]

The kitchen in my house had cabinets like you described, built by a trim carpenter. They were pretty crude, but the faceframes had pinned M&T joints and they were durable. I loved (?) the pink wall they were mounted to. I have them in my shop now after adding backs and a few other things. But, yeah, they were wide open inside the doors. If that's what you want, have at it. I still greatly prefer frameless for lower cabinets with drawers because of how they maximize space. These days, not many people want doors on lower cabinets, except under the sinks and in a corner.

John

[Thomas McCurnin]

I have a small wilderness cabin, and this is what I would do:

Plywood Boxes. Lots of properly sized drawers for efficiency. Knotty Pine face frames, drawer faces, and cabinet doors. I'd stain the Knotty Pine to make them look old, with some yellow and orange dye topped with Poly. 3/8" drawer sides and half blind dovetails for the drawers, otherwise a 3/8" drawer face. Undercounter lighting, and lots of it. Slide out pantry shelf for canned food.

We store most of our food in plastic bins with a secure snap closure to keep rodents at bay, so if that works for you, size the pantry to fit whatever plastic bins you purchase at your big box store.

[Richard Coers]

Bottom cabinets, stain grade from box store, uppers, natural edge slab shelves. As cheap as you can get.

[Bill Dufour]

Iodine stains wood to look like yellowed, aged pine.
Bill D

[Thomas McCurnin]

I have a formula that I use, if anyone is interested. I had to stain to match 100 year old shellac'ed wood.

[Holmes Anderson]

Some helpful advice here. Thank you all very much. I had never considered mixing different types of cabinets but I suppose there is no reason it couldn't be done. For example, wide FF uppers mixed with frameless drawer-only lowers. I think they are more concerned about limited storage space than cost.

[Rick Potter]

Log cabin? Relatively cheap? Rustic? Solid lumber?

How about Redwood, with an oil finish. When it gets banged up, it will even look 'rusticer'.

[roger wiegand]

I'd keep an eye on the local Habitat ReStore and CL/FB for used cabinets that suit your needs. Generally they can be had for a fraction the cost of wood needed to make new ones. With people regularly swapping out perfectly good 10 year old kitchens because they are "dated" such cabinets are abundant. If you buy a whole kitchen you'll probably get more than you need, but can then just pass on the unused ones to the next guy through the same markets.
Our current kitchen was outfitted for about 5% of the cost of buying similar quality cabinets new. I had to build a couple to match to fill odd holes, but that was way easier than doing the whole thing.

[Maurice Mcmurry]

If you are lucky you might find something hand made at the re-store. I took a client to Menards yesterday to pick out the items for her bathroom remodel. I managed to convince her to keep her old brown vanity with the promise that I would paint it if the end result did not please her. The vanity was made by a colleague of my Dads in 1969. The Makers sons are still producing cabinets.

Foley Custom Cabinets | Since 1968, building quality custom cabinets for mid-Missouri homes. (http://www.foleycustomcabinets.com/)

[Dave Sabo]

Maybe we misunderstand each other. Are you familiar with the type of cabs I'm describing?

I absolutely know what you're describing. It was ubiquitous in low cost housing thorought GA/FL/SC middle of last century.



A FF carcass can be as long as the lumber. 8 feet, 12 feet, 24 feet, no problem because the FF provides structural support that is lacking in frameless. So carcasses aren't just carcasses.

Yes, they are.........
If you can get FF material that is straight (and stays that way) over 8ft. long, you've got one heck of source. Have to call BS on your ability to get it in 12 & 24ft. lengths though. Also, framless cabinets don't lack support, their support is just in a different place than a framed cabinet ! I've done framelss projects 30+ years ago (with 5/8" sides no less ) that have had stone or concrete tops up to 2-1/2in. thick on them. They are still in place and are doing just fine.

And contrary to most American's belief - framed cabinets ARE NOT somehow inherently stronger than frameless. There are crap framed kitchens out there just like there are great ones. Same applies to frameless. So, carcasses are just carcasses for this discussion. They are an element to hold doors and drawers and ultimately kitchen suoolies /tools.



Building a bunch of little boxes to screw together as is done with frameless wouldn't make sense because the FF isn't needed for structural support in a small box and it is extra lumber and effort to build.

Well, this is a whole different (mostly theoretical) discussion. Especially on a one off project. And while one method may not make sense to you - to someone else it's clear as day. You feel an xtra couple of 5/8 or 3/4" sides of sheet goods is xtra lumber (a waste) while Mr. Faceframe thinks the hardwood lumber you bought for the frames is extra lumber. WHo's correct ??? Tough to say. Could be both, or neither. You also think extra effor is required to build frameless and I simply do not agree with this point. Nor do many operation guys. Frameless is a VERY EFFICIENT method of construction from both a labor AND materials standpoint. To do it well requires a bit more tooling whih may be a drawback/hurdle - but that's something much different than effort.


The carpenter style FF cab has 8' of unobstructed shelf width.

Well, sort of but not really . Again - I challenge you to find (show me) a frame that's 8ft. long and has no stiles. Which means your "run" ain't 8ft. interrupted. It's the same 2-3ft. of usable/accessible shelf space that a frameless run has. And when the frameless customer opens his door he' got a clear shot to the entire cabinet while mr. framed has lip to jump on the bottom shelf and the a jog left and right to deal with to clear the stiles. Which means THE USABLE space of a frameless is way more functional than any few sq. inches of extra space a framed cabinet may afford.

Then there's the real issue you seem to be ignoring (or haven't considered) which is shelf adjustability. Those built in place cabs traditionally were fixed shelf affairs and that's fine if it meets your needs. It doesn't for most people.
When you add that feature to your elevation -or- narrow your shelving to standard sizes to match other items like 24" dishwashers, 30" ranges, ect...ect.... - your theoretical material savings and less effort just went up in smoke.

And you still get to deal with the lippage the frames !



Did I say they would be built from expensive hardwood? All the traditional built-in FF cabs I've seen are either pine, painted poplar, or an inexpensive hardwood (4/4 ash is currently less expensive than 1/4" plywood).
No, but you did say (erronously in my market anyway) that plywood was expensive. And maybe it is, but so is solid timber by that same non quantitative back of the napkin opining.

Clearly you want to build the cabinets with that old skool method, which is fine............but don't get your nose outa joint becuase few if any people agree with your assumptions about that style of construction. Untill you have a specific design / layout / set of specifications and run a material takeoff ; any "it's cheaper" or "less labor" talk is just a W.A.G.

If you like that style , great - go do it. Why do you need complete strangers to validate your choice ? Why do you care if your asumptions are correct or not ?


p.s. that architect was just humoring you because none that are worth a darn would put their name on an 8ft. long single run anyway - even if it made ergonomic sense. Which , I cannot see being remotely possible given the size and scope of the project you first described. And while his interest may have been piqued by your new (old) method of building, he certainly had no cluue as to the manufacturing costs or time of either method.

p.s.s - I've worked on projects with many nationally renound architects all across the country and have yet to meet one that knew 1/4 about good kitchen design let alone manufacturing than a seasond CKD ! So don't hang your hat that one interaction.

[Ron Citerone]

I built cabinets for my small cottage. Sink bace, drawer base, small base, 2 uppers for dishes. Carcass out of 3/4 baltic ply, face frames/ drawer fronts/doors out of hickory. Not too expensive materials but nice finished look. Not sure how many cabinets you need. Might be helpful to know number and sizes.