Running to reorganization or redevelopment, as well as a variety of decorative techniques, designers turn small kitchens into full-fledged zones for cooking and receiving food. We analyze and compare options.
House in the residential quarter Wellton Park
The height of buildings that are made by monolithic and monolithium-panel technologies - from 10 to 28 floors located in them apartments are distinguished by ceilings up to 2.8 m and conditionally free layout. Similar volume-spatial solutions are used by the developer and in other projects. Before you - two options for organizing the kitchen in the trick of the Naga 53.5 m2.
Option 1
Designers Max Zhukov, Victor Stefan
Area before redevelopment: Kitchen 8.9 m2
Square after redevelopment: kitchen-living room 26.3 m2
Explanation: 1. Dining group 2. Opening surface 3. Cooking panel 4. Wash 5. Refrigerator
| PROS | MINUSES |
We are applied uncomplicated in the implementation, but spectacular decoration techniques. | In a single space, the kitchen-living room will need to install a powerful exhaust. |
The kitchen front is removed into a single line with cabinets in the hallway, which optically increases the space. | |
On the floor along the kitchen front lay down porcelain stoneware. | |
Enough storage places. |
Option 2.
Designer Anna Glukhova
Area before redevelopment: Kitchen 8.9 m2
Square after redevelopment: kitchen-living room 21.5 m2
Explanation: 1. Dining group 2. Cooking panel 3. Sink 4. Refrigerator
| PROS | MINUSES |
Budget and fast implementation. | Due to the device of a string design that hides the output output to ventilation, the ceiling level is reduced. |
Through the kitchen front, on the floor, ceramic granite is provided. | An insignificant volume of the refrigerator under the table top. |
The dining area is accentuated by a suspended lamp. | Insufficiently extended work surface. |
IP-46S series
Get acquainted with two kitchen projects in a 43.5 m2 studio apartment. Pluses the initial solution is not enough, in essence, only the presence of a glazed loggia adjacent to the room. In the first version, the kitchen was visually expanded at the expense of the summer room (the presence of doors is required), the creators of the second design project remain in the initial boundaries.
Option 1
Architect-designer Tatyana Zagivuopeova
Square to redevelopment: Kitchen 8.5 m2
Square after redevelopment: Kitchen 8.5 m2
Explanation: 1. Dining group 2. Cooking panel 3. Working surface 4. Washing 5. Refrigerator
| PROS | MINUSES |
Improved insolation of the room. | The attachment of the loggia, dismantling the windows block and the transfer of the heating radiator complicate coordination. |
A capacious corner layout layout of a kitchen headset will be implemented, a working triangle is thought out: a stove - washing - a refrigerator. | |
Due to molding and eaves, the ceiling height will visually increase visually. |
Option 2.
Lead Designer Nina Romanyuk
Designer Tatyana Tsarov
Designer Elena Smirnova
Square to redevelopment: Kitchen 8.5 m2
Square after redevelopment: Kitchen 8.5 m2
Explanation: 1. Dining group 2. Refrigerator 3. Cooking panel 4. Working surface 5. Washing
| PROS | MINUSES |
There is no redevelopment. | Because of the device of the string design, the ceiling height will decrease. |
It is proposed to use inexpensive, simple and memorable materials and equipment. | Spots will be noticeable on the black outdoor tile. |
The kitchen front is spacious at a roomy G-shaped diagram. |
C-220 series
According to developers, the service life of panel-brick houses of this series is 100-150 years. In addition, in the assets of buildings (18 or 24th floor height) - increased thermal insulation of outer walls (three-layer panels), glazed balconies, spacious kitchens, pretty high ceilings (2.75 m). That is why we expect that our readers will repeat more than once again to two represented kitchen room redevelopment projects in a three-bedroom apartment with a total area of 102.7 m2.
Option 1
Designers Evgeny Ermolaeva, Lyudmila Samoilova
Square to redevelopment: kitchen 15.2 m2
Square after redevelopment: kitchen 15.2 m2
Explanation: 1. Bar rack 2. Refrigerator 3. Sink 4. Working surface 5. Cooking panel
| PROS | MINUSES |
Project harmonization will not cause difficulties. | The kitchen is not isolated from the hallway and living room, which entails the installation of a powerful exhaust. |
We are applied uncomplicated in the implementation, but spectacular decoration techniques. | |
Practical solution for floor finishing. | |
The initial height of the ceiling is preserved. | |
Extended work surface. |
Option 2.
Designer Manana Hucua
Square to redevelopment: kitchen 15.2 m2
Square after redevelopment: kitchen 15.1 m2
Explanation: 1. Bar rack 2. Refrigerator 3. Opening surface 4. Washing 5. cooking panel
| PROS | MINUSES |
Minimum redevelopment. | Porcelain stoneware is used only for focusing the bar counter, parquet board is on the kitchen front, which is impractical. |
Ergonomic accommodation of household appliances and kitchen equipment. | |
Folding doors save space. | |
Implementation does not need serious investments. |
House in the microdistrict Krasnogorsk
We present two versions of the reorganization associated with the organization of the kitchen in the Torchka metrah 80.9 m2. Feature of monolithic houses - carrier pylons between residential premises of the apartment. The author of the first project proposes to transfer the place of cooking (without disturbing the boundaries of the wet zones) to the storage room and together with a part of the corridor to attach it to the central room, so that the kitchen-living room appears. The same goal is also pursued by the author of the second project - it combines the kitchen and living room and joins the loggia.
Option 1
Designer Lyudmila Vidhevayev
Square to redevelopment: Kitchen 11.7 m2
Square after redevelopment: Kitchen-dining room - living room 23.9 m2
Explanation: 1. Refrigerator 2. Opening surface 3. Sink 4. Cooking panel 5. Dining group
| PROS | MINUSES |
The cooking and storage area will be isolated because it is organized in a deep niche. | The room allocated under the kitchen is construed into the room, so the redevelopment is consistent with the apartment located on the top floor. |
In different functions, a single floor covering is laid in different areas. |
Option 2.
Architect, designer Alexey Ulyanokhn
Square to redevelopment: Kitchen 11.7 m2
Square after redevelopment: Kitchen-living room 29.3 m2 (taking into account the loggia)
Explanation: 1. Dining group 2. Opening surface 3. Cooking panel 4. Wash 5. Refrigerator
| PROS | MINUSES |
The metro station will increase significantly, the insolation of the kitchen zone will improve. | To attach the loggia, you will have to dismantle the window and balcony blocks, as well as insulate and equip the summer room with an electric warm floor. |
A roomy and comfortable kitchen front with an extended working surface is provided. | It will be necessary to install a powerful extract. |
House in the microdistrict New Butovo
The dignity of a two-room apartment located in a monolithic brick building is in the absence of an internal capital wall between the kitchen and one of the living rooms. The boundary between them is indicated by two carrier pilons. The authors of the first redevelopment option offer not to build the partition between these rooms and thus organize the studio space. The authors of the second project from the wall do not refuse, but provide a niche in it and transfer the passage to the adjacent room.
Option 1
Architect Nata Svetochkova
Designers Elena Volodina, Maria Kanzer
Square to redevelopment: Kitchen 9.8 m2
Square after redevelopment: kitchen-living room 22.3 m2
Explanation: 1. Opening surface 2. Washing 3. Cooking panel 4. Refrigerator 5. Dining group
| PROS | MINUSES |
The kitchen headset is planned for a spacious P-shaped scheme. | In the kitchen area there will be a washing machine that is non-genuine; Because of its removal from the riser, more than 2 m will need forced sewage pump. |
Extended work surface. | Due to the combination of kitchen and residential room in the cooking area, a powerful extract will be required. |
Option 2.
Architect-designer Ilona Boleshitz
Architect Igor Orlov
Square to redevelopment: Kitchen 9.8 m2
Square after redevelopment: Kitchen-dining room 10.4 m2
Explanation: 1. Dining group 2. Refrigerator 3. Cooking panel 4. Working surface 5. Washing
| PROS | MINUSES |
The area of the room has increased. | The room is located in the bedroom. |
The niche organization allowed to establish a sofa. | Due to the installation of embedded luminaires, the ceiling height is reduced. |
Many storage places. | The project provides for a large number of furniture to order, which will increase the estimate and implementation period. |
Copser series
The advantages of such houses are increased thermal insulation of external three-layer panels (total thickness of 300 mm) and spacious kitchens. Of the disadvantages, we note the relatively small height of the ceilings (2.66 m) and, more importantly, the abundance of intravartic bearing walls. At the same time, the arrangement of the outlook in many of them is either forbidden, or allowed, but only above the seventh floor (depending on CCM). We analyze the two options for redeveloping the kitchen in a three-bedroom apartment with a total area of 76 m2.
Option 1
Designer, Head of Studio Olga Semenova
Square to redevelopment: kitchen 9.2 m2
Square after redevelopment: Kitchen 8.8 m2
Explanation: 1. Washing 2. Cooking panel 3. Refrigerator 4. Dining group 5. Buffet
| PROS | MINUSES |
No redevelopment. | Two vertices of the working triangle (washing and refrigerator) are attributed to a significant distance. |
Preserving the initial height of the ceilings. | The passage to the balcony door is difficult. |
Thoughtful selection of finishing materials: Walls are supposed to paint paint-resistant, floors covered with ceramic tiles. |
Option 2.
Lead Architect Designer Elena Bulagin
Designer Anusya Lyubimova
Square to redevelopment: kitchen 9.2 m2
Square after redevelopment: Kitchen 8.8 m2
Explanation: 1. Washing 2. Cooking panel 3. Refrigerator 4. Dining group
| PROS | MINUSES |
The reorganization will be to dismantle the doors and partitions and the construction of the arched passage system. | Using upper illumination (light ceiling panel and suspended lamp) and layouts of floor tiles for the separation of the dining group. |
Using upper illumination (light ceiling panel and suspended lamp) and layouts of floor tiles for the separation of the dining group. |
