The relative location of work centers should permit a continuity of kitchen activities as follows: (1) Storage (gathering materials needed for the performance of the taskj; (2) Cleaning and mixing (or initial preparation); (3) Cooking; (4) Serving, or storing for future use; and [5) Cleaning up. (See Fig. 5.)
In principle, any plan that interrupts this continuity with doors, or with non-working areas or facilities, is faulty because extra steps are required every time the gap is crossed, and, consequently, convenience ond working efficiency are reduced.
The actual plan may be U-shoped or L-shaped, or St may be of the corridor type-
The "U" arrangement affords the most compact work area. Frequently, however, this arrangement is impassible 1o achieve becouse of the necessity of having a door on one of the three waifs. The resulting 1 Broken U" arrangement still permits compactness, but traffic is allowed through the area Therefore, special consideration should be given to the arrangement of the work centers in order to minimiie the effect of through traffic.
The "L" arrangement is ideally suited where space along two waits is sufficient to accommodate all of the necessary work areas. This arrangement has the advantage of concentrating the work orea in one corner, thus minimizing travel, but it has the disadvantage of necessitating longer trips to the extremities of the "L"
The "Corridor" orrangement is satisfactory where doors are necessary at each end of the space. This arrangement frequently has the advantage of the parallel walls being closer together than m the typical "U," but the disadvantage of a greater distance along the corridor.
An important factor in determining the location of specific work areas within any of these over-all arrangements is frequency of use, which in Fig. 6 is expressed as the percentage of trips to and from each areo.
Figures 7-9 provide floor plans illustrating some possible arrangements of the bosic work centers within each of the plan types. If the space far the kitchen is already established, the number of possible satisfactory arrangements obviously will be limited. If the space is being planned, however, greater choice of arrangements is possible. In either event, the advantage of a shorter distance between some related areas must be balanced against the resulting increase in distance between other related areas. An end-to-end alignment or a right-angle orrangement between areas of close relationship can eliminate trips and reduce the over all travel distances. Functional relationships between key work centen are, of course, accommodated more ideally in some of the plans than others.
Was this article helpful?