hardwood floors in the kitchen, yea or nea?

[washertalk]

I like your dishwasher kick plate.
And the 1970s electric fry pan.

My opinion

As far as looks:
In conjunction with the cabinets. If you are putting in a light colored or painted cabinet it would work.
I have seen wood floors and wood cabinets and it doesn't work. It is too much, it is too "heavy".

As far as the old stuff:
Your almost guaranteed it will contain Asbestos. If you are going to cut into it your going to have flying particles all over.

As far as the the Wood:
Not to be discouraging, but. I have heard the "real wood" argument which falls flat. "We have "real" wood floors, we have "real" wood siding, we have "real" wood shingles." ?
I have real vynil siding, and real 3 tab shingles, and real NEW wall to wall carpet over 8 pound padding(and my feet just love it). And I wouldn't want it any other way.
There is a reason these products are a preferred. They last longer, there is more variety, and they are lowere maintenance.
wood belongs outside growing as trees or made into nice furnishings. Not raped from the land and hung on my house as a show of how piggish I can be.

You can say you have wood. Is it bare wood? Doubtful. In reality wood products have several layers of sealants to protect them, temporarily anyway. These are the same products that are used in manufacturing the products I mentioned above.

If I were redoing my kitchen I would do either vynil(glued on edges so it is easy to remove later and replace) or ceramic.

You said you found wood under the current floor. Was it at the edge? You may be amazed the difference between the edge and the heavily walked areas. Also, wood, especially in older structures shrinks opening up the the seams and it isn't pretty or sanitary.

And then there is the whole "restoring to original period" thing. Why? It is 2006. I understand that some people like "the look" fine. I get that.
But where do you draw the line. Are you going to live in the kitchen as if it were 195_?
And just because you have a house that is built in 1950, or 1900, or 1850 doesn't obligate anyone(specifically gay men with nothing better to do) to "obey" the decorator fashions of that time. We are people here in the year 2006 and there is nothing to be ashamed of in that!

How much work do you want to do?

Just my opinion.

I wish you good luck with what ever you choose.

 

[Cybrvanr]

I sort of enjoy the appearance of the house, which is sort of of "craftsman bungalow" style, with a little bit of deco thrown in. I want to sort of keep with this theme, and not go too modern. I love the mid-century modern "space age" look, and have a few elements of it around my house (like a Sputnik chandlier out of the picture frame) but too much of it will simply look out of place in a home with a more "down to earth" look to it.

This is not a problem however, as I really *like* the original 1951 appearance. Like you said however, it's 2006, and there are modern ways of doing things so while the look may be 1951, it's function will be 2006. This is one of the reasons why I asked for opinions on it. HW floors may have been the thing in 1951 prior to the development of high tech plastic flooring technologies, but how good did it actually work? In the rest of the house, the varnished hardwood floors have held up exceptionally well, and are extremely easy to keep clean with a little bit of soap & water

I'm not a big fan of carpet because it traps so much dirt and dust that no amount of cleaning will remove. Yea, it feels nice, but don't ask me to lay down on it unless it's brand new ICK!

If I wanted to go back to the "perfect" rendition of the home when it was built, I would stick with only a set of cabinets along the far wall, where the stove and sink is, and the washer / dryer would be where the fridge is.

Significant changes are happening to the layout of the kitchen area. The back door which is in the kitchen is going to be filled in, and a new set of doors installed out the dining room. The cabinets will then wrap around the rear portion where the door previously existed, with the sink and DW re-located to those new cabinets. The stove will be situated where the sink is now. The fridge is going to remain put.

I haven't been much of a fan of vinyl flooring because it's so soft and easily damaged. Linoleum was a common material back then too. I've been contemplating the black on white tile, but I figured it would be too much white with white cabinets and white tile too. Of course, I could change the color of the cabinets to something else too... I just want to stay away from the latest kitchen "fad" which seems to be mediterranean garden nowadays...can't stand the country kitchen look either that was popular in the eighties.

 

[irishwashguy]

I am all for the hardwood.

The hardwood has lasted this long, with proper care, you could have a floor that can last a long time. I was looking at a house to buy and was told that it had something that i had never seen in a house before, I thought that it was a nice alternative, it was Marmolium, the previous owner even put the inlays just like all of the hardwoods in the house, it looks like stone and is very durrable..Very high end.i like what you have done with your kitchen, love the Hobart Kitchen Aid. Good luck with the rest of your project. Ritchie

 

[oxydolfan1]

I vote for the wood. I like original wood flooring as a unifying element throughout the home, and having one base floor definitely facilitates mopping (no seperate chemicals, or in my case, even seperate MOPS for each type of flooring)....

I have to redo the kitchen floor upstairs soon, and in a bit of a quandary about it. It has very worn vinyl tile...it's gotta go...but I've looked at replacement vinyl options and am finding the patterns/textures to be boring beyond belief...the resiliency factor doesn't seem to have improved much over the years, either.

I'm happy to have more options to choose from, flooring-wise, but disappointed that what could be a nice, inexpensive way to rejuvenate a tired-looking kitchen isn't really marketed anymore...

 

[washertalk]

You said you were thinking of taking up the old floor(s). I would think that there is at least one layer of subflooring beneathe the vynil and perhaps 2. regardless of how they are fastened you will have a mess.

If they are stapled/nailed you have to figure that there is literally a fastener in every square foot of the flooring. If there is 2 layers you will have twice as many. So when you do get the old removed you will have all these nail holes randomly in the flooring. And you should figure that where the underlayment came together it is nailed more frequently on both sides of the seam, usually every 3-4 inches. This will appear on the hardwood as a not so sublime line.

If the first layer of underlayment was glued to the hardwood, well they will appear as unevenly stained even with sanding because the glue soaked into the wood where it was applied.

If you are set on the hardwood idea, in my opinion it would be better to remove it all down to the subfloor and start with fresh wood.

Also because you have removed an original wall it is doubtful that there is hardwood flooring where the wall WAS. so your going to need to find a solution for that regardless. New floors would be able to butte up to the existing floors.

It was mentioned the vynil floors are easily damaged. As someone else mentioned wood is too. I think you have an easier time repairing vynil. Lets say you put a 1/4" deep, 10" long scratch in these floors. With the vynil you can simply get seam sealer and fuse the edges back together. With wood that scratch will alway there even with filling and it will be difficult and time consuming to fix.

Frankly in considering your excellent question. I realized there is no perfect floor. All we can do is maintain what we have in hopes it will last for a reasonable amount of time.

So start from the other direction what are absolute NO's. To me they would include slate and marble(too expensive, fragile, slippery, sterile looking, few desirable patterns), 12x12 vynil tiles(too many seams, impossible to line each one up), laminate flooring(puckers at the seams if water is allowed to sit and causes permanent damage, odd pattern layout of boards usually doesn't match the printed pattern on the flooring), stained cement (OMG barf out), poured in place vynil (way too expensive, looks like a hospital from the 1960s, gag me), prefinished wood strip flooring(again, WAAAAAAAY too many seams, boards shrink and open the seams further allowing dirt in the cracks, floor does not wear evenly due to the way the boards are finished at the factory, when viewing this floor from an angle all the seams are obvious, doesn't look right and gets worse with age),....

(you finish the list. 1 piece vynil, site finished wood, ceramic. And in those there are alot of choices. You could get a vynil floor that looks like polyurethane finished wood (I have unintentionally fooled people more than a couple of times with this one). Ceramic in all kinds of colors, sizes, grout colors. Wood from micro strips to 12" plank and you can do inlay borders and in a variety of species.

Again, not meant to be discouraging. I speak from experience. I'm sure you'll find the right choice for you.

 

[runematic]

Here is a shot of the 1870's-era hardwood in part of my showroom. We didn't sand the floor back to "new" appearance. The floor had a lot of character to it & we didn't want to lose it. I think we put down 3 or 4 coats of clear polyurethane. Also, do the refinishing yourself. It's relatively easy, but time consuming.

 

[runematic]

another shot

 

[panthera]

runematic

Those floors are beautiful. I can see why you wanted to keep them. Scratched wood has character, scratched vinyl is cheap.
I had to replace several hundred feet in my folk's basement this last year - water damage. Once the foundation was dried out I went to look at what was available. Settled on industrial quality, 100% colored through vinyl. Very expensive compared to the 35c. tiles you get otherwise - but actually looks good. The fit and trim was so exact the seams do line up. And because it is colored all the way through, it is no problem if there is a scratch or two.
This said - I still think real linoleum is the way to go in such a situation. Washertalk is probably right about the conditions of the floor. As far as the asbestos goes - the city tested the damaged floor for me (35$) and said "no - no asbestos". If there had been, it would have been a haz-mat problem ---thousands and thousands of dollars.
I don't honestly know how much of the asbestos thing is real and how much hysteria.
Of course, some of the newest laminates for bathrooms and saunas are usable in kitchens - and they aren't all ugly. Question of cost, as usual. So don't just reject an idea because one of us didn't like the technology the last time we looked.
Oh - and yes, the "moisture" cured stuff is deadly. Disqualifies the house for some loans, even.

 

[sudsmaster]

I used Behr oil-based poly urethane on my oak floors about 10 years ago. It's been very trouble free, has never chipped. It did stink a lot but I did it in the spring and was able to air the house out pretty well. Of course, I think I did about five coats because I couldn't get it "right" to my satisfaction... so it will probably last forever. It's in the living room/diningroom and one bedroom. The rest of the flooring is vinyl or lino or unfinished (master bedroom).

If the kitchen area were already wood in good condition, I might consider refinishing with urethane and trying that. But I wouldn't put new wood in for a kitchen... I just think it's too risky, what with all the water sources and lfooding possible. I would probably try ceramic or porcelain tile, or maybe just sheet vinyl. Current kitchen has sheet vinyl over 1/2" particle board (yeech) and then more, older flooring under that. Eventually I plan on ripping out all the old floor covering and putting down porcelain tile, but first I have to do the master bed/bath... it never ends...