Question about 40-inch ranges

[turquoisedude]

This may be a dumb question, but what was the rationale behind building a 40-inch range?   Was it because the size was compatible with a coal or wood-fired range and would look as if it 'fit' better or was it to provide the extra workspace for preparation and a landing spot for pots or dishes from the oven that was often lacking in older kitchens?

 

Although I grew up in 50s-built housing developments, very few homes had a 40-inch range;  I saw a few of the 40-inch models in rural kitchens (including a wood/electric Belanger our family had in an old farmhouse).  

 

[pulltostart]

Paul

I don't have the answer, but I'll put in my two-cents-worth.

I suspect there never was a real reason other than "it's always been done that way." I think the size was an evolution from the days of the ranges that were on legs (both gas and electric), and maybe the 40" width just came to be the norm. So when the fully-enclosed models were introduced the manufacturers just stuck with the standard. The 30" models didn't appear until the mid-50's during the housing boom and the downsizing of homes in general made those 40" models more trouble than they were worth. Builders, homeowners, and manufactures finally realized that we could all get by with 30".

Keep in mind - this is all simply speculation on my part. If anyone can offer an actual reason, I'm all ears.

lawrence

 

[davey7]

Two Ovens

Part of it was fitting two ovens in (or that's my opinion).

 

[kenmore71]

It was because the footprint of most wood and coal cookstoves was around 40".

 

[abcomatic]

Paul

HI Paul, Growing up on the farm, we had a 40 inch Garland stove. I have a 1930's Detroit Jewel that is a 40 inch also. They both do look the right size in both kitchens. My Detroit Jewel has a cover that can be pulled over the burners when not in use. It does seem to give extra counter space that way. Gary

 

[danemodsandy]

All That and More....

Mark is correct that 40 inches was the accustomed size for coal and wood-fired ranges, so there was that.

But there were other good reasons to continue the size, and they had to do with early to mid-20th Century housing.

Tract housing of that era tended to be extremely basic by today's standards - you were lucky if you got eight feet of base cabinets. You didn't get even that much on the walls, because American women demand that the sink is in front of a window, which cuts into the wall cabinet space available. That meant any extra storage options were not only welcome, but actually essential - the storage drawers in a 40-inch range were badly needed. Many 40-inch ranges had three storage drawers - two below and one to the left of a single oven. Some deluxe models had two ovens and only one or two drawers, of course.

The cooktop light on a 40-inch range was also very handy, because tract houses tended to have one overhead light fixture in the kitchen, period. A light over the sink was a "deluxe" touch; there was otherwise no task lighting at all, usually.

And outlets were in short supply. A 40-inch electric range had at least one, and if it was an automatic-oven model, it also had a timed outlet. Those outlets were very helpful in a kitchen that had all of one or two wall outlets of its own.

Last came the extra cooktop space, which was useful not only for hot pots and pans coming off the burners, but could be used for small-appliance uses, such as a mixer, which could be plugged into the range's outlet.

40-inch ranges took tract house kitchens from incompetent to pretty bearable. Only later, when standards changed and new houses included more features, was it feasible to use other sizes.

 

[norgeway]

The odd thing was..

There were so MANY different sizes of ranges back then....GE and Hotpoints were 39 inch, Norges were 38 inch, Kenmores were 41 and 42 inch, my 55 Norge is 41 inch, Western Hollys were 42 inches wide....

 

[moparwash]

Why 40"?

I think the 40" hung around for awhile because when building a new house, the builders can skimp on having to build 10" of cabinets and countertops. Every 1950's house in my neighborhood has or had a 40" range space...plus when the 40" range was at its zenith, it was the primary cooking appliance as microwaves had yet to become commonplace. The only reason I went to a 30" during the remodel was to have space for a full-size dishwasher..It was an adventure sawing the row of drawers from the sink base unit to make it work!

 

[philr]

Here in Canada lots of houses and even small appartments had large wood stoves or 40" gas and electric models that were still quite popular in the 1950s but the 30" ranges that were introduced in 1950 quickly gained popularity during that decade. By 1960, most new houses either had space for a 30" range or had built-in cooking appliances. The woman who sold me one of my 40" Flairs had her house built in 1962 and the original plans for her kitchen were made for a 30" range. When she decided to get a 40" range, she had to ask to the contractor to change the plans of the kitchen to accomodate it. Frigidaire Canada had already stopped to offer 40" free standing models after 1960 so only the Flair remained. I don't recall seeing many post-1960 free-standing ranges from any brand around (except a few wood/electric combos) so I guess other manufacturers also quit offering them or they were very unpopular after 1960.

 

[davey7]

Crown kept making them...

So people wouldn't have to redo their kitchens, at least around Chicago.