# Space Smart, Stackable, Oak B.R. furniture **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 23, 2000, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-smart-stackable-oak-b-r-furniture/23272 "2000-06-23T03:08:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90ced4/32.png) [@jally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jally)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-smart-stackable-oak-b-r-furniture/23272/1 "2000-06-23T03:08:13Z")
It may be the high-tech age, but when it comes to **scientifically** manufacturing inexpensive, practical and space efficient storage products for us passive consumers, there’s much to be desired. Are there no empathic furniture manufacturers who believes in leveling the playing field by catering to the masses? Does anyone know of a furniture manufacturer who offers a way for people to have modular autonomy by producing: **MIX 'N MATCH STACKABLE OAK DRAWER UNITS** in the following dimensions: for starters, each mass-produced drawer could be: [ul] [li]15" W x 18" D (height: 6" or 8" or 11" file-size) [li]15" W x 22" D (height: 6" or 8" or 11" file-size) [li]25" W x 18" D (height: 6" or 8") [li]25" W x 22" D (height: 6" or 8") [li]30" W x 18" D (height: 6" or 8") [li]30" W x 22" D (height: 6" or 8") [/ul] _Emphasis: Above offers (1) configurability (2) space efficiency (e.g. notice options for 15"w & 22"d) (3) portableness_ Via the above, I could configure the following arrangement for myself, WITH ENOUGH ROOM TO STORE FOLDED TOPS ONE BEHIND THE OTHER: Chest of Drawers = 30"W x 22"D x 44"H (plus 5" base) consisting of: four lower drawers 30"W x 22"D x 8"H four upper drawers 15"W x 22"D x 6"H Dresser = Total Width 55"W consisting of: [ul] [li]center-part = 25"W x 22"D x 28"H (plus 5" base) [li]right & left = each: 15"W x 22"D x 40"H (plus 5" base) [/ul] The center part of dresser would have: two 8"H drawers and two 6"H drawers plus 25"W mirror The right & left parts of dresser would have: two 8"H drawers and four 6"H drawers Alternatively, modular shelving/hutches could also be included in choices. Nightstand = 15" W x 22" D x 19" H (exclusing 5"H base) consisting of: upper junk drawer 15"W x 22"D x 8"H lower file-folder drawer 15"W x 22"D x 11"H Other people, no doubt, would wish to configure their stackable B.R. furniture differently; the point is, that the above allows for much more flexibility and choice, AND portability; especially for those whose space is at a premium. SO WHY DOESN’T ANYONE _DO SOMETHING?_ ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-smart-stackable-oak-b-r-furniture/23272/2 "2000-06-23T22:52:05Z")
Bump. This is a great idea. I’ve seen lots of stackable and modular storage cubes and shelving, but I’ve never seen any drawers. Nice concept. ---
**Author:** ![ATTGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@ATTGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ATTGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-smart-stackable-oak-b-r-furniture/23272/3 "2000-06-23T23:41:30Z")
Sounds like you need to call the New Yankee Workshop and get Norm right on that. ---
**Author:** ![Barney111](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Barney111](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barney111)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-smart-stackable-oak-b-r-furniture/23272/4 "2000-06-23T23:41:57Z")
Good idea, but I see a couple of potential problems: 1. Unless there is a good way to attach the drawer units to each other, they’ll be very tippy. You won’t be able to open them without them pitching forward. 2.Expense. By making individual drawer units (I’m assuming each has a top, bottom, 2 sides and back), you are adding a good deal more material than a chest-of-drawers would have. For example, to make a five-drawer chest your way requires 5 tops and 5 bottoms;whereas, a regular chest requires only one top and bottom. Just some thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![jally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90ced4/32.png) [@jally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jally)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2000, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-smart-stackable-oak-b-r-furniture/23272/5 "2000-06-25T05:19:31Z")
Auntie Pam, thanks! ATTguy, you’re kidding aren’t you? Would he be interested in mass-production vs. specialization? Barney, you made some points: > [@](#): > > \*\* > Good idea, but I see a couple of potential problems: > > 1. Unless there is a good way to attach the drawer units to each other, they’ll be very tippy. You won’t be able to open them without them pitching forward. > > 2.Expense. By making individual drawer units (I’m assuming each has a top, bottom, 2 sides and back), you are adding a good deal more material than a chest-of-drawers would have. For example, to make a five-drawer chest your way requires 5 tops and 5 bottoms;whereas, a regular chest requires only one top and bottom. > > Just some thoughts. > \*\* Response: (1) Just as Fellowes (corrugated file system) has a method for fastening the files together, an experienced designer/engineer could probably figure something out easily for this, too. **Emphasis:** Note that I’m NOT advocating corrugated units, but rather, desirably stylish mass-produced oak units! (2) Well… I thought of that, but I still think that mass-production would come out _less_ expensive in the long run. Also, it could be produced in double drawer units as well as single (especially the 6" high drawers, or the 15" wide drawers, because those would still remain quite lightweight/portable). Believe me, I thought of this idea out of need, not out of frivolity. Why should people be forced to have wasted space just because manufacturers don’t give enough consideration to the “science & analysis” of space-efficiency? For example, about a century ago F.Gilbreth analyzed motion study. Environmentalists analyze waste disposal & recycling. Why not also analyze wasted space, especially if it can help so many people?