Subject:
|
Re: Wanted - more efficient storage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.storage
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Sep 2001 01:12:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4001 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank, you might consider "Gorilla Racks" or something similar. I bought
three of them at Sam's Club but I'm sure something similar is also available
at hardware stores. While they aren't the haute culture of the furniture
world, they provide six vertical feet of very strong shelving, 4 feet long
and about 18 inches deep. The shelving height is adjustable.
I considered making my own shelving but in the end I went with buying the
commerical stuff. I'd rather spend my time sorting.
Cary
In lugnet.storage, Frank Filz writes:
> As I am nearing the end of my sorting (I need to take some new pictures
> of my unsorted piles, I do still have piles reaching to the ceiling but
> don't have a floor to ceiling stack, I am very close to having my
> entryway more or less clear [those who have squeezed into my apartment
> will appreciate this news]).
>
> The problem I am running into is that the Rubbermaid tubs that I have
> been using have several problems:
>
> - they can only be stacked a few high before the load becomes too great
> - their sloped sides waste a lot of space
>
> I'm mostly finding the most efficient storage box so far is a copier
> paper box. Unfortunately, you can't see through those, and I'm not sure
> how rugged they are (though they are pretty rugged).
>
> One thing which would be nice also is shelving which is efficient. I
> bought an 18"x48"x72" Metro cart with four shelves and quickly
> discovered that it resulted in less efficient storage near my computer
> than my current haphazard arrangement of a microwave cart, a couple Ibis
> drawer units, and stuff stacked on top of all of that. I didn't get
> completely done with stacking it up, but it was pretty clear that I
> wasn't going to get everything on the lower shelves that was in the
> space originally and still have the top shelf clear. The result even
> looked more crowded instead of less (primarily because the current
> stacking is less than 5' high. It also still required double stacking of
> items (the current method does have two piles stacked four high and one
> pile stacked two high).
>
> If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to share.
>
> Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Wanted - more efficient storage
|
| As I am nearing the end of my sorting (I need to take some new pictures of my unsorted piles, I do still have piles reaching to the ceiling but don't have a floor to ceiling stack, I am very close to having my entryway more or less clear [those who (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.storage)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
