So, Ashful, I am a little intrigued. To me one should be able to place an insert and then kind of tuck a surround in such a way as to continue the lines of the fireplace. Is there a reason that this is aesthetically less than a freestanding stove? If the answer is yes please explain it to me. Again, I would think that with some effort on could make an insert almost appear to look like you had just boxed in the fireplace almost like a set of fireplace gates.Now, this is my perspective as one who has lived in a lot of very old (back to 1690's) houses, but I wouldn't do anything to mess up what the architect originally designed. Hey, it's only 50 years old today, but it's cool, and some day it will be truly old.
I like the free-standing idea, if there's any way to shoe-horn one in there. Eliminates the issue of finishing off or closing off the one open side, will look nice, and can just sit there without mod's (except that wooden storage thing... it has to go). Some ember protection on the floor below, which could be a sheet of glass or copper.... done.
Opening height is going to be your primary obstacle. There are some freestanders that double as inserts (again, Buck), which might be approved for use without legs?
It can easily be done tastefully. And while you are at it get rid of that colonial rail and ballisters. They look really out of place. To me clean install of a modern looking insert with a black painted end panel would be much more fitting with the design than a freestander tucked in there. Especially better than a hampton. I love the look of those stoves but it doesnt fit with a mid century modern fireplace.So, Ashful, I am a little intrigued. To me one should be able to place an insert and then kind of tuck a surround in such a way as to continue the lines of the fireplace. Is there a reason that this is aesthetically less than a freestanding stove? If the answer is yes please explain it to me. Again, I would think that with some effort on could make an insert almost appear to look like you had just boxed in the fireplace almost like a set of fireplace gates.
I have a design degree also and currently i am redesigning our newly purchased ranch to look mid century modern. It will take a few years but it will get there. So i know how to make things look right especially in that style.bholler already answered better than I could have.
That depth number is all of it, there a no more depth. If a little tiny man started at the back of the box and took one step beyond 23 inches he would fall to his death or at least a terrible injuryQuestion: Is the depth to the face of the fireplace or to the edge of the hearth?
The Neo 16 might just squeak in there. I'd leave the responsibility of that decision up to the dealer and installer. The Osburn Matrix also looks like it would just fit. If that's too tight the Regency Alterra 1250 would definitely fit. I also mentioned some conventional inserts earlier in this thread that would fit.
Depth of firebrick portion only at bottom of fireplace is 18.5"Yes, what's the depth of the firebrick portion of the fireplace? This fireplace is an odd one, so that may not be important if the installer has a plan for finishing so that it looks proper in the end.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.