Not sure of the oven layout (one big oven or two smaller ones) you're looking at for the 36", but a 30", being far more 'standard' and popular, won't paint you into a corner when you or a future potential buyer of your house have to replace a 36" range.

Just based on asthetics, I think a 36'' range looks much better then a 30'' range. Depending on what range you are looking at, the grate pattern may look less attractive on a 30'' range (which is true IMO on the Culinarian I bought). The 36'' Culinarian and Blue Star look fantastic in all of their cast iron glory in the 36'' version. I also agree with your thought about the backsplash - for a 30'' range with a 36'' hood, it is much more difficult to do anything decorative above the range. The downside of a 36'' range is the higher cost (much more $ will be added to the range and hood than will be subracted from the cabinets). Some say the larger oven takes a long time to preheat, but you certainly have more room to use.

All of that being said, I bought a 30'' range because I just could not give up the extra 6'' of counter space. Four burners are enough for me. The money I saved by going with a 30'' range and smaller hood was used on a wonderfully flexible speed oven and a warming drawer. I have plenty of options for the occasional big feast. And everything looks just fine.

Jon

We didn't really have the space to spare for a 36" so went with a 30" as well. If we had a 20' x 15' space to work with, we sure would have gone with a 36" range.

We have a 36" DF Wolf and it has huge presence in our kitchen (slightly smaller than the OP's). Virtually every visitor comments on it and people who love to cook salivate over it. We love the utility of the 36" range but do find the preheat time to be a PITA. We have a Miele speed oven that handles smaller baking/roasting/broiling needs, though, so the preheat time disadvantage isn't a huge issue for us.

I personally would not recommend 36" unless you had a need for the larger cooking space AND you have the budget to buy a nice unit because you most definitely will attract attention to the range.

My 2 cents...

Thank you so much for all your help!

I think that the extra 6" of stainless steel could look better or worse or who knows, depending on the particulars. There are some fine looking 30" ranges and hoods on the market, some less fine 36" models, and vice versa, with all the variation of personal preference to sort them out. There's the cooking part -- what will work best for you in your space -- and there's the aesthetic part -- what will be most easily integrated into your space? Any range might be taken as a design problem: how do I integrate this particular object into the space?

I've been staying out of this discussion because I prefer separate cooktop and ovens anyway, but now that it's winding down I'll say that, except in a tiny kitchen, I find a 30" range looks small. Ranges, dating back to the first closed ranges and on through the 20th Century, are mostly wider. I always associate a squarish range with side-by-side fridges in little apartment kitchens. Or fancy squarer ranges with tiny condo/Euro kitchens. A decent sized kitchen deserves a decent sized range.

None of which addresses function. Unless you're in a high end neighborhood and planning for eventual sale, something that might have a practical reason for a bigger range space to meet expectations, obviously what works for you, works. :)

I think one's aesthetics regarding size might be dictated by what you grew up with and therefore "expect" in a range. I grew up with a 36" range which was standard, I believe, back when. I still think 30" ranges look sub-standard even though I've had one for far, far more years than I spent growing up! It's an ingrained expectation, some Platonic sense of 'stove' I think.

So ... this would have to be something only you can decide, possibly: what looks like a Range to you? I presume you've done this, but if not try mapping both out on grid paper for the space in question. Maybe you can tell the relative proportions that way?

Good luck!

"I think one's aesthetics regarding size might be dictated by what you grew up with and therefore "expect" in a range. I grew up with a 36" range which was standard, I believe, back when."

I guess I grew up and have always lived on another planet. Until I bought my 36" range, I had NEVER seen one, and I have been in a lot of homes in lots of different neighbourhoods in all the cities I've lived in. The reason there are so many different 30" ones available vs. 36" ones is that most of the North American market thinks 30" is standard.

It depends not so much where you grew up as when.

This is from memory, but it seems to me that it was the explosion of tract housing with modern kitchen design that drove the move to the more standard 30" models. That would have been, at least for me growing up in the West and Midwest, the late 50s through the 60s. By the time my wife and I married in 1971, 30" was standard.

If you look up older ranges from the 1940s and 50s by googling their names, (try O'keefe and Merritt, Chambers, Gaffers and Sattler, e.g.) you will find that most of them available are 36" or wider. The narrower ones are much rarer.

Maybe it was because you needed a wider stove to rest pans off the burner when you did not have a countertop running right up to the range.

If you have a family, cook a lot, and have the space, definitely go 36". With three burners in front, it makes it a lot easier for two cooks to work. Plus the extra oven size is always useful for holidays, etc. I think it adds a lot to the appeal of a house.

The ca. 1950 house across the street from me still has its original 40" Wedgewood range. I guess they were common in this area at the time. There is a house down the street that has one as well. In this latter case, the owners tore down the entire house and built a new one in its place. The range was the only thing that survived. They spent a lot of time cleaning and restoring it to its original glory.