I love the TP holder, how the towels bring all the colors together, and your attention to the small details. I added the TP holder to my own bathroom notes. We are doing a gut in a year or two. I will also be using Swanstone for walls, but also using their ADA floor with the trough drain at the outer edge. I plan to take the wall panels to the ceiling. Is the cost so much more to do so, or did you simply like the more traditional look of lower shower walls? Mine is in an alcove, so I think that makes more of an argument for going all the way up for me, too. Are you loving the wall panels? Is the niche working well for you? I can't wait to get rid of my wire shampoo bottle hanger! I had a Toto with the special glazing inside in my last house. Don't you find that you don't need to use the toilet brush as often? I miss mine. I might steal your idea for the crown molding, too. I really admire your use of ecologically conscious materials. That is harder to do in a bath. Great Job!

Larisa - Thanks for posting this. I think you do have to take into consideration that a company that receives an “F” has got to say something in response. Their explanation, that Borax takes up 1% of their formula and they don’t believe EWG takes that into account, is not correct. I just read that on the EWG site, that they definitely do take it into account when giving grades. Have you looked at the review of Puracy on their site? They do list Borax [sodium borate] as an ingredient with an F. It is reported to be HIGH concern, because it causes developmental/endocrine/reproductive effects. And based on their explanations of what they consider in their grading, that 1% that is in the formula still ranks enough to cause high concern. Perhaps the company is saying that due to not wanting to give away trade secrets, they do not want to reveal how much borax is in their product. But - they just did. So it doesn’t add up that they didn’t want to tell EWG how much was in the formula before the grade was given. For me that category of concern about developmental and reproductive toxicity is really on my radar, so I don’t even want to use a product with moderate concern about these effects, let alone high concern. Here is EWG’s position on Borax… https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/watch-out-borax#.Wl5yCa2ZNGU Look at the whole review. This product has one F ingredient, 8 ingredients that get a C, 9 ingredients that are a B and 5 ingredients that get an A. That’s a lot of ingredients. The company in their statement, said “there are ONLY 19 ingredients”. [g]. That is a lot to me. Compare that to the products that receive an "A". They also have Benzisothiazolinones which are of moderate concern for acute aquatic toxicity. They have 4 ingredients that have no data on them. They do have a good rating for ingredient disclosure, which is a good start. I’ve noticed a number of recent reviews have upgraded some of the grades on products that changed their formula to remove some ingredient that was problematic. Or provided EWG with better information. The company is claiming that there is no exposure to these chemicals. That they are completely rinsed away from clothing in the rinse cycle. I don’t think they can guarantee that. Nor does that address what happens to them when they are dumped into the waste water and the effect that eventually has on the environment. If the chemicals that are of concern are not in the product in the first place, then there is no concern. The company is saying to you - as these companies have for decades - we have done OUR OWN testing and we say the risk from this product is a 1 or a 2 on a scale of 0-4. I’m sorry, I am not going to rely on what the company that makes the product tells me is the risk. They have too much at stake to be an objective source of that kind of information. The only way to have a chance of getting objective information, is to have an independent organization like EWG. If a company disputes their findings, then they should have their scientists meet with the scientists at EWG and work it out. Instead of getting their PR department to make an attack online of EWG and what they do. In this response from the company, they criticized everything that EWG does and didn’t take into account anything they are doing right. It’s a one sided, PR effort to avoid the consequences of a bad review. I'd be interested in seeing EWG's response to it. They explain that you have to have borax in a product that has enzymes in it to stabilize it. Yet Grab Green Pods has enzymes and no Borax and many of you here are happy with that product. So, that’s not right either. That's just my take on it. I know you use the product and like it and it's not simple and clear cut to weigh everything. But, I really support having an independent organization like EWG to protect the consumer and I don't think a manufacturer should criticize what they do, in defense of their product, especially when their defense has some inaccuracies in it. EWG is not singling them out. They are very anti-Borax, no matter who is using it in their formula, including DIY recipes.

I could be wrong (but I doubt it), but the 72" x 42" tub noted above, if properly installed, will take up more space than 72" x 42" (see installation guide). I suggest the OP first determine if a two person tub is a need or a desire. If it is a need, then she should seek advice for a solution from the "design architect" or a local licensed architect if the "design architect" is not licensed. From what I can tell from the fragment of the bathroom's floor plan provided, it is not designed as a bathroom fitting for such a grandiose tub. It appears that there was a communication failure in both directions.

If you are going to have a licensed electrician do it, I don't believe that they will install it directly over the tub. We built a home a few years ago and I bought a chandelier to go above the tub, and our electrician would only install it if it was offset from the tub in the room, so that none of the light fixture was over the tub. When you go to sell, it could also be an issue that you would get nicked by the inspector to change.