Weighing in a little late in the game here, but cutting those 40sq ft out will not drop the price of the house $8K. To reduce by a true $200sqft, you'd have to look at cutting out things like entire bathrooms or cutting the kitchen & laundry cabinetry/countertops in the plan in 1/2 to save a nice chunk of change more in line with $200 sqft. Could you pull the kitchen in a little and delete/modify the peninsula? The large hallway there at the end of the kitchen is wasted square footage that could be used more efficiently possibly alowing for a reduction in square footage. Even changing the roofline on the left to a straight line vs a curved line would save a good chunk of change (although I admit that would be a no go for me). Bathrooms & kitchens make up a huge part of that $200sqft price because of all the extra things that go in them that is not included in bedrooms, family rooms, etc--rough & finish plumbing, electrical (additional outlets, lighting fixtures & GFCIs), cabinetry, countertops. tile, waterproofing, appliances. Because of this, 'price per square foot' is not an exact representation of the cost to build a house--its just the average when you figure in all the components of the plan, specced building materials, specced finishes and site prep. Depending on what finishes you spec, you may be able to reduce the cost of the house such that you don't need to cut square footage. Additionally, by the time you pay the architect to make the changes to the plan, you may have forked out a good portion of the funds you'll save on square footage to him. Just some things to consider. Overall, I really like what you've posted of your plan. I love the front elevation! Looking at it, I think you could easily pull the front of the two story wing back so its even with the front edge of the porch, leave the other 2 wings as is and not lose too much architecturally. That would save you ~26 sqft. I like your thoughts on the exterior materials. Those changes from what is specced by the architect will help save some $$. Stucco is quite expensive so reducing it as much as possible will be a good thing money wise. Painting the brick adds an additional expense. One thought is to not paint the brick right now to reduce the initial cost to build. After you're in the house and you've saved up for it, have the brick painted then. Just my $0.02. Hope this helps! This post was edited by mydreamhome on Tue, Jun 18, 13 at 21:40

Arm wrestle? I can't tell you how you make the decision, but I can tell you that we did 20x20 tiles set on the diagonal in our small (200 sq. foot) eat-in kitchen (plus entryway all in one). I do feel that the diagonal helps the room look larger and I think it's just more interesting than a straight layout. But tile layouts are definitely one of those things that just come down to personal preference. I will say that you will need more tile if you set it on the diagonal because there are more cuts but when you're doing a whole room I think the difference is so little it's a moot point.

Just asked the same question at a lighting store. I was told to add the length of the room to the width, and your answer, in feet, was your ideal size chandelier, in inches. That would mean the 22" fixture. However, it also depends on the diameter of the table. I was told that the chandelier should not be less than half the diameter, but not more than 12" less than the diameter. So, if you have a table that is 48" in diameter, your chandelier should be at least 24", but not more than 36". Of course, these are very general guidelines, but taking them both into consideration, I'm thinking that you won't be happy with the 16". We just put a 20" chandelier in a 10x8 dinette area and I'm glad I didn't go any smaller. Hope this helps.

The difference between these tiles and the Gucci purse from TJ Maxx is that you only buy one purse and it's not that noticeable if there are a few things "off" about it, because it's just hanging from your arm/shoulder and moving and not the focus of the outfit. The tile, if they are seconds, means that they are ALL a little off, and when you lay them all down next to each other, the small differences will all become magnified and more noticeable. And they will all be off in different ways. Tile is one of those things that, unless it is a really rustic, handmade style, is MEANT to be uniform, and you are guaranteeing that what you get will not be uniform. Additionally, the only tile installers that will install it will be either the extreme pro, who will charge extra for the labor needed to make it look ok (note, it will not look great, just ok) or the tile setter with very little experience or very low standards who doesn't understand the challenges these tiles represent. He will say "sure, I can lay those tiles, it will look fine" and then when you complain about the installation he will tell you that the tiles are the problem and you should have expected the result. Go read some threads about bad tile installations (most of them are bathrooms or backsplashes, but the concept is the same) and you will realize that you don't want to go down the road of having cheap tiles and an less-than-expert tile installer.