I haven't read the book, which sounds interesting. But through trial and error, I have chosen similar wide spacings, and have been very happy with the results. Two factors sent me down that path initially. Disease was often a problem for me in closely-spaced rows, especially with beans. Then when I began to save heirloom seed, I often had a limited supply initially, and wanted to get the maximum yield out of whatever plants survived. I observed enormous increases in plant vigor with the wider spacing, and have used the method almost exclusively ever since. 24" spacing for pole beans seems excessive; while they will usually fill in the trellis (depending upon the degree of branching), I found a default spacing of 12" to be optimal. Not all varieties will require the same spacing; some pole beans do well with 6" spacing, while a few very rampant varieties require 15-18". Yardlong beans do their best for me at 15-18". Pole limas need even more, I use 24" spacing for them... and when I grew the large-seeded pole limas (in warmer climes than I have now) I spaced them up to 36" apart. HOWEVER... this year one of my small-seeded pole limas died, leaving a 4-foot gap between plants. By the time of harvest, the gap was no longer visible, even upon close examination. And a rare bean last year, with only one seed germinating (!!!) covered a 4' X 6' trellis by itself, and produced over 8 ounces of dry seed. Pole beans will take almost as much space as you give them, and a pampered plant can give astronomical yields. For tomatoes, I use 24-30" spacing each way for determinates, and 36-48" for indeterminates. Eggplant does well for me at 30-36". 24" seems to be optimal for okra where I live now, but in a long-season area (San Diego) I used 36" - and could barely walk between the plants. I have arrived at default spacings for most vegetables which are generally much greater than seed packet instructions. This will vary with the variety; I observe the initial performance, and make adjustments as appropriate the next time it is grown. As a rule of thumb, the widest spacing that I can use, while still covering the ground or trellis without gaps, seems to be optimal for plant health. Castorp, my own observations are in agreement with what you stated in your last post. I experimented heavily with various spacings for one of my favorite crops, yardlong beans. At the closer spacings (4-6"), they did not climb as high, and the majority of the yield was close to the ground. At the spacing I use now, the vines are rampant & heavily-branched, and bear continuously. With pole snap beans, the results were similar. At closer spacings, I would get one very heavy picking, followed by a long period of inactivity. This was even more pronounced in bush beans. At wider spacings, the yield was more continuous, and the pod quality was better. I do not believe that there is one "perfect" spacing. Differences in climate and fertility will cause variations in optimal spacing; there are even differences between my backyard garden, and the same plant grown in my main plot 6 miles away. Then too, the space between plants is an influence on their behavior, and can be used as a tool to the gardener's advantage. If you live in a short-season area (or want multiple rotations within the growing season), want heavy one-time crops for canning, or have limited space, then closer spacing might be appropriate. If you want a more prolonged harvest, are trying for "whopper" produce, live in a long-season area, or have problems with foliar diseases, then wider spacings may be preferable.

Deerslayer: The clamping (lightly) of the wheels does show the loosenes, but in this case I was saying it is a good way to set the toe. Let me explain why I think it is a pretty good way to do it: When the manufacturers come up with a toe-in spec, it is not because they think the vehicle will drive the best with the wheels pointed that way. It is an indirect measurement that tries to account for the looseness of the system and the deflection you will see under the load of motion. With all new parts of a well designed (tight) system, the ideal toe will be very near zero, with just enough to toe-in to help directional stability. 1/32" would be plenty. The looser the system, the more that the toe in needs to be increased, with the goal to be at or near the same actual toe-in at speed as you would get with the new, tight system. This is why the link you referenced says to move the tires out by hand. Most folks using the home gauges are using them on well worn stuff and they want to get you as close to correct as possible while you are moving. In the case of a very loose system, just rolling the car back and forth will not take up the slack, so by moving out as much of the slack as you can, and then using the factory (tight system) spec, you get pretty close to what you need. In my description of using the clamp (again lightly), you will notice that I said to set the wheels to ZERO toe-in with them clamped. This is because the clamp will pull out all the slack in the system and overcome the tire "squirm" that tries to pull the wheel back to where it was before, which happens if you move it by hand. Especially for something built as loose as a lawn tractor steering system (and with a wide variation in loosness between tractors), I think the clamp system will give you a more accurate setting based on how loose your particular application is. If you look at the JD spec for my tractor, they give the .59" toe in setting, but how do you set it? With all the looseness, you will get totally different readings based which way you rolled, if you pushed or pulled on the wheels, and as soon as you move a wheel by adjusting a tierod, you have altered your base setting because you have pushed the slack one direction. In the JD book, I find it very interesting that they say nothing about rolling the unit or taking up slack. They must feel that the huge toe-in spec covers it all, and the actual setting is not all that critical. One thing to remember is that if you have way to much toe-in, your inside wheel does not turn as much as it should, and you could plow it without it turning.

I like it. I don't think the dining room is too far away. It is only steps through the living room. I like a pretty, formal dining room. This plan gives you the separation for a formal dining room along with the openness of the living room to the kitchen that you want. Consider a seating island in the kitchen for casual eating. With regard to the doors that bother you, it looks like you could put a hallway wall between the living room and bathroom/bedroom that will separate those rooms from the living room. It will close off the dining room a little. It's a trade off.

Without exact dimensions to see aisle widths, etc., I think the second one is the best. It utilizes unused space in the DR b/w the table and the Laundry Room with seats. I would move the sink & DW to the right two to three feet, though, to add very needed workspace b/w the range and sink. Dish storage would be in the island -- close to the Dining Room and out of the way of people prepping/cooking. The island won't be of much use for general prepping b/c there's no water (prep sink) in it, but it could be useful for other things such as staging food. It also looks a bit narrow for prepping (when there's no wall behind workspace, you need deeper counters so mitigate the issue of things falling off the back of the island.) I would try for at least 36" depth....but not at the cost of skimping on your aisle widths. More on that below. With no seats on the back of the island, the aisle b/w the island and bottom wall can be just 36" wide (walkway width). I'd make it the same width as the hall width. That will add a few inches to the island's depth...assuming you have sufficient aisles b/w the island and surrounding counters/appliances. Minimum recommended aisle widths: -- 42" for only one person working in the Kitchen at the same time -- 48" for two or more people -- "Working" includes prepping, cooking, cleaning up, unloading the DW, etc. -- 36" for walkways (i.e., no workspace, appliances, or seating) BTW...aisles are correctly measured to/from the items that stick out into the aisle the farthest -- appliances, counter edges, etc. They are not measured to/from cabinets. I like the hall b/w the bathroom & bedroom for some privacy. Ideally, I would also want a door where the hallway meets the Kitchen, but I don't know if you have room for one since I don't know the dimensions. I'd want the doorway to be 36", which would require 36" plus another 3" or so on each side for door frame/trim -- a total of 42". A couple of other comments about what you're keeping... You say you're keeping the existing cabinetry...that is not necessarily a good idea. I would (1) evaluate those cabinets (functionality, construction, age) and (2) worry about matching with the new cabinets in the island (even if you plan a different color). If you keep them, then you probably cannot fix the workspace issues I see in your layouts. Those cabinets will not add appreciably to the overall cost, so I recommend replacing them to allow you to have the best functional layout possible. (And to avoid having to replace them in the near future and then have to tear out the new counters you just put in.) Since you're also keeping appliances, plan for at least a 38"W x 72"H alcove for the refrigerator (36" wide refrigerator + space for air flow and 3/4" end panels flanking the refrigerator to look built-in). "Standard" refrigerators today are usually 36"W x 70" to 71" tall. (The "extra" inch or so is for needed air flow around the sides and top.) This is the layout I'm talking about: