Yes, indeed. Just as Billlll said. That core aeration will pull plugs out, and the organic matter (mulched debris from the lawn, because you mulch mowed; or, added mulch) can fall into the holes, along with some soil, as the cores break down. As to those parts of the cores that break down, and don't happen to fall into the holes, hey, those cores are breaking up, spreading out, over, above, the layer of organic matter sitting on top of the soil. And will gently subside. Not far, but yes, will subside. Which means, to some degree (and it's probably measureable: should we splurge? Say five percent? Maybe only four? Two?) that soil is being MIXED with organic matter. But it looks like a lawn, the entire time (excluding the day after you aerate, and go stare at the cores. Quit staring. Get in the car, and look at it from the road. Looks great. Park the car.). Plan on core aerating, and mixing up that core aeration with application of mulch, or of Milorganite, or of just the existing thatch layer (there is one: it's needed), and letting that lawn kind of mix itself. Each year. Perhaps, twice each year. Let's take an imaginary square, about a foot by a foot, on your lawn. The first time you run a core aerator over it, you have a series of spots (which are really columns, they're about three inches deep) which now have a better organic matter to dirt ratio. It's surely not the whole square foot area, is it? But the NEXT time, assuming the aerator will hit a different area, you have another series of holes/columns, now improved (and the benefits of the last prior improvement have not disappeared, have they?). And the next time, yet another series of holes/columns, now improved. You can see that a regular schedule of core aerating will have the effect of adding that organic matter, with all the benefits of same, without the obvious appearance of tearing the heck out of it. No, it will look like a lawn. But maintaining the program of regular core aeration will stir up, mix up, a significant portion, drifting toward 100%, over time. So give it a regular program of core aeration. That will improve a lot.

I've never had the $ to go with fads or trends, really, but 3.5 years ago when we bought our couches, the store we went to had a million fabric options and not a single one in the color I really wanted for my couches--I wanted a dark emerald and all they had was sage and hunter in the green category; the other 199,998 options were gold, red or brown. So I went with brown--even though my other upholstered (actually slipcovered) seating in that room was already brown. And that is why I am trapped in brown hell today. I understand that with kids and pets and shoddy housekeeping, brown is serviceable. I know that accessorized with things other than dog hair, dropped Crocs and a handful of Connect Four pieces, brown can be elegant and rich looking. But in my house, it's just plain brown. Snooze. I wish I had bucked the trend (what was that color trend that made all the fabrics red and gold? Tuscan?) and held out for the emerald sofas of my dreams....

You need to watch for putting too much of the design in the actual contract. You'll be bound to that decision which could end up being a problem if you later change your mind. On the other hand, if you're exactly positive then it could be a good thing. I hired an architect first (or a KD could do the same) who specified high-level what was needed, for purposes of a quote. That included preliminary decisions around appliances, just for pricing purposes (they weren't what we picked in the end.) The estimate came in based on that document. I then attached my initial spec in as an Appendix, then had some wording talking about how to negotiate changes to the preliminary scope. To me things like where to put electrical wall switches, etc. shouldn't go in without some proviso saying you're free to make final determinations later. Do you want to be bound now to the decision you make in these cases before you start the work? It's important to work though changes in scope and impact on cost. Unless your design is really complete or unless you've done this before a few times, it's unlikely your final price will be what you're quoted now unless they come in with a fixed bid (which I'd argue isn't in your best interest unless you have no ability at all to go beyond your set price limit). If your planned interaction with the GC will be minimal (e.g. you won't be in the building or need to rely on specs to communicate decisions) then I'd put the specificity in specs and refer to the spec documents. Permitting, code compliance, etc. are all very good things to have in the contract -- for me they were drawn up in my architect (or KD) initial drawing / spec. Payment plan is also important (at what milestones do you release portions of payment). Also, I'd include the prime / sub contractor relationship (or say that all payments go only to the prime) and ensure that you'll have lien waivers to protect you in the future. This post was edited by calumin on Mon, Jun 24, 13 at 16:10

I know you are waiting, but I'm going to put in a vote for the Kichler Ralston. I thnk the very strong, square lines of your house are plenty of linear design -- something with curves has more interest and the hanging lantern compliments the iron scroll work on the door. I like the rectangular lanterns very much, but they accentuate the straight lines of the house and the door itself, making the scroll work on the door an odd man out. The hanging latern wirh some curve brings it together. I also like that last lantern your DH doesn't, but I don't think it is right for your house. I can't put my finger on why -- contemporary -- a little too simple or delicate? Looks like it would be better against stucco rather than all the brick lines. You said you have other projects to tackle, but even if you didn't, I think it is good to look and leave -- come back at least once or twice. That helps me weed out things I like but don't love for my use or for the long term.