'You' (used collectively to mean 'all')can imagine multitudes of scenarios in which this or that may or may not work and then say "see - it doesn't work when this, this, and this occurs"; but the fact is, when you look at things from the perspective of what's best for the plant, what I said holds up to even the closest scrutiny. Grower convenience and what is best for the plant are usually mutually exclusive; and if you have a heavy/light watering hand - that is grower error; and while a very open soil like the gritty mix pretty much eliminates the problems created by a heavy-handed waterer, there is nothing that can eliminate the limiting effect of a lack of water, regardless of soil choice. If you know you have a heavy hand on the watering can, and even though logic dictates you should simply fix the propensity, it makes perfect sense to use a soil that doesn't hold perched water - problem solved. As we've seen, there's not much you can do about forgetting to water plants. Is it better to knowingly use a water retentive soil that limits growth and vitality to accommodate questionable watering habits, or fix the watering habits so your plants have the potential to be all they can be within the limits of other cultural factors? Soil choices vary more from grower to grower than they would from plant to plant if plants had a say in things. Virtually ALL plants crown in conventional container culture would prefer a homogeneous mix of soil ingredients that yield a soil that holds ample amounts ow air and water, but no perched water. Perched water kills, even if it provides the grower with the convenience of adding an extra day or ten to the intervals between watering. That is simply a fact. when the grower starts to use a soil that provides extended intervals between waterings compliments of that perched water 'reservoir', he is sacrificing growth/vitality on the altar of convenience. "It works for me" simply indicates someone is satisfied with the status quo - nothing more. It doesn't address the fact that there might well be something or some way that is much better. If the grower(s) I'm talking to are happy with how things are, then I'm happy too. Obviously there is concern for that soggy layer of soil at the bottom of containers that is being addressed in this thread, with ways being discussed to reduce its known limiting effects. Again - easiest and best is to eliminate the possibility it can exist. What if you want to grow a single and formal specimen in a deep container. Should it be mandatory that you under-plant everything to act as a sponge? - or would it be better to simply change how the soil is structured? I should reiterate here that when using water-retentive soils in containers, it's the shallow containers that present the larger challenge because a much higher % of soil remains totally saturated after watering. I'm not sure how the quality of water got into the picture, and I do realize that SF's water is probably the best in the nation because of where it comes from (melt from the SN mountains), but it doesn't matter if there is SF water or water from any other municipality occupying the perched water table. It's the existence of that perched water table and the soil's water retention, not the quality of the water that is at issue. FWIW - it's easy to assume that Echeveria has shallow roots (dictated by genetics) when growing in heavy soils because they need lots of air to remain viable and won't penetrate deeply into soils that lack adequate aeration. All plants that normally have shallow roots when growing in situ do so because air, water, and nutrients are found there in the most favorable ratios. Those same plants, grown in containers in a well-aerated soil will very happily occupy the entire soil mass from top to bottom. I've grown Echeveria (sempervivum, too) in deep pots & their roots colonized the entire soil mass. Roots are opportunistic, and though they don't 'seek' water/air/nutrients, they DO grow wherever those conditions are favorable. Al

I wonder if you want to consider alternate period materials - for example, wood. In our modest Victorian, the original bathroom floor is wood. It was painted when we moved in, and we sanded it to natural fir, but I am painting some very battered floors upstairs in light colours and really like the look (this one was chipped dark green though... so, not so much). So we've had a natural finish wood floor in the bathroom for nearly 20 years, with kids growing up. With no bathroom fan (lots of condensation). It looks a bit beat up - but this is mostly because we used a water-based clear finish, which obviously was a stupid idea, but no one could have told us that at the time. Well, it was also a pretty well-used floor to start with (that would be why someone painted it). So, some staining, but all of it adds to the "authenticity" and aged look. For look and feel, the floor is great. It is never really cold the way tile can be, and we like the look. Of course, our standards may be low... I'll have to look again to see if it could be photographed. But in real life, it keeps us happy. So maybe try compromising from your hex tile ideal in a slightly different direction? The other thing I would say is that if the small hex tile is that impractical, surely it would not have been the flooring of choice in Victorian times. Maybe you are overplaying the one downside you are afraid of? If you have mats, can get at all the floor with a quick dry mop, and have a bathroom fan to quickly clear condensation after a long use (I can't stand having a fan on WHILE I'm in the bathroom), maybe you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Finally, it sounds like you have made all your other design decisions and are now looking for a tile that will fit. Maybe if you start with a flooring you like and are willing to flex some of the other decisions, you could come up with a total picture that will work. (and I say that partly because I'm not a fan of subway tile :-)). But seriously, resolving these design gridlocks is often a matter of clarifying which design elements are in fact fixed, and which are variable. Often, you've fixed some in your head that are actually still variable, and flexing those opens up new options. Karin L

That is one imposing fireplace. Have you thought of painting it? I never recommend painting things like brick or woodwork, but this looks so dominate. Unless there is other brick in the house, I don't see what the wall of brick relates to. I do see brick outside though in your second picture. When the wood grate is in pace, does it still point out onto the hearth? You could put tallish vases on each side of the hearth. I think I'd put largish pictures along the ledge for variety. There are ceiling mounted tracks that can be installed to hang pictures from. That might be something to think about. The cables are versatile, so you can stack hanging frames along one set for example.

I think I understand your approach and appreciate it in theory, but in application, I think this fixture will dominate the room and everything in it in an unfortunate way. It won't play well with the other beauties there. Scale it back and consider how a fixture of craft and artistry delivers its own brand of drama.