Chuckiebtoo - I appreciate both your love of worms and the processes associated with using them for 'composting'. However, based on a growing body of reading-based 'knowledge' and a small but growing bit if first-hand experience, I don't share your "almost magic" perspective of what worm guts do. While there is little - but some - doubt on my part about the "fact" that worm-gut-processing does indeed "add" some beneficial component to the output, I am beginning to strongly suspect this is yet another in a long and growing list of "scientific facts" that is technically/scientifically "true", but practically/real-life exaggerated. In order to illustrate my point and attempt to demonstrate that I am not just being "contrary", let me provide an example in a completely different field. Some years back - over 2-decades - a graduate student working in completing their Master's degree in fisheries performed a perfunctory examination of the effects of "over-crowding" spawners in a couple of TINY streams in the state of Washington. As part of the requirements for a Master's degree in fisheries, one must produce and "publish" the work at least through the university's press.The field work was "good" and the results were unambiguous: It was scientifically "true" that above a certain density, increased fish numbers resulted in reduced production. The scientific explanation was not complex: increased numbers of spawners meant that fish were constructing their redds (salmon 'nests') on top of previous spawner's nests, and thereby destroying the first one. Sounds perfectly "reasonable", and there was not doubt about the "scientific" fact. However... "More fish "allowed" in the river means LESS fish production" was a clarion-call to commercial fishermen. They could now claim the SCIENTIFIC "high ground" and DEMAND that fisheries managers prevent "over-escapement" by allowing the commercial fishermen to catch more fish out in the ocean before they reached the spawning streams and "harmed" the stock. Commercial fishermen are among the most politically powerful groups in the natural resource exploitation/management community. They were very capable of hiring "scientists" (in this case AKA "biostitutes") to "verify" the "scientific proof of the "danger" of "over-escapement", Soon - VERY SOON - "over-escapement was the watchword for every government "scientist/fisheries manager" in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, it became - BY LAW - a requirement that the state fisheries managers incorporate "over-escapement" prevention in the state's salmon management plan. Where's the 'flaw' in the above, "you" ask? The "science" was performed in an excruciatingly small "piece of the world". TWO, SMALL (you could STEP across them), streams in the Puget Sound drainage. Secondly, ALL subsequent "science" performed around the subject was directed at "proving" the concept of "over-escapement", NOT TESTING/CHALLENGING IT, which is exactly what Science, REAL Science, is supposed to do! In fact, when a few scientists tried to point out the error of applying the result of a VERY small scale scientific project to a GLOBAL scale, they were shouted down. To put it mildly. The result has been a STEADY decline in salmon production in the State of Alaska. The almost complete collapse of salmon fisheries in California, Oregon, and Washington. I am reminded of "What are you going to believe, me (the "scientist") or your lying eyes." By the way, when confronting the voodoo witch-doctors - aka fisheries scientist proponents of "over-escapement - I would ask; "What did all these salmon do before we humans came along to "help" them with their "over-escapement" problems? True to their form, those witch-doctors raised up in violent anger, but had to initially tuck tail and run. However, as is so desperately sad with today's "science", they simply went off and schemed an explanation. It goes like this. "What we are doing is "leveling" the peaks and valleys in the long-term population trends, thereby assuring a STABLE SOURCE OF SALMON FOR THE COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERIES. (Emphasis mine.) This rationalization - by way of "science" - is the bread and butter of the priests of the religion of science that pervade the scientific community today. They can "explain" ANYTHING they want to, and when challenged, simply retort to laymen that it is "too complicated" for "you" to understand, and simply screech "Heretic" at those that have the technical ability and credentials to point out the obvious flaws in their ecclesiastical assertions. Was all the subsequent "science"of "over-escapement" "peer-reviewed"? Yes, at least most of it. Was all the subsequent "science" published in a "peer-reviewed" journal of "SCIENCE"? Most of it, yes. Was all of that peer-review highly corrupt? MOST OF IT, YES! And so goes most of what I have seen in the past 40+ years as a professional "scientist". I "see" the same sort of thing with worm "tea", worm "compost", and other "scientific" "facts" about the "magic" of worms. Is there "scientific proof" that the "output" of a worm's gut is "better" than the "input". Yes in proper context. Is there a MOUNTAIN of evidence that such "betterness" is something less than the "magic" so widely claimed? Yes, also I would assert. Having said all of the above, I am perfectly "fine" with using terms like "magic" to report on surprising results we all observe in our hobbies and personal passions. I do it myself. As Arthur C. Clarke is quoted as saying: Any technology sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic. So, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the beneficial effects of "worming"; I acknowledge that the "scientific "truth" " of those "facts" are "scientifically" undeniable, but I am increasingly convinced that the magnitude of those effects are greatly exaggerated when applied to the "real world". In the case of the topic of this thread, I remain comfortable with suggesting to fulofwin that all of the extra effort of "worming" MAY not produce the "magic" results he/she has read/heard about. I believe he/she is probably capable of evaluating the relative merits of the comments he/she receives in his thread regardless of who posts them. I don't think you and I disagree as much as it might appear. I think the primary difference in our points of views is a matter of degree: You "love" worms, and I just "like" them. Paul This post was edited by pskvorc on Wed, Aug 27, 14 at 14:40

Someone might have suggested this and I missed it, but how about moving the bookcase into the corner and creating a vertical vase-and-picture display on the remainder of the wall, including wrapping over to incorporate the bookcase? Painting the bookcase, of course, as the composition calls for. Ball feet for the bookcase? I like the potential of this idea. You might never want a larger piece. :) Another option would be to leave the bookcase there but hang the plates in a general arc around it, either symmetric or looser. Btw, I always go straight for nice, old furniture, but good luck finding a used bookcase, of any size, without devoting significant time and some extra bucks to it. Maybe your region is different, but in my experience there are very few decent wood ones out there (even relatively few made of particleboard), and if they're decent the price typically reflects demand for rarity. Old ones are often too shallow to hold modern books but could be great for porcelains, etc. The most common type that you do see, though, are tall pieces in the generic-modern golden oak sold everywhere for a couple decades. I'd buy yours to tuck in somewhere if I came across it, but I haven't. At least, the ones I have are all displaying stuff for sale and not for sale. Also btw, I like your style and what you're working with a lot.

With this layout, painting the walls just within that space is going to be a little tricky. I like the idea of painting the front door though. If you want to do an orange maybe go for a yellow-orange like an amber that will tie in with the yellow accents in the living room. As for the pillar, just ignore it. Anything you add to it will just highlight it and make it stick out more.

Definitely too small! I am also not loving the round shape. I would get a larger rectangle rug and lay it so the length runs perpendicular with the entry door. Something similar to this...