Oh for goodness sakes, 4M! These ridiculous Aga-bashing comments by folk who are trying to talk you into buying a cooking appliance of their personal preference are largely without merit and should not be "well-taken"! LOL! If you don't know it by now, you should at least know that Agas are those darn British cooking contraptions that some on this forum love to hate -- whether they've ever owned one, or even had substantial cooking experience on one or not. Nevertheless, for nearly a century now, Aga has been turning out the traditional Aga Cooker for a very solid and serious fan base. And, whatever bricks and bats have been thrown at the Aga Cooker, -- none have ever made a serious dent where the claim was that the machine is of "subpar" performance! Has it gotten a bad rap for being "always on"? Yes. A fuel hog? Yes. Requires a slight learning curve in getting to know how to operate the thing? Yes. Pricey? Yes. But subpar in performance? No! A terrible service history? No! A horse? No! At least not unless you are talking about being a work horse. Then, yes! :-) Again, I neither own an Aga Cooker nor a Companion nor do I work for Aga, an Aga distributor, vendor, or servicer. At the end of the day, I do not really care what cooking appliance you buy for yourself and your family. In short, I've got no skin in this game. However, as an owner of the Aga 6-4, I do admit to trying to combat some of the more ridiculous, meritless claims that are often made about Aga products on this forum from time to time. That said, let me at least offer these few counter points for your consideration: Every owner of an Aga Cooker I've ever heard from (on this forum and elsewhere) has marveled at their cooking results with that machine. If you enjoy cooking with cast iron pots and pans, imagine how much you might like the results of cooking where the entire cooking unit is made of cast iron. (Trust me, as the owner of a cast-iron Aga 6-4, I love it!) Since you are going to an Aga cooking demonstration tomorrow, you might want to raise all your concerns about "subpar" performance at that time. As for the Aga Companion, I'm also unaware of any performance-related complaints about that machine. If you feel that a 15K BTU burner just can't get the job done for you and you must have a 30K+ BTU Molteni "power burner" to truly meet your needs in a residential cooking appliance, then, by all means, go back to the Molteni! (Meanwhile, I wonder what all the cooks of the world, from time immemorial, have done to feed their families when using cooking devices of 15K BTUs or less? Or, shudder the thought of struggling to prepare meals on a --dare I say it-- sealed burner? Oh the horror of pre-Bluestar/Capital appliance manufacturing!) LOL! The traditional Aga Cooker has got to be one of the most bell-and-whistle free "modern" cooking machines money can buy. With so few doo dads, it just doesn't have a reputation of constantly needing service. So, never before having heard that it's necessary to service an Aga Cooker every 9 months , I actually called Aga customer service directly to see if I could substantiate that claim before posting these comments. In a nutshell, here's what Aga customer said: The recommended frequency of basic maintenance on a vented, gas fired, 4-oven Aga Cooker is one year. [Aga also recommends replacement of Cooker thermocouples every 3 years.] However, an annual maintenance call is only a recommendation. It is most certainly not a requirement. Because the Aga Cooker is "always on," you might want to think of this machine as you think of your home heating system. Many homeowners conduct an annual check of their heating units which includes cleaning, replacing of filters, etc. While such a routine is not necessary, with an "always on" system, it certainly doesn't hurt to engage in periodic maintenance. BTW, other Aga cooking products, such as the Companion, 6-4, Legacy, Aga Pro, for example, make no such recommendation of an annual and basic system maintenance call. As for the "looks vs performance" argument. . . huh? I do not get what what the problem is with your considering looks as one of many factors to consider when making a major appliance purchase. If looks are your only consideration, then I can perhaps see a concern about your judgment. But I would think that most consumers who are trying to make such a major decision will take a variety of factors into account, including price, performance, size/dimensions/weight, service history, serviceability, and, yes. . . looks. FWIW, I'm not ashamed to say that the appearance of my range was a very important factor in my choosing an Aga 6-4 in order to replace my beloved antique stove when I did my own kitchen remodel. I repeat: If you have any serious intention in considering the Aga Cooker and Companion -- or any appliance for that matter -- then please find a credible, experienced source to query. I suggest to you that such an informed source has yet to appear on this thread -- including moi. :-) But, then, I'm not trying to talk you out of, or into, any other product purchase either! Whatever you choose, just make sure your choice is truly well-informed and well-reasoned. And, again, good luck!

Its my first time working w kitchen designers on a kitchen that we had so much options, so I never realized the inherent issues. If I were to do it all over again, I'd probably just extend the cabinets all the way up. One of the reasons we didn't was we have upper valence lighting on our current home and we love how much brighter it makes the kitchen. Anyway, I spoke to the kitchen makers and they seem to be willing to accomodate any change. I'm meeting with them onsite in a few days to go over the specifics. I'll let you guys know how it goes. Really appreciate all the feedback. I wouldve hoped that the cabinet makers would have told me the consequences before they made the cabinets...

The chimney goes up to the ceiling but the cabinets don't. There are several things you can do. You can tile all the way to the ceiling and do a decorative edge at the sides of the tile to finish it. That way the edge continues up. You can shape the tile so that it makes a triangle (without the peak) or arch above the hood, that narrows at the top behind where the chimney goes through the ceiling. This would probably be more attractive, but takes better tiling skills to pull off well. You could tile above the cabinets as well as the whole wall behind the stove. That might look excellent! Or you could go full on artsy and end the tiling below the top of the cabinets with an irregular edge (shaped like waves, flames, or whatever). Or go something like 15" above the top of the hood, following the shape of the top of the canopy. You can do all kinds of different things, but I wouldn't stop the tiling in a straight line at the top of the cabinets. That would look like someone goofed on the measurements. Just about anything else will look intentional, and can be made to work.

I looked at your redwood siding post -- nice house. Have you searched for inspiration photos of a similar kitchen? I'd be tempted to do option A. A simple box reaching to the ceiling. My only thought is the differing woods. Maybe splitting the hood/duct cover at the top of the cabinets and using 2 materials, matching the cabinets to cabinet height, then something else on up to the ceiling. I would also consider the duct cover/ceiling interface, making sure it looks planned and not clumsy.