Hi, Tom After I scanned your article, the first thing I did was follow the link to the OSU research you cited. As I read through it, I didn't see anything different than what is contained in an article I wrote back in '94. The wording and discussion is actually so close to what I wrote, that I tried to find out whether that article was written after mine. I think that initially, adding a small fraction of perlite pumice, Turface, things that you usually consider as drainage material to a large fraction of peat, increases drainage, but only until the peat compacts/nests around the 'drainage' material. Perlite is normally included in commercially packaged soils at less than 10% of the whole. Doubling its presence isn't going to increase drainage or reduce the ht of the PWT, though it will reduce the total volume of water the medium is capable of holding. Illustration: start with 10 parts of fine sand that supports a 4" PWT. Add 1 part of BBs. Does the flow through rate change? How about the ht of the PWT or volume of air in the medium? Technically, on a per volume basis, there is a decrease in the % of air in the sand/BB mix compared to only the sand w/o BBs. All that changes is the 'volume' of water in the PWT. Peat may be slightly different because it's interlocking fibers may not compact to the degree that sand will, but remember that the fiberosity exhibits the same properties whether or not there is drainage material present. If peat compacts when there is no drainage material, it will still compact when there is. In order for drainage material to improve flow-through rates, it has to affect gravitational flow potential. In order to do that, it must great pockets where water molecules can adhere to themselves, increasing their collective mass. These large droplets then depend on cohesion to keep them together as gravity acts to move them down and out of the container. If drainage material can't create 'puddles and channels' within the media, it's not going to be effective. I want to comment on some of the things you mentioned as though we're conversing, so I'll make your offerings bold and my reply will be in default type: Drainage though is a bit of a false goal, or a goal based on an assumption. What we really want is to partially dry out the core of the mix at intervals between watering, which prevents that sour core-rot where roots won't live. My focus has always been on aeration, though I recognize the direct/converse relationship between drainage and aeration. The soils I build and suggest are based on the assurance that they will retain ample volumes of air for extended periods - that they are structurally sound. Of course, drainage automatically comes along for the ride. I don't think I would say "What we really want is to partially dry out the core of the mix at intervals between watering". My view is that there is no 'core' to speak of, because water that is not tightly bound to or in media particles moves down to occupy the PWT, which is actually the bane of most commercially prepared container media. Moisture locked in and on soil particles situated above water in the PWT moves quite freely through media by diffusion, so there is never a saturated 'core', only the PWT if the medium supports one. What we really want, is for the PWT to disappear as fast as possible, so a favorable volume of air can return to the soil ASAP. Roots in soggy media begin to die very quickly, often within a few hours or less at temperatures above 60-65*, so PWTs are a decidedly bad thing. Remember please, that here we are looking at media from the plant's perspective. I acknowledge that a PWT can be a necessity to accommodate our ability or our prioritization in terms of how often we can water, but that doesn't change the fact that media that do not support a PWT and need more frequent watering offer greater opportunity, within the limits of other cultural factors, for plants to grow to their genetic potential. That's an important consideration, because if we knowingly use a soil that supports a PWT because it's more convenient, we are sacrificing some degree of growth and vitality on the altar of that convenience. I try to build my soils to maximize water retention and still have no (or very little) perched water. The cyclic death and regeneration of fine rootage exposed to the anaerobic conditions of media that support PWTs is very expensive from the perspective of energy outlay. Energy that might have gone into blooms, fruit, foliage, or just increasing biomass, must be directed to root regeneration subsequent to each time we dare allow our planting to be irrigated to container capacity. Surely drainage helps and is good generally, but you are assuming it is the only way. I think you can see from my offerings that how I approach container media is more complex than only a single narrow perspective would allow. Al I've seen in your other posts where you refer to capillary action of soils as a negative. I couldn't disagree more. Capillary action is the savior of a soil mix; it's the vehicle that brings wet core water & water from the perched water table you described up to the drying surface, and balances moisture throughout the pot. It eliminates the perched water table. Peat has it and bark doesn't. I've never referred to capillary action as a negative. It just is what it is - the product of adhesion + cohesion - no more friend or foe than gravity or diffusion, which is something you didn't consider. Plants absorb water a molecule at a time, and water readily diffuses in media of large particles due to superior gas exchange. Here again, it's kind of a personal choice. You may prefer a soil with good wicking capabilities, but along with that comes the fact that the better they wick the more perched water they support. I, on the other hand, prefer a soil with good gas exchange (diffusion) and no PWT. The price I'm willing to pay is a strengthened watering can arm. ;o) Bark and peat feel dry to the touch when they reach about 40% moisture content, but plants can still extract water from media particles down to about 30-25%, so 'feels dry' isn't necessarily dry. There's a cush there. I understand what's required for wicking SWCs and how water retention in wick-irrigated media varies from media watered from the top, so we can save that talk for another time. Water starts to perch in containers when the soil particles are something just a little larger than .1". As particle size decreases, the ht of the PWT increases inversely. Whether or not bark holds perched water depends on it's size. Obviously, bark the size of Sugar Pops will hold no perched water, but bark ground to the consistency of peat will. Peat may initially hold more air and water than composted bark, but we all know that compaction is a considerable issue for peat; and conifer bark breaks down at roughly 1/4-1/5 the rate of peat, all cultural influences equal. I point to the fact that I always suggest partially composted or uncomposted bark in the soils I use, in sizes up to 3/8" to ensure no or minimal perched water. The grower can then add finer particulates as he/she sees fit to adjust the water retention of the media. When you start with fine particulates, it's very difficult to amend them to increase drainage/aeration, though as noted above, you CAN add materials like perlite that decrease the volume of water the soil can hold. It just makes more sense to me to approach this from the perspective of building a soil that holds no perched water, but is capable of holding an adequate volume of water in micro-pores, leaving macro-pores largely open, than it is to adopt a soil that, at container capacity, always has a significant fraction of available macroporosity clogged with water. Again, it has much to do with trade offs and what we are willing to do insofar as watering frequency (convenience), but the more highly aerated soil with better gas exchange, which occurs partially because we need to irrigate more frequently, offers better potential. I've grown extensively in both, and if the results weren't significantly better, I'd probably still be growing in a peat or compost-based soil. As always, YMMV. Good talking to you Tom. Al

Thank you very much for your input. lzerac -- your beam sounds beautiful, as do the bamboo sills. Really nice details! virgilcarter -- our house probably is best described as transitional. We have tried to stay true to the original Concept (is that the Parti?) but there's always been a bit of tension between the architect (who leans modern) and the family (which leans traditional). We like the lines of primitive/Shaker but not peeling paint, and "utilitarian" is a good word to describe the "style" (or lack thereof). dadereni -- thanks, we might go this direction with natural/stained windows and painted trim. It might look odd where we have transoms, so we will work with the architect to try to be coherent and consistent. The manufacturer for most of the windows is Loewen, we have a few Marvin in-swings. I wanted to say again how much I appreciate the opinions. We are on the hourly part with the architect so it's really wonderful for us to be able to have a sense of whether or not we're way off base before we go back to the architect for more. It's been a great collaboration thus far, just not inexpensive. So . . . THANK YOU!!!!

Our decking contractor built us a deck out of Trex Transcend (wood grained plastic coating on the top and sides Trex--"rope swing" color) on the top side and dark burnished chocolate brown on the underside of the Trex boards. The framing, floor joists, posts, and glulam beams are all out of" Douglas Fir." The posts are all being wrapped in white vinyl. The fascia perimeter is also covered with Trex Transcend. We had to add additional post to make the deck freestanding, because of the brick veneer. They will also be wrapped in vinyl. I would love any suggestions on how to make the the beams on the inside next to the house look better too. I would greatly appreciate any input on what is the a very good low maintenance long lasting sealant for Douglas Fir wood that will look good with this white and taupe color combo. I have heard that solid body stains will eventually flake and peel and have to be sanded down and restained in 5 years, which isn't very appealing, although I like that look a lot and it covers up most of the woods' imperfections. Clear (non-pigmented) stains can be sprayed on with a garden sprayer, but I've heard it's better to brush it on, so it'll soak in better, and doesn't risk getting spray droplets on the top side of the boards that might stain them. Transparent or translucent stains with pigment look very nice, but really show when they need to be re-done, and you have to mask everything off to avoid getting stain on the Trex boards. Our deck is on the west side of our home and wraps around to an upper smaller deck on the south. About half of it has a roof over it. Does anyone have a stain/sealant they've used that they really like? How long did it last before having to be re-done? Also, it's too late to seal the top side of the floor joists, which I now know should have been done. Any suggestions or tips about which sealer(s) works best and how to protect the bare "Douglas Fir" wood that shows between the Trex boards, now that the deck is nearly completed. We have the metal hidden fastener system. Anyone have any info or experience about which lasts the longest--oil or water based stains? How long you can go before having to re-seal them? How long will a Douglas Fir framework last if you keep it sealed? Which last longer primer & paint or stain? Many thanks for your help!

Kailuamom, we have similar tastes, so naturally love your new home, especially those wonderful wood/beamed vaulted ceilings, the exposed brick, and your gorgeous views. I also recently downsized to a 1500 sq. ft. home and had planned to retrofit/update the existing kitchen. However, the bids to reface/retrofit came in so high, I was better off doing a complete kitchen remodel and gained much more storage. Your kitchen is small so I'm in the complete remodel camp to gain a more functional kitchen. Also second at least having light upper cabinets since your kitchen is dark. Here's what I learned from my remodel: 1. Recessing appliances makes a kitchen appear larger. Recess a regular size fridge into a closet as you are planning. A cooktop with an under counter wall oven will give more counter space and an uninterrupted flow to the kitchen as compared with a range. 2. At least one lit glass wall cabinet will give added depth to the kitchen since it will carry the eye to the back wall. 3. My WD are behind bifold doors in my breakfast area (which is part of the kitchen). However, I'm considering removing the doors and concealing the WD beneath a counter to carry the eye further into the space. Please refer to GW Decorating forum for my Dec. 11/2012 question "Convert WD area to built-in hutch." There are great photos of how to enclose a WD in a kitchen area. I especially like the home with the cabinet doors which go all the way down to the counter, with the enclosed WD below. Houzz also has great photos of concealed WD ideas. Your stacked WD idea with sliding doors would give you the most storage for cleaning supplies, broom, & vacuum cleaner. However, entirely closing off that area will also make your kitchen appear smaller. That's why I prefer my prior suggestion of upper cabs down to counter top if you are doing a front load WD. The eye will have a greater distance to travel. Even a broom could be stored in a tall upper cabinet. 4. In a small home, keep continuity throughout the structure to visually enlarge the home--same color base and theme throughout. For example, I had a few pieces of dark furniture in each of the other rooms in my home but was going to put all white furniture in a very small bedroom. My interior designer recommended I change to a darker wood bed to give continuity to the flow of what was going on in the rest of the house, and she was right. The eye is uninterrupted from room to room. I look forward to seeing your remodel. You have such geat "bones" to work with in your new home.