chris45ny - I'm so happy you said that! I was so concerned it wasn't right for the space and not big enough. I really like it, which is why I'm trying to make it work. We're planning to fix it on Monday, so we'll play with it and see what works best. I think we have to go to the beam, not sure if there is anything to grab in the ceiling of the sunroom. Our bigggest concern for anyone sitting at the penisula that theu don't have the light right over their head, especially the DH he's 6'1.

Newbie- The idea of this layout is to use the peninsula for the prep and socializing. You can even have family/friends help with prep, while sitting on the stools. As it says on the kitchen forum, in Buehl's 'welcome' post, 70% of the work done in a kitchen is prep, 10% clean up and maybe 20% cooking. Unless you have to stir a lot of sauces, you're not really tied to the stove...in most cases. Of course, not everyone's cooking style is the same, but these are the average statistics. That being said, you could move the peninsula over a foot of two, if that would make it more useful for prepping. Many people have a prep island across from their stove, this one just has one end against the wall. When you are at the stove, you can interact with someone sitting in the living room, so if your DH likes to sit in the big chair with the ottoman, you could still have a conversation. And, depending on how wide you want that opening, you might see a bit of the sectional/sofa area, too. You don't really need a prep sink, since you no longer have to walk across an aisle, to get from the stove to the sink, but if you do a lot of vegetable prep, the second sink might be a good idea. As always, only you know how you like to cook and what layout will work best, in your space. I don't know if you can get everything you want, in a small space, but you have some wonderful plans from which to choose :) As for me, I don't stand at the stove that much, so I have an L-shaped kitchen with fridge, sink, corner, stove with oven and then finally second oven and microwave. The second oven is more important to me, since I bake a lot. The microwave will be closer to the freezer in the utility room, which works best for my DH and his use of the microwave, thawing out meat or heating up a quick meal. The island (a little more than 3' x 5') was going to have a prep sink, but I realized I needed the space more for baking, so I plan to put a marble slab there instead. Again, only you know how you will use your kitchen. Best of luck with your choice...and if your kitchen is going to be this beautiful, your DH might decide to try cooking a bit more, too! Does he help much with prep? Or would it work better to put the dishwasher in the peninsula, for his clean up area? Of maybe he would like to have a place to set up snacks and offer beverages at a party? Again, only you two know how you will use your kitchen.

Four - thanks for your comments - KD is hiding from me today - guess I will have to make a cameo at the store tomorrow.... LocalEater - those are cute - but probably too small for this space - but good ideas! I have lots of bears and lots of ceramic pots - but I think I need some height. We have these great whimsical characters in our bathroom but I like them there - I also have a sculptured tree over the fire place. Deedles- The ceiling is ceiling white - believe it or not, I never had ceiling white in my houses - so this is a first. eBay would be a good choice - I think it would be a great idea - I think I will return the copper tub - it shines so nicely - I was thinking of adding seasonal items in it. I looked it up and no red squiggles! Here is the spelling per Webster mascarpone Springroz - The tub is from Williams Sonoma - cost about 200 - but I can just return it. Can you use copper on induction? I know copper by itself won't work - but wonder if they ever bond it to other materials.

The reality is they didn’t listen to you from start. Push back on extra fees. Do you have any correspondence where they said it would be cantilever and then didn’t deliver? Where they said they would meet with structural engineer and didn’t? That’s all on them. Actually I would be quite interested in getting folks' perspective on who's responsible for this debacle. I'll say right upfront that I believe it is shared responsibility, but I'm curious how you would see it. Sorry if this is going to be long, I am going to try to put down all the relevant details. 8/10 - Architects showed us two design style options. Among other differences, Option A (left) had a patio roof with beams and posts, Option B (right) had a cantilevered roof. We said we preferred the style of Option A, but would like to have the cantilevered roof of Option B. Architects said that they will check with Structural about the cantilever. 9/6 - Architects said they are "reaching out to the truss company, a bit earlier than normal, to see if we can find a solution to cantilever that south soffit (patio cover) in alignment with our discussions with the Engineer” 9/16 - Updated design package still showed the posts and beams. We asked about the cantilever (verbally), they replied that they understand our desire. 9/18 - We emailed the architects asking what the truss company said about the cantilever. 9/22 - Architects replied "We have not spoken to the truss manufacturer as we have still been discussing some of the member sizing with the Structural Engineer, as well as exploring the skylight count/locations. We will want this information before reaching out to them about the ability to carry that patio overhang without posts." In hindsight, that should have been a red flag, as it contradicted what they said a week earlier about reaching out to the truss company. No additional discussion took place after that, and we assumed that they were still investigating (yes, I know the joke about assuming). At no point have we been told that the cantilever is not possible. 11/10 - We saw the permit set for the first time, with the full structural design completed. We noted that the design still showed beams and posts. We emailed the architects about this issue, and set up a call. 11/15 - We discussed the patio roof with the architects. They started by saying that they thought that it was just our "desire" for the cantilever, not something we were serious about. I replied that when a client asks for something numerous times, it's a good indicator that they are in fact serious. They then said that the cantilever of that depth is not possible without crazily complex structure; a number of $100K was thrown out. They also said that the drawing packages always showed the posts. To which I replied that yes, they did, but at every iteration we asked about the cantilever and they never said it was not possible. I asked why they never told me that the cantilever was not possible, to which they replied that they are sorry "for the misunderstanding". I decided that this is just something we'll have to get used to, a beam which blocks a foot of our view height, and posts that are close to the middle of the deck. 11/20 - We emailed the architects with the concerns about the depth of the overhangs from the standpoint of darkness (the subject of this thread), and perhaps we could reduce the roof overhang by about 3 ft. And that perhaps that may help get the cantilevered roof again. And I asked if perhaps we can get plugged into the discussions with the Structural Engineer and truss designer, to see what options are available. 11/23 - Architects replied that "the reduction of this soffit by 3' will still not get us to a point where dimensional lumber could cantilever that span, but I will see what the Truss Designer says in the event that this current design cannot be cantilevered". They also mentioned that they got assigned a truss designer, and were talking to them about the roof design. They did not invite us to participate in the discussion. They also did not address the darkness concern. 11/28 - Architects emailed us saying that "I was able to have a meeting with the Truss Designer this morning and we have a strategy to get the cantilever to work along that south patio within the current design. We would only have to reduce the current eave by 1'-0" along the south side. The Truss Designer confirmed it would work, but is going to rerun a few calcs and I sent over a revised framing plan to the Structural Engineer to see if the modifications I made to the ceiling framing of the modules would work. We should know more later this week, but if this checks out with our Engineer, this would achieve your desired look of no columns and no beam within the current patio configuration." 12/1 - Architects emailed us that "I heard back from the Structural Engineer regarding the roof cantilever and it is possible, based on what I proposed with the Truss Designer, to cantilever that south patio and remove those columns, but will require a redesign and reengineering on their part and will cause us to go to 2x12 ceiling framing instead of 2x8.” They then followed up with another email saying that if we decide to redesign the roof, it will incur charges from them, the Structural Engineer, and the truss designer, not to mention delay the project by a month. So that's the story as best as I can tell it (I know that there are three sides to every story). In my view, the architects for whatever reason never asked Structural or the truss designer about cantilevering that patio roof, like the said they would. Instead, they proceeded to put the configuration with the posts into the plan, and gave that to Structural engineer to size. And when we called them out on it, they made something up in real time (the "it's not possible without crazy engineering" line). Because once they went back to the truss designer, and the Structural Engineer, they were told that it's very much possible, with some changes, none of which are in the "crazy engineering" realm. But regardless, they are putting all of this change on us, in terms of responsibility and of course cost. To be honest, if the added cost is reasonable, we'll probably just swallow it in order to move forward. But if it ends up being $10K or so, it seems that it should be some kind of a shared responsibility. What infuriates me the most is that they are refusing to be grownups and say "OK guys, we screwed up, we forgot to ask the Structural Engineer about the cantilever, we'll work on improving our communications with you and will see if we can get some kind of a discount for redoing the numbers". That probably would have been good enough for me. But instead, they are making it sound like they did everything right, that we keep changing our minds and slowing things down, that we are responsible for the iterations and delays, and that the subs are likely to raise their quotes if we redesign the roof. That just does not sit well with me. Thoughts?