parts-I did not use a light rail. With the tape they go up pretty flush so you don't need to. Plus, my KD had contractor mount them on the front rail so that they are even less likely to be noticed and they tend to light the mid-back of the counter better - which seems to work nicely bc overhead lights get the front part of the counter. I've attached a picture so I think you can see what I mean. However, I will say this...when I'm in the DR, I can see the undersides of the cabs a little. It drives me a little batty. So I'm thinking about getting the paint matched and slapping a couple coats on the underside so the cream view doesn't get broken up. (I don't know if that will help and I plan to ask KD before I do it, maybe it's a terrible idea?!) So I don't know if a light rail would have helped to cover that issue? Yes, they are full overlay. However, this is probably one of the places where a cab line a step or two up would have been better. There is def a small gap between cabs. Completely within reason for the specs given, but bigger than I have seen in other more expensive lines. Doesn't bother me enough to have spent more for less gap, though! :)

I had been presuming shakes because of the rural setting and because it's really a very plain Italianate house - basic center-hall style (originally - they remodeled and moved the stair and removed the hall), no bay windows, none of the other fancier elements. But I'm very glad to hear about Downing's advising for metal. I really could see this house with a metal roof, even more so than shakes. His mention of that in his book will enable me to justify it to the folks who will have the final say on renovations being aligned with its historical styling. In fact, if you have the time and the inclination, could you write out the exact reference (only if its a sentence or two) and tell me the title, page number and edition of the book you got that from? If you don't have time, please just tell me the title and I'll dig it up from our library system or have a university reference librarian friend look it up for me, so it's not a problem. I have to submit a proposal for all the work we'd do (we're applying to be resident curators - live there "free" for life, on 10 acres in a state park, for fixing it up which becomes a tax deductable donation). Here's a pic: But then my next question is, what modern metal roofs look similar to the metal roofs of the mid-1800's? And what color would an early Victorian metal roof have been? If anyone has links showing either old roofs or new, I'd appreciate it!!

Here is my response to the article, disjointed though it may be: Several homes around the west side of L.A. look like this one on the exterior. I am surprised by the provenance of many of the pieces in this house. That probably says more about the deficiencies of my "eye" than it does about the pieces, but here is an example. The dining room chairs. I love the color. It's my favorite rose. The fabric runs a risk of being a cheesy velvet, but since I know that it's a Clarence House velvet that I've seen in person, I know it's luxurious. (Photography matters.) I wouldn't have popped for Billy Haines chairs because the whole Hollywood Regency thing never grabbed me all that much and because I think there are repros that would work as well, comfortably, and more appropriately with that dining room table, which I do like in that room. To me, they speak to a reaction I had to several pieces in the house, namely, "The owners are people who can afford to go to auctions and antique dealers, point to anything they like, and buy it, but are they necessarily getting something unique and better for what they are willing to pay, or are they just getting bragging rights?" Could one design as dramatic an environment, with high quality furnishings and finishes, for substantially less? Then we have the curtains in the dining room. I love the fabric and the trim. Very me. I often wish that I could hit the fabric showrooms and just point to the fabrics and trims that I love and order them. Alas, budgets are realities for me. I like the hardware, too. I like the ceiling, too. I thought it was gold leaf, but it's a wallpaper, apparently. I have thought about combining coral, gold, and a certain green, and balked at the gold with the colors. These owners did it and I think it works. Now that ceiling medallion. I think it's spectacular. I never would have thought to use that shape with that chandelier, but I really like it. I wish I had one for my dining room. I think it would work even better in my dining room, in fact. And I think one can get away with things in formal dining rooms that one cannot do in other rooms. Onto the moldings. Ah. That rather disciplined, but bulky arch at the entry seems too thick. Is it the photography? I think the style is appropriate to the exterior, but I'm not sure the scale is. I'm not sure that it coordinates with all the dentil molding elsewhere, which I think is very pretty. Colors. I'm big on throwing together lots of colors. Nevertheless, the combinations in the living room don't thrill me. Love the rug, though. Breakfast room. Good idea, but not executed that well. This may be a very bratty comment, but that room should be prettier than it is. Given the shape, the availability of Zuber wall covering, the trim, the French doors, the setting, the floor, it should have more joyful colors. It's somber. Sheesh. You've got one of the best climates in the world and you're having breakfast with funereal tones? Not morning people? The study. Sofa arms too, too overscaled. I wish the ceiling were darker. Overall, a cozy room, though and I love the dogs. Interesting how the molding is painted in some places, stained elsewhere. Very pretty staircase. Not sure the tone of the yellow wall works with the mellower versions of the other colors. But then, maybe it's the editors color adjustments we're seeing. We seem to have French floral influences, a bit of Regency, some Hollywood Regency, some Empire, some contemporary, traditional upholstered pieces, oh, I don't know. I'm not sure how the camera lens affects my perception of how crowded the rooms are. There may be more space than I'm perceiving. I could say much more, but this is already long, so I'll pause here.

Pg. 206-207 of The Elements of Building by Mark Q. Kerson. (Excellent read BTW) I thought JLC had an article about this a few years back but I was unable to locate it. Cost plus requires two things: Excellent communication, and excellent communication. It is an open contract with no upper or lower limit. Scary? Yes of course, but really all contracts are. Both the builder and client MUST have excellent communication skills. We all think we do, but most of us don't. Lots of different takes on it but essentially this is my take: after choosing the builder: Define Budget Goal Work with designer or architect to create plans to fit within this goal Make sure builder is part of the design process to avoid big surprises Estimate everything out as close to final choices as possible. Builder is completely transparent on how much markup they have on each sub and material they hire or purchase. Also any other expense they plan to charge for. Client understands these are estimates and they will fluctuate during that actual build. These fluctuations must be continually communicated from builder to client. For example, he needs 2 more loads of rock than originally anticipated. Don't wait to tell the homeowner about it, tell them immediately so they can plan ahead for overage. Constant tracking of the budget (over/under) allows the client to make final allowance choices Pros: Builder never loses money unless client doesn't pay. I have lost money on more houses than I'd like to admit. Client only pays for what they get, not the gap between the bid amount and actual. Client and Builder forced to know exactly how the project is progressing vs. the estimate Client has a better understanding of the process and build of their home. Become mini-experts. Super-clients! Creates a we're in this together feeling! Some builders will have a clause that gives them a bonus for coming in under budget. Transparency means trust. No wondering how rich the guy is getting off you. Client has freedom to discuss numbers with subcontractors in front of builder. No hidden conversations to hide prices. Cons: No protection from estimating errors If client or builder is a poor communicator it can be awful If client or builder is not organized it can be awful Character is key to success No motivation to come in under estimate unless there is a specified bonus clause. When the builder is not financially motivated to be efficient with material usage they may not be as inclined to be thrifty. Cleanliness no longer equals profit for builder Requires much more involvement from the client. Punch list can have much less incentive for the builder to finish If there is the right combination of builder and client then this can be really successful. Otherwise look for more traditional contracts.