The travel distances in the kitchen are excessive and inefficient. You have created too many work counters too far apart for one person. I find your comment intriguing. You are clear in conveying the gist of your opinion but you've completely left out any reference to WHY you hold this opinion. Why are the travel distances in an 8x12 open space excessive and inefficient? Is there a kitchen designer's study which suggesst kitchen designers limit the point to point travel to less than 12'? Is that what you're basing your opinion on? As for the inefficiency, here too I'm lost. Efficiency is a concept related to productivity, at least when it refers to human labor. Most of the labor in a kitchen involves either work at the sink, fridge or stove. This kitchen design minimizes travel between these fixtures. To the right of the stove is 5'6" of counter space before the sink interupts the work space. Within easy reach of the fridge are two counters upon which I can place items removed from the fridge. In terms of labor productivity I think that the kitchen works efficiently. What are you seeing that I'm missing? On the side of the kitchen opposite the work triangle is the dishwasher and plenty of uninteruptted counterspace. This counterspace has a grain mill at the end, it allows for baking to take place without intruding on the work triangle, it allows for me to place 60 canning jars without worrying about crowding, it allows me to place any gadgets that I decide I simply must have. Now perhaps you're concluding that the space is being inefficiently used because it's not being used as centrally or as frequently as the space within the work triangle and if so, yes, I'll cop to that, it's not, but if this is the line of your criticism, then it should be the case that every kitchen that incorporates space outside of a work triangle is using space inefficiently. Rather than me guessing WHY you reach your conclusion it would help me to have you TELL me WHY. What would help me even more is a suggestion from you on what I should do differently. That would be golden. A statement that the layout is inefficient and excessive doesn't help me much at all. A better configuration is a double loaded work area with support elements either side like a pantry or pastry station that you would not use as often as the central area and appliances. What is a "double loaded work area" and how would 1 person use this work area efficiently? Other than the bar sink I have located in the area outside of the triangle, what else, specifically would you suggest be included to make my time in the kitchen proceed more efficiently? If you think the basic design, a G-Kitchen, is beyond salvage, what would you suggest replace that layout? The kitchen is overly generous with space, the stair is an overly grand staircase but the entrance is into a cramped back hall with far too many doors. The elements of the house seem oddly out of scale with each other. In another thread I wrote that I couldn't offer an informed critique of someone else's plan until I knew what was guiding their choices. In this thread, in my original post, I wrote the following: The requirements were: - Big kitchen, disproportionately so compared to the remainder of the rooms. So I find it odd that, after you chimed in and agreed with me in the other thread that you needed to know more about the other person's goals before you could offer feedback, that here, knowing that I want a large kitchen, your feedback to me is "The kitchen is overly generous with space." The entrace isn't into a "cramped back hall", it's into a "cramped vestibule." Most vestibules are cramped, it's kind of the nature of the beast, isn't it? I agree that there are too many doors. I've since remedied that by removing two doors, so now the vestibule has an entry door, a closet door and two glass doors leading into the home. I moved the powder room to the back of the home and created more landing space around the bottom of the stairs and I removed the closet door on the right side of the house, across from the stairs and I use that volume of enclosed wall for a built-in accessable from the living room. See below: The space at the center of the staircase is to be used by a curving masonry bench which forms part of the fireplace and which will retain some of the heat from the fireplace. I've experienced such benches in my travels in Europe and I really enjoyed curling up on them and reading, or napping, after coming inside from a cold day of skiing. The gentle radiative heat seeping into my bones was luxurious. I admit that the inclusion of this space now is a design compromise but it's one that I'm happy to make for it gives me a space that I will use, it creates more radiative mass into which heat can be stored and it's out of the ordinary. It wasn't a "must have" but as a space filler it hits the mark on a number of fronts, far better than how I see people fill up space in their homes with chairs of tables that will never be used. The space at the foot of the stairs is available for a table, art, a build-in of some sort. The space midway up the stairs allows for a shelf for a plant next to a window. The staircase is overly grand. I've been struggling with how to incorporate it without wasting a lot of space. It's been quite a struggle. If I did away with the curve and went to a simple straight staircase I could slice a 6'x 15' section off of the plans and make an even smaller home, thereby making the kitchen disprortionately larger in a smaller home. Look, my garage is 24x24, space for my truck, motorcycle,sports car plus room to spare at the front. I'll have a metal/wood workshop in a separate barn. I have a large kitchen. These are all spaces that are useful to me. My dining room is small because I don't have large family gatherings and when I have guests it is only every a handful of people, a lady friend over for dinner, a buddy over for beer and to watch a game, one or two couples over for an evening - there are no grand dinner parties where I have 20 people crammed into my house. The living room is primarily for my own use but has space for 6 people sitting around conversing - I don't need space for more people and I don't need space, like a family of six would, for 6 people doing their own things in the LR - when I have six people in that room, I can assure you that one won't be watching TV, while another is reading, while another is doing needlepoint, and while two others are playing Monopoly. In the basement will be the utility and laundry rooms. I'll have an endless pool down there, a sauna or possibly a steamroom, I haven't decided yet, as well as a workout room of some size, and open space for whatever may strike my fancy in the future. Upstairs will have two master suites and an office if I can squeeze it in and if not, no matter, I can do office work anywhere in the house because I don't have kids or a spouse to distract me, so I don't need to cocoon myself away to find a quiet space to work. The elements of the house seem oddly out of scale with each other. There is some truth to this. Large kitchen, large garage (considering many 2 car garages are 20x20 or thereabouts), large staircase, fair sized mastersuite, small dining room, small living room. I'm not sure what I should be doing about this though. Should I scale back all the large rooms where I want space or should I scale up the the LR/DR where I don't want space and should I make my mastersuite larger or smaller and should I do away with the secondary mastersuite which might be used by one of my parents at some point in the future if they move in? Any suggestions? Criticism is useful, to a degree, but what really helps people in the design phase are actual, concrete, suggestions and alternatives. As I noted in the thread title, fresh eyes and fresh ideas would help me a lot.

To the original question - does anyone like builder grade oak cabinets - my answer is no. But that's mainly because the particle board parts of the drawers and carcass usually come apart at some point, like the drawer front that came off in someone's hand. The thread seems to have veered off into a question of whether even solid oak cabinets are liked, and or dated. I love my oak cabinets even though they need to be refinished. They are good quality, custom built though, and I think that makes a difference. I also like painted cabinets, and might even go that route next time. This thread kind of reminds me of something that happened in 1978. We bought our first house that year, and so did some good friends. Both our kitchens had painted cabinets. Mine were brown with yellow doors, which I hated, along with the fact that they were older. I stripped and refinished them and they looked so much better. They were a slab style solid wood though I can't remember what kind now. My friend's cabinets (and house) were newer, white, raised panel with arched top. I thought they were gorgeous, but she thought they were terribly dated since wood was really in then, so she started stripping hers too. That's when she found out that the doors were made of particle board, and stripping ruined two of them. All that to say that painted vs wood comes and goes as we've discussed here before. If you like your cabinets and they are in good shape, keep the wood finished. If not, paint them. Whichever you choose, it will come back if it's not in now, and it will be out if it's not now. And that's probably the same with arched tops, beadboard panels, aprons between cabinets, and so on.

UbaTuba is an old color that hangs around because it works well with many things. It is darker color with greens and black, it works well with greens and wood tone cabinets. It balances very well with wood tones cabinets, brings in warmth, blends and grounds the cabinet color. I love green, one of my favorite colors, but I think a natural stone, either limestone or tumbled marble in a square with a diagonal pattern. If your stove or cooktop is under your cabinets you can change the pattern just over stove with a straight border out lining it. Add a stone shelve out of the same stone. Place olive oil, balsamic vinegar a few spices in simple clear and thin taller bottles, add fresh green basil potted in neutral natural pots. It breaks up the look rather just using the same back splash through. Adds more interest, adds to a different look but still keeps blending together smoothly. I think what you are having a hard time with is you are looking at just a few things instead of the big picture. It’s helpful to blend as you and not worry about a few things. I think if you keep the green paint out of the kitchen, use it in the rooms that you can see off your kitchen, a darker green with black granite and the paint in the room off would tie it in and compliment each other nicely, both would pop more and not compete with each other. Remember everything should work together, not compete.. When you finish with your basic house the Accessories,Art, lamps, rugs etc, window treatments, fabrics are important this pulls everything together. If you are on a tight budget Lowe’s has 6”x6” tumble stone in a creamy taupe with a hint of a light golden tone, neutral that would blend would blend and complement your wood cabinets with a darker granite. Soap stone is nice but there are several other med to darker greens to. UbaTuba is a classics color, nice greens with black, it’s not a busy stone its quite but a powerful look to pull things together. Hope this helps you think about other options. Pick up stone samples bring them home and look everything in your room with your cabinet, paint and flooring. Good luck, don’t get frustrated have fun once you start work through it you will know if you like it not keep trying..

Expanding on what emho23 and jhmarie said, it is helpful to bear in mind that there's a difference between "the best possible," "optimum" and just "okay" (a/k/a what emho called "fine" or what I have called "acceptable compromises for the budget, design and circumstances.") Emho mentions wrestling with the issues. Many of us have wrestled with the resolving of choices of appliance compromises. At some point, we all wind up spinning and thinking "why is this so hard?" And if you think choosing a hood is hard, wait til you get to choosing a washing machine! LOL. So, let's try sorting through your preferences to see if we can make this a little easier for you to figure out. First, let's clarify what you meant when you said you "didn't realize all the $300-1000 ones in the big box stores were all recirculating or weren't a complete package." Are you thinking most are recirculating because the product tagline descriptions on the big box store websites rarely say a hood is "ducted?" The key here may be in knowing that almost all hoods at the big box stores will vent to the exterior by default but can be switched over to ductless. IME, the tagline descriptions in the product listings that say "ducted" or "ductless" are used only for the models that can't be switched from one mode to the other. If the tagline doesn't say one of the other, the hood is one you can vent to the exterior. Does this clarification maybe open up a wider range of choices for you? Second, you say you want a focal point hood on a wall between two windows. So, I'm thinking, maybe what you have in mind is a wall space without cabinets where you are looking for a pyramidal-shaped, wall mounted, canopy style of hood with a kind of chimney rising from the top of the hood. A hood with a canopy is a good thing because the canopy (as opposed to a flat base) is big assist in capturing the rising plumes of steam, heat and vaporized cooking effluents. A flat base can be acceptable if you have to do that route (as I did) but a canopy is better. With a good canopy, there is less concern with large numbers in the fan CFM ratings. As Kaseki has often explained here before (in excellent technical detail for those who want it), capture area is as important to hood efficiency as the fan power, and often more so. That likely gives you a much wider array of choices of hoods. Third, emho mentioned getting a 36" wide hood for the Jenn Air version of your Kitchenaid range. That reflects a standard recommendation here. The extra width enhances the hood's ability to capture cooking effluents (steam, aerosolized grease, etc.) which rise in an expanding cone. That brings us to the compromise in most less expensive hoods. Many are only 19" or 20" deep, front to back. Put a big pot of pasta water to boil on a big front burner on your stove and maybe some steam gets by the front of the hood. Neither the best nor the optimum design, but maybe okay for everyday living and cooking? Fourth, your builder's reluctance to install a vented hood in your kitchen might be understandable if the new house will be very tight, as many newly built homes may be. In that case, adding an unplanned-for hood may pose regulatory and practical problems. If your jurisdiction has adopted International Residential Code Section M1503.4 and/or International Mechanical Code Section 505.2, you might be able to avoid regulatory issues by simply choosing a hood with fans rated at 400 CFM or less But, there is still basic physics to deal with when the new house will be very tight. While you might avoid those kind of regulatory issues by choosing a hood rated at 400 CFM or less, and/or putting it in yourselves as DIY project, you've still got to look at the practical concerns. The biggest practical concern is one of safety. This concern arises when there are fireplaces or gas appliances from which CO can be backdrafted regardless of whether your range hood is rated below 400 CFM. You might avoid the CO backdrafting concerns if there are no fireplaces or wood-burning stoves and if the heating appliances have their own powered air intakes and exhausts sealed off from the rest of the house. However, a tight house still poses a practical physics problem akin to sucking air out of a closed box. (For that matter, I've seen a house so tight that the even bathroom fans didn't work well.) Where things can get really complicated (and therefore) expensive is when you have sought something like a LEED certification, or your builder is trying to meet the performance-based standards of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (e.g., ASHRAE ¶ 62.2), or the house is built in a state with it's own performance-based interior air quality standards such as those that Minnesota, Wisconsin and California have adopted. That means expenses for measurements and testing and maybe MUA expenses before adding an unplanned range hood to the design. OTOH, the builder may just be looking for a way to avoid dealing with the problem so as to move on to the next project. Or, maybe, all of the above.