Within a house, as long as you don't weaken it structurally I think you have much more latitude than for outside changes i.e., to the fenestration, roof design and additions. I have a couple of thoughts: If your kitchen is too small and your dining room too large have you thought about exchanging the purposes of the rooms, but leaving the walls largely intact? This is a bold move, and one I am contemplating myself: exchanging the kitchen and parlor uses, but leaving the room structures the same. Since I don't have modern services in either room, it's not a particularly costly decision. Regarding the style of the island: Since kitchen islands are a modern idea, I don't think styling it to look as if it actually "belonged" in the house is important, necessary, or even desirable. I'm for letting the original parts be stylistically unchanged (moldings, cabinetry, floors, walls where possible) but for modern stuff you bring into the mix, my personal preference is for an authentic look of their own period. All of us who have old houses live with a more or less varied assortment of historic accretions, and as a rule I think artificially re-dated elements don't work as well as just trying to get a compatible collection. By compatible I mean looking more at the overall massing, relative simplicity v. ornamentation, and general appropriateness to the building. If you want to bring a stylistic element from the house into the design of the island, I'm fine with that. But designing an island to look as if it had actually been original isn't the same thing, at least to my eyes. Historical architectural integrity comes from delving into the original, and subsequent, design choices and conserving or preserving those elements in their most authentic state consistent with your use of the structure. For example not choosing shiny gym-floor type finishes on old wide-board pine; however you don't have to confine yourself to washing those wide-board pine floors weekly with lye-water, you can choose a modern polymerized finish -though not blindingly shiny - instead. In other words to look back at how it might have actually looked when it was new (and in most buildings there have been several "new" periods), and recreate that where possible and avoid confabulating two widely different aesthetics. Ultimately, the standard for historic preservation of honesty in recreation, avoiding unneccessary removal or destruction of intact parts, and most of all, reversibility of your changes is the best strategy. If you don't like the looks of something, remove and safely pickle it, bury it (cover it up) or work to adapt your use to the fundamental structure, instead of the other way around, and you will avoid being a candidate for the Old House Hall of Shame. (Those damned POs did what....?!@#^%$&?&!!!!) A very useful thing to do is make sure you visit as many intact and conserved examples of your house's vintage as you can. Much of what one sees in shelter mags has been sadly bowdlerized and it can skew the picture you form in your mind. Do you have a picture of your house, or an example of another one, that you could post? I have no idea what a "Utah Victorian Eclectic Crosswing, T-style" actually looks like. And lucky you to have found a presevationist carpenter; most of the rest of us must maintain constant vigilance with our workers in order to hang onto our preservationist goals. HTH Molly~

I finally got pics of the place loaded into Picasa so thought I would share a few with you to get a better idea of my issue. These are from the day I actually saw the cottage for the first time (and signed the agreement!). Disregard the furnishings of the PO. The outside: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/jKm1gHJaL48NY0pqtQ_Paw?feat=directlink Here's one end of the kitchen/DR combo room. PO had this as a LR/Kitchen combo. http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/PRSaJk9hooU21zOV6Qj0sg?feat=directlink Here's the other "kitchen" side of the same room: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/tHQZu_yO1NzBSHWX6shJnQ?feat=directlink Here's the long hallway from the kitchen: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Ygg8ZBYHid6l39VQDIDcqw?feat=directlink The more I look at these, the more "go off-white" feeling I have. It just strikes me as right with the dark wood.

2x3 is the way some window companies (like Andersen) designate the “grilles” In an individual sash. The more common way is to describe the lites or panes. For a double-hung it would be 6 over 1. Whatever you buy check the written order carefully and make the contractor do it too. The drawing that usually accompanies the description is the safest way to verify the pattern. Make sure the glass is tempered and there are fall prevention devices where required. Check the direction of the operable panel of sliding doors. Also inside and outside finishes and hardware. Places like Home Depot are notoriously bad at ordering properly.

My town does replace trees cut on aprons with indigenous species upon request to help soften the blow of losing mature ones. My town also added lovely Iron lamp Posts with flower basket attached that our local garden club keep up. It is a lovely feature in our down town area. A cobble stone side walk would be a nice nod to the stone carriage wall perhaps.