Well, I think the general concensus here is: We'll never know the true facts. In my opinion, there is just WAY too many conflicting "facts" about lighting for plants. Plants aren't even meant to grow under lights, they belong in the sun. With that said, do all you can to grow in the sun, and if you use lights, expect them to NOT grow 100% like they would in sun. Talk to different people who use different methods to grow plants with artificial lighting. By reading that top ten myths post, I feel like I am less educated on this topic now. That thread as a big arguement, with cheap shots left and right, so I won't even attempt to reply to that one, lol. How qualified was the original poster to insist those are all myths? How qualified are the repliers who defend them? The main thing to consider is that someone out there has success with every option available, so pick what you like, and give it a whirl. I ditched my fluoros mainly because metal halide is more user friendly, meaning its MUCH easier to go admire my plants, and water them, without having a rack of fluorescent lamps a few inches above them. I use artificial lights to simply "get by" until I can move my plants outdoors. I don't expect massive growth, I just want them to survive, although I do seem to get a good response from a 400w metal halide. It works for me, but maybe not for the next guy. I used it cuz I got it free, and how can you beat that!?! Oh, side note: If you want REAL good info about growing lights, and what seems to work, read some stuff on the marijuana sites. What other type of plant HAS to be hidden and grown with lights?? These people, although criminals and dope heads, have been doing it for ages, and seem to be a step ahead of people like us, who grow vegitables and stuff.

Tibbrix and all, Thank you for your help and for sharing your knowledge. To answer your second question first, I would like my fireplace to be transitional leaning a bit to traditional. The back of the fireplace is brick (no black mirror for me) and we want a hearth. We had originally thought to put stone around the surround, but we are re-evaluating that decision as we don't want a bossy feature that future buyers might not like (so it should be neutral enough). I love the idea of soapstone, but the stone available around her seems too blue to be in the neutral camp (I believe some soapstone is more grey/black than what is currently available here which would be more neutral and appealing). I wiould be open to another material aside from stone as long as it is classic and neutral and looks good with what we will have in the room. I don't like having just wood around a fireplace. I would like a wood mantel. As per colours for the great room walls, I will explore those C2 paints. I just looked and their is a retail outfit around 40 minute drive from here so it is doable. The reason, I tend to talk SW colours is I purchased a book from a decorator that describes her top tried and tested colours all from SW. I am sticking to only her colours from SW and not getting bogged down by thousands of choices. However, they are not full spectrum colours like C2! I will see if the decorator I meet with early next week is knowledgeable about C2. I like the second colour you posted better than the grey as I feel I have enough grey elsewhere in the house and in the kitchen. The one thing that is hard for me to understand is the rule you stated about sticking to cool or warm colours. I thought they can be combined (but what do I know). For example in my planned kitchen the brown stained island, and hardwood floors are warm, but the stainless appliances, island hood and wall colours are cool. The cabinets are planned to be Pure White by SW which I believe is a warm white as it does not appear to be a grey white. The back splash will be a simple subway that matches Pure White SW and picks up the same white which is present as one colour in the quartz we have chosen. Do other people have info on combining cool and warm colours. Is it a complete no go? I have been trying to learn the art of reading undertones after reading the book by Maria Killam (who is a well known colour expert here from Canada). However, I don't have natural talent with seeing colours as some people do. I have no idea how to pick out a brown that has blue undertones for example as you suggested. In fact, I would have assumed all browns would be warm colours (some would be warmer than others and comparison is key I realize). Good news is the decorator we have hired has completed the colour expert training by Maria Killam, so hopefully she will be gifted at reading undertones. In the meantime, I will continue to try to get ready for my meeting with her, by narrowing down best I can what I want. @ Sheilaaus122: Glad to hear from a fellow blue fan and to get your vote. I need to work out some patterns for sure or otherwise the room will be blah for sure. I too am puzzled by the colour of the chairs (looks silver to me in real life, more gold tones on the fabric swatch -- perhaps it is a chameleon colour?). I am growing less fond of the chair fabric each time I look at it. I will pay a visit to the furniture store to see if there are any more grey options. Carol

Jellyben, returning to your original question, I'd like to offer my two-cents. It's true that Lorton has no cachet among the residents in NOVA. Unless, you are close-in, any commute into the District is nasty. My BIL lives in West Springfield. He carpools to the Library of Congress up 395 and his commute is better than most...30 minutes door-to-door if it's not raining. It's a great area with nice family neighborhoods. My concerns are a bit different. You are very interested in new construction. I'd caution you to approach new construction throughout Northern Virginia with a gimlet eye. New developments and homes were constructed lightning fast during the boom here. Lorton is an example. I have real reservations about the quality of the production building circa 2003-2005. We are renting a house in Oak Hill (bleeding edge Reston and Herndon) that was built in 2004. Technically, the houses are detached but are really squashed together on teeny strips of land. In 2002, huge swaths of this area were still farmland. By 2005, townhouse farms and SFH Vinyl Villages had taken over, like weeds. The owners bought the place for $576,000 and the value zoomed to $740,000 in 18 months. You'd think that a half million bucks would land you good solid construction with nice finishes. Nope. This house was built on the cheap. It has all the requisite bells and whistles so it looks nice superficially. But...that lovely granite island is plywood covered with very thin laminate veneers. The shiny hardwood floors scratch and dent with alarming ease. The vinyl siding is beginning to separate from the house. Nails pops are everywhere. When we sit in the family room, our hair blows from the drafts coming in through the back door and windows. We joke that the truck drove past this house on insulation day. Heating/Cooling runs us about $350-$400/month. Crikey, even the toilets require 3 flushes. I could go on and on...I'm just blown away by the low level of quality combined with a high price. For a two-year old home, this house is showing unbelievable wear and tear. The construction 7-10 years ago is far superior. We moved back here last summer (after a one year job transfer to Ohio) and decided to rent for many reasons. One of them was to take a good hard look at what you can get for 500-700K in newer SFH's. I'm not impressed. The townhomes at those price levels may be of higher quality...I don't really know. I'm not suggesting that you write off new construction. I'm just saying you may want to approach it with a very careful and skeptical eye. Upon close examination, the look and feel can be very deceptive. In the long run, that brand new construction might cost you more than tweaking a somewhat older home in an older neighborhood that has a nice lot for your kids. I've read your prior posts and think that the Burke/Springfield area might suit your commute and lifestyle desires. By the way, homes identical to our rental were selling at $740,000 in 2005. They are now sitting for months at $700K. Most recent sale was $650K. A trend? Beats me but we'll see what the spring brings. I am one of those fully loaded buyers sitting on the sidelines...not because I'm looking for a bargain or a give away. I'm looking for the right combination of price and value. Between 2004-2005, those wacky price jumps of $200-$300K in all types of housing were completely disconnected from value IMHO. And that includes the house I sold in Falls Church in the summer of 2005. If I'm going to spend over a million bucks on a house, it better be pretty close to perfect. So far, no cigar.

Whiskerz- What probably happened was your agent talked to the seller's agent and they had a "chat" and the seller's agent decided she would not present that offer to her clients. That does happen often where I sold my home. I found out later from a former neighbor that someone put in a "verbal offer" for about $100K less than was listed bedcause they couldn't afford my home but liked my old nieghborhood. I asked my agent and she said there were many offers like that and she didn't want to waste my time. I had multiple written offers though, some under, some at asking price, and I took ALL of them seriously. Looking back on it, I'm glad my agent (as much as I didn't like her) didn't present verbal offers to me. I was pretty much a wreck, and I felt she was a great third-party mediator when it came to all offers. So the sellers in your case probably didn't get the offer, and maybe for a good reason. The only advice I can give is to call YOUR agent and have a heart to heart, no BS talk and ask what really happened. Why did he think not to write an offer (as most people know verbal offers aren't worth anything). I think this buck stops with your agent because it seems like this is your first time buying a house? Good luck with whatever happens.