Lascatx: I cook 'gravy' and pasta on Sundays so yes, I use big pots! LOL Funny thing, tho, is that I've had a double sink for 25 years, each sink being 14" so 23" to me would be an improvement! brittu: I fully understand your issue about real estate. However my sink needs to be centered with the window and I think it would bother me more to not have the sink also centered in the cabinet. My setup is so tight that I really can't move things around much so going into a 27" base would only give me 3" on each side. Not sure if I can work out the other cabinets to abdosrb that 3"...might be doable tho. Something to work on. Thanks! I guess if I can't work that out then I'll just have to get another double sink, maybe 70/30. I don't think that would look as out-of-place as a single 31" sink.

You can place a smaller rug under your bed with a runner in front, or a single larger rug under the bed, depending on your choice. Or you can even style your room according to the space available in the following 4 different ways: While arranging an area rug under a king-sized bed, "Bigger is Better" is always the best rule!

@RedRyder thank you so much! And yes, we're on the same wavelength! I had ordered 2 flush mounts, this one: I didn't like it. The glass was not seedy in the way I expected it and it would have been a pain each time to change the bulbs. Then I also ordered this one, and it got here today: I have't opened this one yet. But in general, I of course thought a hanging lantern would be much prettier. But I did realize it's more complicated than just a flush mount, like how low to hang it, the thought of it during a hurricane, etc. Although I see plenty of these in my community. It did bother me when I looked at the height from inside the interior door but i thought that would go away once it's installed. I realize the potential danger if I think about it from that angle but then I think what is the likelihood that something would happen once it's up and secure. So I'm a bit conflicted. I could also try this flushmount and see how I like this one.

First is capture, and this requires plume overlap by the hood. Now it is true that plume divergences vary with different factors, but all need to be overlapped, and few hot grease plumes will stay inside the boundary of the cooktop width except those from the center hobs. Capture is not ameliorated by a lower BTU level at the cooktop surface. Second is containment. This performs the removal of the captured plumes from the hood entry volume and expels it outside. To avoid reflections on the sheet metal, or at least to contain reflections, a minimum velocity of hood air is needed to entrain the plume elements into the hood flow to get them through the baffles. This varies with the velocity of the plume components (which varies with the heat input to the pan and whether combustion heating is being used) as well as hood design. So the CFM required for, say, steak searing will be slightly less with induction than with gas, and it might be possible to get away with a nominal 60 CFM/sq. ft. of hood instead of 90 CFM/sq. ft. I would expect that this would still depend on just how hot the searing was, whether the flame was on maximum or we are mostly dealing with a very hot cast iron pan with lowered flame, and how well the hood entry volume (reservoir) was able to average the initial grease vapor transient from throwing the steak into the hot pan. Without computational fluid dynamics evaluation of a particular case, or schlieren photography of the physical hardware in action, the best I can do is generalize. I have 90 to 100 CFM/sq.ft. and can capture induction wok cooking and induction searing effectively, but the transients are somewhat modest, and my hood is very long with some advantage in reservoir volume. So I know it works for me. What I can't "know" is how every other hood would work for me or for any other cook. Hence, I'll stick with 90 CFM/sq.ft. as a recommendation, with a suspicion that for non-extravagant induction cooking, lower specific flow rates may prove sufficient. Budgets and space are in many cases limited, so avoid having a zero percent solution because the 100 percent solution is unaffordable or infeasible.