Still in the thinking stage. We had our kitchen contractor out for a look-see. He liked my idea: to add on to the larger of our two inadequate bathrooms by bumping out another small space. This would lead to a two-part room, with a sink in the entry space and the bath and toilet in the new space. Plus we could put in a little storage space. The current space does not have room for a towel rack.
The bid wasn't too bad. We could do it. And maybe we will. But then I realized how we could bump out the other bathroom and put in a tub. The current shower--which probably cost under $100, I kid you not--is tiny and the cheapest plastique. Mr. FS won't even use it and he's on the thin side. Anyway, that shower could be removed and turned into a closet! Mr. FS estimates that the cost would be around 40% of the other plan.
As usual, I start out by trying to do the conventional thing, but then my frugality comes up against the norm. That is why I don't have a backsplash in my kitchen (I don't like them and they are expensive). In spite of dire predictions, the wall looks fine.
The contractor said that we would need a tub surround and that decent quality surrounds cost about $1000 for material plus labor. Tiling--the beautiful solution--is much more expensive. Oh no! I don't want that ugly surround! I also don't want expensive tilework.
I know! Let's put in a tub with no shower--or a little hand shower.
So the combination of my aesthetics and my frugality is going to lead--once more--to a choice that will mystify others. I love my kitchen, which satisfied both aesthetics and frugality, but my sister-in-law, extremely conventional, said, when I showed her pictures, "OK, so where are the AFTER PICTURES?"
Here's what I'm reading.
Any words of wisdom?