I'm in the process of researching for my first remodel. I live in a small 1950's ranch on a cement slab in Anchorage, AK. The neighborhood is modest, basically a carpet/laminate/vinyl floor area. We live in a very wet climate - with 7-8 months of winter plus a lot of "rainy season" in the non Winter months. We currently have 3 cats, but plan to get another dog down the road and we like our dogs big.

As part of the remodel, we are tearing down the wall that separates the kitchen from the entry/LR area. We also converted from a furnace to a boiler system. The "pipes" for the new boiler system got routed through the old channels for the forced air in the cement slab. We will be flooring over the holes where the old grates were, but cannot plug them up with cement for obvious reasons.

I want the same floor throughout the public spaces of the house, which is basically the LR, den, DR and kitchen. Wood or a wood look is really important to me. The front door will have a tiled entry area but the back door is a slider leading out to the deck and will not have tile.

Everywhere we go, they are recommending LVT. Glued down, as opposed to snap-together. They swear these floors will hold up to everything we can throw at them, that they don't scratch, they wear great, and are impervious to water. They say repair is a breeze with glue down in particular.

However, the prices get competitive with engineered hardwood given the subfloor that will be required for the LVT so it can cover up those holes in the concrete for the old grates. And that makes me pause. I know hardwood., engineered or not, will add value to a home and LVT will not. On the other hand, LVT will apparently require little to no stress related to upkeep and damage. If the prices are equal, does it even make sense to consider LVT? Conversely, does price matter or is the real issue to consider what is going to hold up best in our situation?

Do you agree with these assessments and WWYD (what would you do or recommend) in this kind of situation?