It sounds like you have a very unique situation that would require a very custom plan. I think yours is a case where working with an architect is a necessity, not a luxury. An architect could give you exactly what you are looking for, while taking into account your site. I can't imagine there is a stock plan available that could do that. Best of luck to you...your vision sounds lovely!

Obviously an architect familiar with the codes and building techniques is needed. This is not a DIY or internet forum assisted design problem. An architect could easily save more than their fee and avoid a lot of disappointment and pain.

I wonder the same thing about concrete block! On the east coast, that is unheard of- but for some reason, I thought in California it was more common. I guess not.

I think you should build a single story ranch, leaving a wing with plenty of cleared land adjacent, that would do well as an addition.

Time for a realistic assessment of what your budget can actually build. A smaller house built in a more expensive construction technique will be just as expensive if not more expensive than what you say that you can't afford.

Definitely need an architect to achieve what you want. It shouldn't be too much of a reach as there is a lot of spanish style architecture in CA.

One thing you are going to want is for the house to last, so you will need to build for fires and earthquakes. I don't think brick/block does well with earthquakes...unless they are interlocking so they withstand shaking. So regardless of aesthetics, you will need to sink money into durability.

Building smaller can help save money...some in the construction but more in the operating costs (less to heat, cool, furnish, insure, maintain, pay taxes on, etc.) Building greener can also save money in the long run. Just by positioning the house on the lot you can increase/decrease solar gain to make the house more efficient. And building smaller is building greener...if you look at European homes, they tend to be much smaller than American homes. For example the average US home is 832 sq ft per person vs. Italy with 335 and France with 464.

However, the expenses are not proportional. Walls are cheap, kitchens and baths are not. So you can save a lot more money by limiting the expensive sq feet than you can but cutting out the inexpensive sq feet.

Another thing to keep in mind is that aesthetics are relatively easy to change. I've linked to another thread below where I talk about the inspiration for our house and the results. While the inspiration house was very mediterranean, the end result was far from it. So the exterior is one thing, the room layout and flow is another. While the exterior will give you the look, the layout and flow is where you live and what you will feel on a day to day basis. You don't want to end up with a house you love to look at but hate living in.

Here is a link that might be useful: Inspiration to Reality

oldperson: California is the most active seismic zone in the U.S. (although there are other U.S. zones that historically have the same or greater threat, i.e., New Madrid fault, etc.), so building in California with heavy and rigid materials, such as concrete block bearing walls, is more expensive and challenging than using lighter weight wood stud walls with plywood diaphrams anchored to the foundations which can resist seismic forces more easily (and economically).

In architecture and building everything is about the region where you intend to build and the characteristics of that region. Concrete block is not commonly used in California for residences for a reason.

For example, many of the European areas you say you like are areas where stone masonry was traditional for bearing walls. For U.S. residences that may be simply impractical in our era--for many reasons. Stone veneer, anchored to wood framed shear walls is the common alternative, albeit more expensive than using cement plaster.

You can probably get the aesthetic you seek using a design-conscious combination of cement plaster and stone veneer.

You need to do a lot more due diligence, or find experienced architects and builders in your area to advise you.

Good luck on your project.

If you hired an architect he/she would tell you that commercial buildings over a certain size must be built with non-combustible materials of which concrete masonry units (CMU) is usually the cheapest.

A house has few if any fire-resistant requirements and since CMU walls are considerably heavier and more rigid than wood stud walls it takes a great deal more lateral bracing to prevent the shaking of the ground from tearing the walls apart and collapsing the building. It's not impossible to build a house in earthquake zones with CMU but its a lot more expensive with little benefit.

The IRC limits the thickness of masonry walls to 8 inches and 80 PSF which effectively prohibits the use of rubble stone masonry (as in Italy) and relatively thick concrete or brick masonry walls. You would effectively be limited to stucco on CMU which is a common system in modern Europe but not the romantic rubble stone you love so much.

The code also requires that the CMU cells contain reinforcing bars and be filled with grout (not mortar or insulation). If the code requires this reinforcement to be inspected it can get very expensive. Many houses are limited to 12 ft high masonry walls and often mixed construction types on the same story are prohibited.

Anyway, the point is that a masonry house in CA is possible but it is a serious professional design project so you need to be talking to professionals.

Here is a link that might be useful: Italian earthquake

Thanks everyone for input. I'm not a DIY-er but am trying to figure out the best way to avoid a huge outlay of $$$. I am taking one more hard look at our original 3,500 sq ft concept. If I could just snap my fingers - where is that Genie???

This post was edited by oldworlddreamer on Sat, Jan 25, 14 at 21:13