I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the question. Are you looking for advice on how to transition from brick to siding on the sides, or on how to make your plan look more like the first photo?

Hello Thepond,

The brick may not be to bad even for the one you liked in the next photo. The brick doesn't cover that much in the photo so having just portions covered may fit the budget.

I would for sure keep the side entry. Front facing garages are my biggest 'Ughh'. I think keeping the side entry garage and getting some really nice doors will make the house shine. Having a really nice looking house with big garage doors facing front is such an eyesore.

Plus, they take up almost half the front of the house.

Check out these doors, something like these.

Just Me!

Here is a link that might be useful: Wood Doors

I think you could pull off using stone on the front areas (like the example houses in brick) if you want the cottage look, although thegolfguy is right about cost because stone can be quite pricey.

We had to have our garages facing the front (I know, eyesore) because of lot size, so you may be limited because of this too. We solved it (I hope :) by getting really nice woodgrain fiberglass 8' front door and matching garage doors.

If you have the space for a comfortable turning radius, keep the side entry garage.

The same with stone or brick on the front elevation. (There's very little masonry anyway because of your roof and fenestration.)

It's impossible to say where the "natural" break point is on the sides, since you haven't provided any elevations.

The cost difference may not be all that much anyway. I did a home for customers with wood board and batten on the second floor and it was virtually the same price as doing it in brick.

Rae: I guess i'm wondering if the orignal house is true to a particular style, or a modern hybrid. If there are things that would look better tweaked, I'd like to try to find out now, such as roof designs, etc. Whatever gives the house it's character from the outside.

Golf: I agree, the garage doors would look best on the side, that would be my first choice, if it can be done. We are on a rural property, but where the house will sit, may be too steep of a drive way to enter in the side. But there is still a chance it could. The wood doors in the link are a great example, thanks.

Mairin:My husband would like a "cement" type siding on the house. My idea is that whatever we use, it's going to cost something, but how much more would all brick or stucco cost than the cement boards? Then, if we only put stone on the front, I feel like it would be compromising the style, if this house has one, lol.

Maybe I shouldn't have posted the photo of the house style I found appealing, it may be making a statement that I don't know enough about yet. Clear as mud? I like the house, it's cute, appealing. But yet, I keep thinking it looks more like an American house from the 40's than a European cottage. We both tend to like things that look, i don't know, maybe not so trendy? More timeless? Not something that will look dated in a decade, or look like "oh, that house was built in the 08's style that was really hot then." With some of the examples that MightyAnvil has posted, I can see a big difference in houses that are "true to a particular style". I find that much more appealing, but now what to do with our design?

The all-grey clapboard with board and batten above looks most true to style to me, although they left out the *swoop* dormer line and the decorations under the gable points that are on your original elevation.

I see this in wood without any stone or brick, with the four-, six- and nine-over-one windows and the decorative trim pieces. I'd like that better than the original's call for brick below -- seems overly fussy. If you can't do a side entry garage, use garage doors that resemble the original front.

My second favorite would be the home built with white brick (maybe it's stucco?) below. If your DH wants 'cement', he might prefer that.

Now, if you want European (whatever that means these days!) this isn't it. And some of the adaptations in the photos you showed us aren't either. Slapping on some stone does not change the *style*.

Chisue! Yes! that is my gut feeling, this house looks like it should be done in all grey clapboard, to be true to it's "style". It looks more "retro" that way, to me.

But that isn't our style at all. When we look out homes and interiors, we drool over big beams, stained wood work, rustic, maybe a little "old world" or even Spanish. I thought our style would be cottage, in a rustic, old way. But not like newer country cottage (beautiful, but just not what we agree on).

What do you mean by "wood"? Something like Cedar siding? Cedar planks?

Also, I believe the white version is stucco, and it also seems to do this house the most justice, or flows better with the elevations, or makes more sense somehow.

In the first photo, the artist's rendering, I think the browns look okay, but I don't know what kind of stone that represents. Plus, if we found stone like that, but only put it on the front of the house and put cement board siding on the rest (painted), would that compromise the style? Can you just wrap the stone around the right and left sides of the front and end it like that?

I see a lot of builder's homes in our area that have stone on the front but not the sides. Something is just not cohesive about it, it seems, well, phony. I can't figure out why, maybe they cut corners and didn't finish them well, I don't know. But when I see them, I think I'd rather do all lapped siding then compromise with a facade on the front that looks phony. But that's what the stone basically is, a veneer, I guess, an illusion. If it's truly an illusion, then I want it to work well.

From what you say, I don't think this is your house! If you want big beams, stained wood, etc. you may like Craftsman better -- or English, French, Spanish, Mediteranean. Where are you building? (You probably don't want a pink stucco hacienda in Alaska.)

I don't understand faux-front houses. There's nothing wrong with an all-clapboard house. Why create a movie-set facade of brick, then side everything else?

That doesn't mean you can't mix materials. Our house is a combination of white stucco and oversized rough white brick -- in sections that project/recede. (Brick garage next to stucco kitchen; stucco entrance porch next to brick library; and so on around the house.) It looks 'all of a piece' viewed from any direction.

I'd keep looking for the style you REALLY want. If the interior plan of this house appeals, perhaps an architect or draftsman could adapt the exterior.

Chisue: Well, we will build in Oregon, rural, but just a stone throw away from city limits.

Mixed materials: We went to Street of Dreams and I took pix of their exterior finishes. The thing I notices in their mixed materials is, there is an architectural reason to end the stone here, and start the lap siding there, etc.

Like this:

And this:

As opposed to this:

There are some features of this house plan that I can visualize as beams, rustic, like staining rich wood trim instead of white paint, and the beams in the great room:

(The interior home pix weren't available. Said 'private'.)

Yes, the bottom exterior photo is what you DON'T want! The others resemble what I was trying to describe about using different materials next to one another as sections of the house project or recede. (Of course having ins and outs adds to the cost of building the house.)

Interior trim costs will be greater for wood of a quality high enough to be worth staining. I can't see that interior photo well enough to tell if the 'beams' are functional or have been applied as a decorative touch. They seem a little 'lonely' with no other stained trim in the house (door frames, window casings, etc.).

Perhaps your subconscious thinking is that when you see the completed house, you hope that you will decide to like it. That would be sort of like expecting the birth of a child and hoping that after it is born, you will like it. The way we do it with the child is that early in the process we decide that we love it. Then when it is born, we continue per that decision. Choose a look for your house, decide that you like it and then get busy with building.

Chisue: I fixed the private photos to public. What I don't know about 'our' house is, where to stop one finish, start another, on the exterior, without making it look weird because maybe it was never designed to do that, I don't know. But I want it to be where the house projects and recedes, but it doesn't do that on the side. You can click on the pics and see a lot more of the actual house (in white) from more angles.

We won't have any painted woodtrim. Wood floors, stained trim & doors, stained kitchen cabinets. Expensive? We may have to start basic and add more later. I agree, those dark beams look cold and lonely there. I believe they are decorative only. I would go for much more warmth and wood. (I do think that the white house is very, very attractive and appealing, just not what we want, bt,dt).

Bus driver: it's so much like having a baby, it's not even funny. I feel like I'm still waiting to get pregnant, lol. But, planning something that doesn't exist yet, is like flying blind. I'm getting as much info as I can. We remodeled our last house extensively, and then sold it. Living in it for just a year, I found many things I was sorry we did or wished were different. Now, clean slate, good floorplan, lots of pics of the house already built.

It's this exterior that we have been over and over for a long time, trying on everyone else's "dresses" to see if it looks good on our house. I have photoshopped up the wazu, and have dozens of 'models'.

I just don't want to try to have a 'baby', only to find out we ended up with a 'walrus' (which is just precious to mom and dad walrus, lol, but would seem odd in our family).

I see what you mean. The model home sure is...white, white, white! Not at all what you said you want. But...couldn't you do the interior differently? Maybe the people over on the 'Home Decorating' forum would be helpful.

Chisue, Yes, I feel pretty confident that our surface choices for interior part of this house will make it suit us just dandy. That part is probably the easiest. I figure it's your wall color, floor color, wood work color that all set the back drop, But it's the window treatments, furnishings, wall decor, etc. that take it right in to your particular style. I think we can feel sort of 'old rural Europe' with the interiors.

You know, we chose this house plan over a year ago, and it will not even start until 2009. At first, I just love the elevation look. But I have looked at it long enough that is has sort of changed, I see it more thoroughly, and have compared it to so many other designs. I feel like I know it like the back of my hand by now.

This is our last big design issue to tackle, the rest is pretty much chosen. And, the exterior is going to go up first!

If you don't mind, I'd like to share a few more examples of exterior elevations (& interiors) that just really make us swoon: (some just make me feel, good)

I think the house will look great with all shingle siding, high quality 6 over 1 or 4 over 1 windows like in the drawing, the garage doors on the side, and substantial, well-proportioned decorative trusses under the gables.

I think (except for the siding choices) the photos where these elements are missing look much worse than the elevation drawing.

If you are looking for simple and timeless I think the roof lines might be a little busy and the decorative trusses might be a bit much, but in 2008 they look good to me.

re: those dream picures

I like them too. Unofortunately I don't think you will achieve that effect if brick siding strains the budget. A poster called allison0704 (?) built a gorgeous home that reminds me of you photos. She achieved that effect, but her $/sf had to have been very high.

I suggest you look at shingle-style homes. They are more authentic becasue they are an American style, they are timeless (as much as anything can be), and you can choose various levels of finishes and degree of interior decoration without sacrificing the overall effect. For example, moderate price maple cabs with a bit of a shine from a big box store would look OK in a simple shingle style house with painted trim. They would look really cheap and out of place in a grand manor. If stained woodwork is a dealbreaker for you this might not be a great option.

Have you seen that Stern dream home from Southern Living that MIghty Anvil has posted in the past? Check that out.

Solie, do you mean this one?

Also, is this what you had in mind for shingle siding?

thepond, I don't know if this will help or not, but because we have similar tastes and I have been through some of this, I'll share what I have found. FWIW, our construction loan should close this week, which means construction could start next week (Eek!) and we have been working towards this for 2.5 years since we bought our land. The house plan has evolved greatly over that time (your plan is one that appealed to me, too). As best as I can describe, mine has turned out to be a bit of a hybrid of Craftsman and mountain style.

So, the cement siding - if you are talking about fiber cement like Hardieplank - is just as expensive as brick (for the prepainted ColorPlus), stone is more than either. Hardie has a wood grain (fairly convincing depending on the paint color), is low maintenance like brick and will get us the same fire resistant insurance break as brick. We will be using the shingle look Hardie in the gables, stone around the skirt (for continuity, I donÂt like the façade movie set look either), stone on a section that juts a bit from the front, with Hardieplank clapboard siding on the rest of the house. HardieShingle is a bit pricier than the plank.

Probably no surprise, paint grade interior trim is cheaper than stain grade.

On the flip side and good news  painted cabinets are pricier than stained (sometimes significantly). Stained cabinets without a glaze are base pricing.

HTH

Yes, that does help. It's good to hear that yours evolved over your long wait, also. Thank you. I hope you get pix to share.

I suspected that the Hardi Plank might rival brick in cost (but we would not get the pre-painted). Even if brick does strain the budget, it sure would give a good look for this house elevation. So, today I'm going to get some prices on brick, and see samples. But if it's not going on all sides of the house, I don't know what I'll do!!

Finding our style is like soul searching. I asked my husband, if money were no issue, what would he build? He said " a castle...and if not that, the Ponderosa". Lol, I would love either one also.

Stain grade interior, well we will give up something to have it. We've just had painted for too long. It was our first hurdle in design that we bounced around on for a long, long time. But it's been "stain" for over a year now. That has actually helped set the tone and get the ball rolling. I found it nearly impossible to choose windows (which they want to know when you are framing, pretty early in the build) without deciding on int. trim finish first.

That is what I meant for the shingle siding.

This is the house I was talking about.

Here is a link that might be useful: 1994 Life Dream House

Okay, yes, I saw the shingle siding. I do think it would fit right in on our house.

I'm 99% sure we won't change to a different plan all together. So it's this one. I just see that, without lots of research and advice, I might ruin the exterior look. That would be a shame.

Tell me the truth, do I just need to stop trying to have a 'fairy tale' cottage or rural europe country look, and just do what looks best on this house?

I used to think the options were endless, but not when you have a plan bought.

You may not have to give up on your dream, thepond. I just found the site for New South Classics over the weekend. We've been working through how to change our elevations so they are more European & less "tricked-out" neo-traditional. I'll start another thread about NSC and Euro World, tomorrow. - Jo Ann

Here is a link that might be useful: New South Classics