Not a pro but tend to agree with PPF. For one thing, at least as it appears on my screen, the stone doesn’t relate to anything with no flow. It looks like a warm color, and the garage and front door are cool colors. The roof is brown?

Oh, I'd vote for #5, too. I voted for #1 because it had the least stone.

I like the stone 😊

#5 No stone

(I cut and pasted PPF.'s because he's right)

I like a nice simple stucco house. I don’t understand stone veneer. our neighbors took an all stucco house and put veneer around the doorway - no idea why they spent money on that, but i guess other people like it? if so just around the foundation.

#5 No stone

No stone

Before considering stick-on stone, solve the roof conundrum: the three roof elements appear to be stuck on the facade with no relationship to each other. The stone just adds another unrelated feature.

NO stone , tak that goofy bay window out and replace with a nice window no need for that goofy thing above the wundow at all IMO less is always more on home facades the landscaping will give it interest and depth not abunch of fake stuck on stone

Am with others posters - don't think the stone is a good option.

One of the key design efforts for a successful front elevation is for the other three elevations to be designed as if they are a front elevation.

No stone.

I'd agree that the house would look better without the bay window. It adds a roof shape that doesn't go. The gable over the door and the main gable go well together.

Has construction started?

I think OP has given up on us

Wife is leaning towards 2 or 4 at this point. This is a neighbor's home on our street and she likes the look of stone veneer. What can I say?

Indeed.

Could you do 1 without any stone on the columns or porch area at all?

To me the fake floating stone of the neighbor's house looks like a tube top on a young girl. It looks bad. If she likes the stone put it on an accent wall inside the house.

I can''t unsee that bare foundation now. So odd looking...a floating stone wall. I mean isn't the stone supposed to represent a stone foundation? Or at least give the appearance?

^^^ no it’s like frosting. Just shmear it somewhere. (Sorry I almost always hate fake stone)

^ agree, we call it "stone wallpaper" over here since it seems to be rolled on every new house no matter if it makes sense or not

The bare foundation. The OP should choose #1. The less stone the better.

Wife is leaning towards 2 or 4 at this point.

I'd pick 2, given these two choices. :-)

(This coming from the chick who insisted on having all brick, around all sides, of my new tract build, 7 years ago. Hey, is that an option? Stone everywhere?)

Don’t think I’ve ever seen stone veneer not anchored to the ground, just hanging in space. Well, not exactly like a tube top on a young girl, but not good either.

This what the front of our house looks like right now. If we didn't do any stone, it would just be this textured stucco.

What are you trying to improve with the stone? If I had to use stone I would do the two inside walls of the porch- as if it was a stone house that got stuccoed. Stone skirt just makes the house look squat, and stone on the bay will look ridiculous - it will be such tiny pieces around the window.

Keep it simple.

Looks good to me no need for the stone at all that house is built all wrong to have stone look ,ike it is part of the structure and IMO that is the only way it looks good. The goofy bay window is still wrong .

Actually there is really nothing wrong with one material on the entire house. Houses were built for decades out of one material or maybe two if there was a reason.

There are entire blocks of 19th century houses here built of One material and the blocks are not "boring" as a consequence.

Sometime at the very end of the 20th century our culture decided that houses that did not have multiple random cladding materials applied were dull. I am not sure why. It may be compensation for the lack of architecture.

Looks fine without added embellishments. Add color and texture with plantings.

If you did it at the actual bottom and covered the foundation which is where stone on a non-stone house should be, it would at least be in a natural position

Intended to vote for number one but somehow accidentally did number two instead. This is one of those cases where less is more.

No stone. All stucco looks much classier, without sticking on fake stone decoration. I actually do like stone and stucco mixed on some houses...it just doesn't work on this one.

I have loved stone houses my entire life. Personally I would go all stone if I could, but this is not my house. May I assume that this is genuine stone veneer, not artificial stone? While artificial stone is much more realistic than it used to be, I don't have the same love for it.

I have seen quite lovely houses with stone on the first floor and stucco on the second. I do like that combination, but it would not work here.

I also like the idea of covering only the foundation, concealing the concrete. Stucco is a nice finish in itself.

Stick-on stone? Naw. It looks like, well, stick-on stone.

Remember that brick-look wallpaper in the 1960s? Particle-board wood-look paneling in the living room, also 1960s? Just don’t. It looks cheap.

No stone. Or, a different home design entirely, that resesmbles what an actual home built from rock would physically look like. But since you have the form that you have, NO STONE.