I'm not sure I'd add another texture. How about the left column is the gray but the doorway surround brings in the wood-looking siding again?

Narrow it down to two siding materials, not 3. Right now it is uncohesive and that's because there are too many materials.

Here's what I mean. Notice now the house doesn't look like a jumbled set of parts but is a cohesive whole? Additionally now the front door becomes the focal point.

Don't do any variation of orange and black.

It's wood and we live in a forest. But thanks for your input :)

I tried to bring a bit of order to the placement of materials.

The second floor might also be all wood.

I would go with the first one

So switch the dark gray I did for wood. Still only 2 materials vs the jumble of 3 or more.

Here you go, wood and stone, but only the two materials.

Thanks for your input everyone.. What about this? More cohesive?

Or this..

Sorry cpartist, I strongly disagree with only 2 materials. Most modern homes now use brick, wood, metal plates or stucco. We're absolutely going for modern. But thanks for your input. The white brick was probably too adventurous.

Do you have better graphic representations of the house on all sides? The simplistic elevation shown makes the house look awkward and I fear it is the drawing.

If more that two exterior wall finished are used, it has to be executed very carefully or the house looks like a sample display, regardless of who made the mistake before.

Here.. Thanks!

Unfortunately, we're not rich.. the front is designed and the sides and back are in stucco. :(

Did the builder give you an elevation other than the one you posted? The actual elevation shows more detail than the rendering you posted originally. The floorplan posted last doesn't show the exterior. If you have a blueprint, each of the elevations for the front, the sides and the back would show. That blueprint elevation has the most detail.

Hi Denita. I don't have anything else. The floorplans show the lines of the exterior and which exterior walls are which depth.

Would you consider rethinking the exterior of your entire house? Expensive finishes on the front of a home and inexpensive materials on the other sides has always looked odd. I would hate for "forever home" to translate into "we're stuck with it". A home with continuity of exterior finished is better than a house with a front facade of attempted grandeur.

Hi Mark, I wish but it's not in the budget. We're also surrounded by trees so I'm not crazy concerned about the sides and back. We're working with what we've got. :) This is already much nicer than I ever thought I'd be lucky enough to own!

I would suggest selecting one relatively inexpensive exterior material that works well in a wooded area and accent it with brick to the extent of which you wish to afford.

I assume "luck" has nothing to do with it, it's all hard and smart work.

I would also make all the roof pitches the same.

Sorry cpartist, I strongly disagree with only 2 materials. Most modern homes now use brick, wood, metal plates or stucco. We're absolutely going for modern. But thanks for your input. The white brick was probably too adventurous.

Good design doesn't say throw lots of materials on a house. Just because builders with no design sense do it to impress clients, doesn't make it good design.

Remember like in dressing yourself, less is more. Good fashion doesn't require lots of makeup and jewelry and neither does good modern or traditional design require lots of materials. The overall architecture is what makes the building interesting, not the materials thrown on it. If you need to throw materials on the building to make it interesting, then there's something inherently wrong with the overall design of the architecture.

I agree with cpartist, as Coco Chanel once said "before leaving the house, a lady should look in the mirror and remove one accessory." The rendering that cpartist did with the notation "wood and stone, but only two materials" to my eyes is lovely to view and have my eyes rest upon.

Thanks for your kind words, Mark!

Cher- At the risk of hacking your budget, some advice:

Try not to feel badly about stucco. Applied correctly, it's very fire retardant and an excellent insulator. Look into La Habra- natural integral color, many colors and virtually maintenance-free- doesn't need to be repainted over and over again. For a forever home, maintenance costs matter. You'll pay a bit more, but you don't have to be rich.

I mean a bit more. I don't regret having done it. Combined with my solid Texas limestone and Hardie Plank siding, my energy bills are ridiculously low, compared to my neighbors. And it's all cohesive, within design. We have a lot of people who simply stop and ask to take a picture. That's the vision of our architect, and it totally worked.

Sounds really boring, but also check in with your insurance agent. I was surprised at the discounts I could get on homeowner's insurance, by using fire retardant materials on the exterior. No paint on the stucco- real stucco, as they classify? The savings paid for the "up charge" for the premium stucco in a few years. Yes, we have solid limestone. Eh, lucky us- we live 30 minutes from the quarry. The quarry folks actually looked at the veins, as mined, until they found just what we were looking for. It was cheap, as we had no shipping charges- contractor paid for delivery. So that's not always possible, for everybody. But also insurance savings.

All materials have both (dramatically) lowered our insurance costs as well as energy costs. And they look great.

"Forever house"? Think long term. I assume you have a bit of a contingency fund. Don't hesitate to spend it on things that will always be protective and money savers.

Thank you ACM. We seem to be on the same page. We requested this:

Spiff. Enjoy your new home!!

Since the other 3 sides will only be one texture, the front will look rather weird incorporating three. I'd settle on two.

Too late artemis. The OP decided and wanted more.