Anyone have a photo showing this?

Here is the front of our home. I do wish they had put it on the pillars of the porch but oh well. It was an upgrade when we built the house BUT it really makes a difference. It breaks up all the stucco

Here ya go. Great look? No. Your instincts are right. Push back against the builder and opt for one material.

It's a characteristic of a McMansion burger...

When properly combined with other materials, stone (as well as brick) can add appeal to a home. Applying it to the front facade only screams "fake" to me. If you'd like to use stone as an accent, you should return it to an inside corner rather than stopping it in a single plane as shown above. This might require some redesign to create an inside corner by adding a bay or other feature that projects from the facade.

The term "Lipstick on a Pig" comes to mind. Stone and brick are best used in traditional manners, not as an attempt to dress up one facade while leaving the other three to dull simplicity. Your home will most likely be visible from all sides; it is not a movie set.

It's also sometimes required by the HOA to have at least stone/brick certain % of the front of the house.

@Mark,

In Virginia, and perhaps elsewhere, you'll find a number of colonial style homes which were constructed with siding on the front and rear and brick only on each of the gable ends where the fireplaces were typically located. This was probably driven by fire-safety concerns. The brick was used as a structural building material and not a veneer so it doesn't look fake.

It’s not the best look, IMO. This is an area I wouldn’t want to cut costs.

Installing it only one the front facade completely makes it look fake and not at all realistic. Just my honest .02.

^Agree with millworkman.

To me it looks like the buyer ran out of money and had to make cost cutting changes. Not a good look. Better to have no stone or brick at all than to just have it on the front of the house. JMO.

Agreed. We opted to scrap the stone in lieu of just stone around our porch piers. If we were going to do it, it would have been at foundation level on ALL sides of the home. Since we have a full walkout basement, we would have needed a lot of stone.

Sorry but I think you have all misunderstood what I’m referring to. We are doing Front Facing only - not partial/accent front. So every wall facing front will have stone, but any jog or return on the wall on the front of the house would have the shake. Make sense? This is what I had meant, sorry for the confusion but appreciate all the responses. 90% of homes I see have brick accent or look like all brick front, this front facing only thing is what’s given me a bit of group as I’ve never noticed this before. Let me know please! I could post my own homes rendering, but since it’s all front facing, will just see all the stone.

Ooops wish I could edit my last post - I think some did understand what I meant. The pictures though are not what I was referring to.

I completely understood what you said. I still don't like front facing only stone or brick. It looks bad to me. Like the buyer/owner ran out of money. Take a look at those two pics posted by Delana Davis up thread. It shows how front facing stone looks to the rest of us. How much are you going to spend on landscaping to cover up the missing stone around the rest of the house.

What is different about what your builder is proposing than the pics shown by Delana?

Those pics are all partial and accent stone. I’m referring to bottom to top stone on a 1.5 story.

Those pics also have stone on the returns of the front.

Oh, then what he is proposing is so much worse! Don't do it.

Post a pic of your front elevation so we can see what you see. If it is as you describe, it will look cheap to just have the stone on the front and not even the returns on the front. Are you sure this builder is reputable? Sounds like he is trying to cheap out because he underbid the stone portion of your build.

Edit: It is far worse that the "stone" goes from bottom to top on the front only and the rest is some other siding.

He is reputable; we asked to quote us to upgrade our accent stone to be full stone and he asked us if we wanted front facing only. Has nothing to do with the bid, just his suggestion, which I had never heard or seen this before; wanted to ask in this forum if was something I’ve just overlooked but doesn’t sound like it. He’s getting us pricing on both full front and front facing no returns. Again, just wanted to know if this front facing only is some sort of trend or what. Apparently it’s not! ;-) Thank you all for your responses and feedback. Much appreciated. I will post a pic of the home.

Deceiving in this front view drawing, but it’s actually a 4 car home with the bottom right of the house coming out much more forward than this drawing appears. Thats actually a 2 car side load.

The shake with stone accent we are considering upgrading from looks more like this.

Don’t do it! Either do stone everywhere, or just at the water table everywhere, or nowhere. The makeup only on your face but wearing your pajamas and flip flops to carry the kids to school has actually been the subject of restrictions and fines here.

Is your garage a 4 car tandem type? 2 cars parked deep in the garage with 2 cars behind?

Or is your garage a side load garage where the garage doors are on the side of the house and not facing forward?

I'm asking this because it would be most especially visible on the protruding garage where the front is stone and the sides are the other siding.

The second rendering looks marginally acceptable but still appears to be cheap. First rendering is an all out, absolutely not, capital letter NO. If you have the budget room to use as many square feet of stone as shown in drawing one, that is a positive. Now spread that stone evenly around the bottom of the building, at least on the front and both sides, and it will loom structural, not fake

Ok thank you all for your comments. My gut was right apparently and will be doing all stone. :-)

Denita- totally agree and was the area which gave me the most grief in that suggestion. They are as you said 2 doubles perpendicular to each other, so essentially one is front facing and one is side. I had the same thoughts in that regardless would need the garages to be consistent. I’ve decided full stone is without a doubt the answer. Thanks again!

Your house would look lovely with all shake. If you’re not going to put the stone on all four sides, stick with the shake for a nice consistent look and a great outcome.

Two examples from my town below. The one on the left is really noticeable (not in a good way) because the white siding is such a contrast to the red/brown brick. The second isn't as noticeable because the siding and brick are about the same color, and a large tree blocks the side view on one side.

As suggested above, I'd stick to all one type of siding for all sides. If you must do some stone with your siding, then water table all around.

Stone Don’ts:

Stone Dos:

Very much agree with Sammy. An all-stone front with sides and back something else looks like the lady who crimps and curls her bangs but leaves the sides and back of her hair uncombed. Just foolish.

Historically stone and wood were mixed with great charm and integrity but its difficult to recreate that with the popular cliches of todays suburban eclectic homes.

Here's a house on 73 acres in Fairfield, PA built in 1780.

Garage addition on the right.

David Adler's Port of Call (the Blairs House)

If you really like stone I would suggest using it on the front of the main house element only and let the wings look like additions.

Otherwise, I suggest you make it all shingles with NO corner boards.

Whatever you do, avoid bits an pieces of stone here and there like interior design accents.

Are we talking real stone, or the Faux molded stuff?

If you really like stone I would suggest using it on the front of the main house element only and let the wings look like additions.

And that’s how this house was born, @User:

Thank you to the people here that gave honest & respectful responses that actually pertained to the question asked. I appreciate you taking the time to respond and your honest opinions. To those with the childish analogies not even relative to the question, nor are they accurate, calling quality 1M+ homes that use combination exterior designs “cheap”, I’m disappointed. Had expected more professionalism in this forum. Please keep that in mind next time you comment to others. This isn’t Facebook.

This is common on fairly high end homes in my area. They use stone on the front and some returns but not all. Most often not the sides. I personally don’t like it. I’d rather just leave the stone off. But lots of people have it and are perfectly happy.

I think it’s something that not all people notice. people who notice think it looks bad but the majority of people dont see it

"calling quality 1M+ homes that use combination exterior designs “cheap”, I’m disappointed"

But if the finishes make them look like a disjointed McMansion at any cost they will look cheap, whether or not you agree is up to you. You need to remember people here are offer there time free of charge. You need to learn to either accept the advice or if you don't like it, scroll by and ignore it.

I am disappointed expensive homes look cheap too.

And that’s how this house was born...

That's an uninformed, kneejerk opinion.

Some wood framed homes in the US had stone fronts in the 16th and 17th centuries. Its only because fewer wood framed houses than all-stone houses have survived from colonial times that we don't see more of them.

When emulating the colonial period (this house clearly emulates the Colonial Revival Style) any historical treatment is fair game.

What is missing from the recently built stone front houses Sammy has posted is authentic detailing but there was a lot of that going on in the Colonial Revival era; its just gotten a lot worse.

A good detailer could add stone to the center element of this house and with a few other adjustments make it spectacular. I've done that on this forum but I no longer do it for free.

And some homeowning handymen could care less.

More power to them!

If you look closely you can see Gehry's Colonial Revival influences.

The two 18th century houses above use wood to imitate stone.

Stepping into Colonial Revival, here's a house in my neighborhood from the early 1940s that uses the same principles. Unfortunately, I don't have a photo showing the side, but it is brick on the front:

And wood behind and on the sides:

The two wood pilasters flanking the front facade make the transition in materials.

For the Maggie Lou's house, it appears that there are 9 different planes that are front facing, and all of these will have shingles rather than stone on the sides. On one hand this may be an interesting effect, but keep in mind that no matter where you stand looking at the house, you will be able to see at least some of the shingled sides.

Old thread but seemed like good info on this page : ) Need to decide on stone veneer foundation or not ....bottom of windows are 36 inches to the dirt (very tall windows!). We are contemplating stone veneer but can't find a clear answer on and what height should be as we want to keep below window. Any thoughts?

Yes the stone should go no higher than what the first floor height is. This is my house so you can see what I mean. My first floor starts at the same line as where the stone ends if you were to go inside my house. And the stone should wrap around all sides of the house.

As cpartist states, first floor height only, all the way around the home or no where. This is commonly known and called a "water table".

Stone only on the front of a house is poor design. It is a result of the uneducated people that attempt to design elevations to a house without regard for the house's design as a unified whole. Stone is stuck on the front of so many house it has become common place and acceptable by those that do not know any better. Many developments have used this trick to sell a pretentious that look more expensive than they are. Fake stone should be used only where it appears to make structural sense as if it were real stone, and not used as if it were paint.

I know it is an old thread, but poor design needs to be avoided.

Thanks to all --- this is exactly what we have always thought regarding stone placement; it should "make sense". Our windows are intentionally very tall leaving 36 inches between "dirt" and bottom of window around the house. Is this enough room to do stone on the foundation or in your professional opinion skip it because it leaves an awkwardly couple inches between window trim and stone? Again, appreciate this perspective and confirmation of what we are thinking regarding no stone can often be better than token placement! Our house is more of a cedar cottage/lake house albeit large, it is not ostentatious.

I have in the past designed houses where the stone veneer has extended beyond the top of the concrete foundation. One of the reasons for this is so the stone can act as a splash guard for rain splashing onto the house after hitting the ground. This way the splash is on stone and not wood siding.