I don’t like the board and batten. It seems incongruent with the other architectural features on the house.

Fair - would you just stick with stucco and do more stone? I wish I had a better drawing, maybe I need to get one from the architect.

Be patient. Maybe one of the nice architects that use this site can make some constructive comments. I knew it needed something different, but I wasn’t able to put my finger on it.

Have you started construction?

yes, it's framed and windows are in

I would not do dark garage doors. Keep them the color of the house - less noticeable. One wants ones eye drawn to the front door.

thanks for the feedback - so would you just do stucco without any stone at all?

budget drove the train on most of the design here. we needed a home style that would capture views which is what our back deck/windows does.

so would you just do stucco without any stone at all?

Yes

Agree stucco only. You don’t need to tart up the house.

The comment about windows has more to do with the front and how you have so many mismatched windows.

Actually the windows on this image are not accurate. A lot of it isn’t accurate - we changed a lot.
I’ll take a photo of the actual house front tomorrow so you can see what it looks like. Didn’t realize it would make such a difference but I guess it does.

Skip the stone entirely, or use the stone for everywhere that is below grade (ie it’s a stucco house on a stone foundation). This smattering of stone screams developer.

I vote for stucco only. No stone. No B&B.

Too many materials, methinks, if the foundation areas shown are stacked stone. Lose the stacked stone. As for stucco, do you live in an area in which stucco is an appropriate material, e.g. California or Florida? If not, I'd reconsider, and maybe go board and batten for all the areas designated for stucco, and use shingles for the areas currently slated for board and batten.

Swedish Exterior · More Info

Rustic Exterior · More Info

Notice how the board and batten and the shingles are the same color. You could do paint or stain.

A talented architectural technologist I put in touch with a client designed a home that he advised worked best as either all board and batten or all brick. The owners decided on board and batten and brick and stone. The more materials the merrier.

@worthy, what's an architectural technologist? That's a new term for me.

"The more materials the merrier."

Not necessarily a positive terminology.

"More is a bore!", said someone or other...

I currently have an older home ('58) that's got stucco, board and batten, brick, and something else I don't know the name of and it *drives me crazy.* There's no call for so many different materials (and only on the front of the house?!) and I look at my neighbors across the street - they have all stucco - with envy :( However, this is in California, so YMMV.

an architectural technologist

ATs are licenced in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. (Perhaps elsewhere here. Haven't checked.)

As per the Canadian Council of Technologists and Technicians, "Architectural technicians and technologists work independently or with professional architects and civil design engineers in conducting research, preparing drawings, architectural models, specifications and contracts and in supervising construction projects. Architectural technologists and technicians are employed by architectural and construction firms, and governments."

As with architects, some are talented and creative, some not. I always find it interesting that some architectural technologists and non-licenced designers, such as Drake favourite Ferris Rafauli, employ architects. Presumably to get all the nitty-gritty Code stuff right.

Thanks. Sounds like the equivalent of an architectural designer I’m here in the states. Basically, someone who has the architectural education and experience, but hasn’t sat for the licensing exam.