I can try to answer the question about half height brick/stone veneer on wood frame buildings. Brick and stone are very old traditional residential materials and that tradition began with solid double and triple wythe layers of brick with occasional bricks laid perpendicular to tie the layers together or vertically to denote floor lines or arched over an opening. Stone walls were built in a similar manner. Wood framing was sometimes placed on top of a brick/stone wall but the change had to occur at a floor where the floor braced the wall because if the change occurred elsewhere the wall would have little resistance to lateral forces (wind, earthquake) due to the discontinuity of the wall structure between floors (walls transfer lateral loads upward and downward to the floors of a building). Changing the structural material at a floor level also permitted one wall to be thicker than the other without creating an awkward shelf on the inside or the outside of the wall. With the advent of modern "brick-veneer cavity-wall" construction (one wythe of brick set an inch in front of a wood framed wall and tied back with metal ties every 24" in each direction) a brick wall could simulate a traditional solid wall for a fraction of the price and it was easier and cheaper to add insulation and wiring, etc. Stone could also be installed this way. But this system also allowed brick to stop mid-way between floors because it was only a cladding with the actual wall structure hidden behind it. Of course, the change created an awkward setback that was difficult or expensive to flash properly but it was a way to introduce a token amount of stone or masonry on a wood framed building for short money - a developer's dream. So, suburban developers latched onto this idea and used it in subdivisions all over America to the point that it became the most common developer cliche after repetitive gables and giant hipped roofs. Apparently they did not see the irony in the fact that the wall was supposed to look like a traditional structural brick wall but if it were it would not be be built in that manner. What the half height wall does is tell the world that although the wall might look like a structural brick wall, it's actually only a cladding. Ok, so we all know it isn't a structural brick wall but I believe that a designer should either copy the real thing as faithfully as possible or create something that is enough different that it has it's own design integrity and style. Unfortunately, the residential design world seems too often to be stuck somewhere in between these goals.

I agree that the 50s look was all about modern and also that the concrete isn't unattractive. However, there are veneers out there with modern appearances if you want to change the look. You don't have to go with something like flagstone. I don't suggest a natural stone, either. I live in clay/quarry country and it's a common product and there are several outlets for it in our little community. My husband and daughter have done a lot of natural stone work outside on our grounds, but when we wanted a product to use on our house, itself the salesman at the quarry suggested a manufactured veneer. It's made of concrete and has a lighter weight, but looks so natural you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. It not only comes in stone, but brick, and very decorative concrete block styles suitable for a house in your style. You may want to check something like this out.

Are those cultured stone? They look good enough to not hit my faux stone button. :) There may be a stigma associated with fake stone, but not the veneer stuff that is real stone. I'm a brick person, I'm a stone person. And there is certainly ugly brick out there. Yours might not be as nice in person as it looks in the photo but from here it looks like the good stuff, well laid out, in nice colors. A deep foresty or blackish green trim might blend the brick with roof colors, especially if you go with a darker grey. Some roof colors are off-limits in some climates of course... Brick is good with your house because it's such a classic style, the horizontal brick contrasting with the pointy gothic peak. It's just a very pleasing pattern, and if you do stone, I'd prefer it in your first two styles. But really, even they are almost too natural and unstructured. They'd be okay, but I personally would direct my efforts at something else. Okay, cuz I like it. But we really need a wide shot from the street that shows more of the front of the house I think! As far as I know, you have a stone garage or pagoda wing or something. That might change my feelings about the brick. When I was trying to pick out a trim color for a brick/stucco/wood trim house, I sort of enjoyed looking at the "historically appropriate" colors from the local historic commission.

Its interesting that the OP would think half-story-height masonry on only the front of a house would look like a tract house. To me, half-story-height masonry on any side of a house would look like a tract house and full-story-height masonry on only the front is not uncommon on historic colonial era houses where its obvious the masonry is actually supporting the floors of the house. These days, with the growing supremacy of imitation, when little is what it apears to be, it is often impossible to identify a material until you get close enough to see an embossed texture and/or the awkward transitions between dissimilar simulated materials. Perhaps its not obvious to some that a real masonry wall below window sills would not be stable. The most basic fact about a house structure is that exterior walls span vertically from floor to floor and transfer wind & earthquake loads to the horizontal floor plates where they are distributed to the side walls and then to the foundation. Ignoring this most basic building principle tends to rob a house of its integrity, if only at a subconscious level, and creates a vague sense of disrespect for the past and reality in general.