Exterior masonry made of which material?

Yes, because anyone who builds with ETICS is the devil!
Oh man, the kinds of statements that are sometimes made here...

So on the topic: you now know the pros and cons overall. Personally, I would prefer sand-lime brick, mineral wool, and clinker. The house is virtually shaded by the clinker.
The sound insulation is also good, and you can hang things without any problems.

You can also have plasterable stone wool boards installed as ETICS.

Think about what you feel most comfortable with and what the builder prefers. Because the crew then does that in their sleep.

Think about what makes you feel most comfortable and what the contractor prefers. Because that's what the crew will do in their sleep

That's what I said.

Think about what you feel most comfortable with and what the contractor prefers. Because then the crew does it in their sleep

Here we hopefully all agree

@Thread starter:
Don’t be afraid of plastic (ETICS) or cardboard walls (aerated concrete). In the area of single-family houses, there are practically no advantages or disadvantages, unless you have special circumstances (main road opposite and thus noise protection is a high priority). I always like to quote the Fraunhofer study, which states: walls with ETICS have on average fewer facade damages than monolithic walls (thermal bridges are much better controlled), and this refers to ETICS systems from several years ago... Funny enough, objective studies are always ignored by the ETICS opponents.

If you can live with the clinker look, double-shell construction is certainly never wrong. We find plastered houses more attractive, but ultimately decided on clinker.

Can you live with the clinker brick look, double-shell is certainly never wrong. We find plastered houses nicer, but in the end we decided on clinker bricks.

Where it is found that double-shell is the best choice, this does not have to apply only to exposed masonry / facing bricks. A front shell can also be plastered (or mixed: partial areas in exposed masonry and others plastered).

Where it is found that double-shell construction is the best choice, this should not only apply to facing brickwork / cladding. A front masonry shell can also be plastered (or mixed: partial areas in facing brickwork and others plastered).

You are right, but the option would have been even more expensive with our developer to have double-shell and plastered... and somehow the budget was limited. We would have also built with sand-lime brick + ETICS + plaster, but that was not "the standard" of our construction company, and as I said, I don't want to dictate anything to them where they don't have absolute routine, because good execution is simply the be-all and end-all.

but the option would have been even more expensive with our developer using double shell and plastering...

It's basically a question of routine: when the applicator is used to producing exposed masonry quality, then plastering is an additional step and it becomes more expensive overall. Another applicator, with plaster, takes the stone in a kind of "second choice" with less flawless corners and saves the time-consuming dental technician-like precision when laying the masonry, so despite one more material and one more step, the price can be similar.

I mainly wanted to point out that one shouldn't automatically consider the topic "double shell" as unfortunately dead if one is not a fan of clinker or sand-lime stone in terms of aesthetics. Even then, such a wall structure can be a good option.