Why there is a common “perception” that stucco houses have “no value” comparing to “other” building finishes?

First of all, common perception does not necessarily mean correct. Otherwise, there is no need to have any scientific study. It is actually more to the other end, i.e. common perception is often wrong.

This common perception comes from a summary of following common misunderstanding:

Most of leaky houses are “monolithic” houses;

Many monolithic houses are clad with “Stucco”;

Stucco is a high maintenance material;

Stucco houses cost fortune to reclad;

Stucco has got poor ventilation ability, therefore moisture can be easily trapped within framing;

If I need to make a correct statement, I would put it in the following way:

A poorly designed, poorly constructed and poorly maintained complex timber framed house clad with direct fixed stucco may have “no value” if exterior wall framing timber is under-treated.

We have to look at a stucco building from many perspectives, such as design, construction, maintenance, building envelope simplicity, timber treatment, cladding system, location, wind zone and etc. before we can make any judgement.

To explain where this common perception comes from, consider the following workout:

Many externally complex houses leaked;

Many externally complex houses used stucco;

So stucco causes leaks.

There are a lot of reasons why complex buildings have used stucco as their cladding system. I will do some separate writings for that topic. But should people somehow decided to use other type of cladding, e.g. weatherboard as the main cladding system back during that leaky building era, we now many have a totally different common perception.