We’ve got a 1200 sq ft 1925 Bungalow in Oakland. We just pulled off the metal siding to expose the original douglas fir lap siding. It’s been covered for at least 60 years and is in pretty good shape, so we could sand and paint it, OR we could replace it with Hardie Board smooth (hate the faux wood grain.)
Pros to the original siding: It’s original and charming, and in the short-term, much less expensive to sand and paint.
Cons: Long-term maintenance
Hardie Board costs substantially more now, but doesn’t require the yearly inspections for potential water infiltration or peeling. Also, since we’d be pulling the original siding off, we’d have the added stability of shear walls installed before the Hardie Board, so we’d be much more earthquake worthy (already have a seismic retrofit.)
We could also go with stucco, which is more than painting and less than Hardie Board and still gives us the shear walls. We’ll blow in insulation if we paint.
In terms of property value, is there much difference one way or the other? It seems purists will like the original siding, and pragmatists may prefer the cement siding.