Commercial Building: CMU vs Stucco

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

MaxSoi@gmail.com - 26 Jul 2006 02:50 GMT

Anyone have any thoughts on difference in the costs of cmu (concrete
masonary unit) vs stucco? Any ideas on the costs and benefits of each?
This would be for a commercial retail building in Seattle. It's our
family's first commerical building development.

I've thought about a wood and stucco combination -- wood on three sides
and a stucco facade. Or I would do the entire building cmu.

Thanks,

Max.

Reply to this Message

clintonG - 26 Jul 2006 16:06 GMT

On a new building CMU is a no brainer. There's virtually no maintenance or
replacement costs over the life span of the building and CMU is virtually
indestructible. There's plenty of colors and decorative blocks available
these days that can also be integrated with courses of brick to achieve
structural and decorative effects that can be very impressive. I understand
Seattle is environmentally wet most of the time which also increases
incidents of problems for stucco. CMU is initially more expensive but lowers
insurance and operational costs while increasing saleability.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/

> Anyone have any thoughts on difference in the costs of cmu (concrete
> masonary unit) vs stucco? Any ideas on the costs and benefits of each?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Max.

Reply to this Message

Homeowner Forum / Construction / July 2006

Commercial Building: CMU vs Stucco