|
Posted by clintonG on July 26, 2006, 11:06 am
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/
show/hide quoted text
> 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.
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> 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.
>