Concrete masonry (CMU) construction scores very well in comparison to alternative materials when considering these important factors.
Some of these include:
Fire- safety
Maintenance costs
Energy efficiency
Speed of construction
Resilience and Sustainability
Structural capacity
Durability
Design aesthetics
Product availability
Security
Since masonry buildings are built to last 50-75 years(or more) it is often assumed that they are much more expensive to construct. This construction cost study was conducted to develop realistic exterior wall cost estimates for two typical commercial building types designed with four different wall systems.
Construction material prices have been on a rising trend over the past few years with some recent slowdown. The 2023 Construction Cost Trends report by Gordian states that 82.5% of construction materials in the RSMeans database have experienced a significant cost increase since 2020. Going forward higher material prices are expected to stay. According to the AGC 2023 Construction Outlook Survey 73% of respondents are concerned about material costs and 63% about construction delays due to material availability issues. We believe this is an opportune time to conduct this study. The cost estimates were developed for three northwest metropolitan areas including Portland, Seattle, and Spokane.
OUR TEAM
Our consultant team was comprised of the following construction industry professionals.
Roger Roen and Chris Collins, Roen Associates, Spokane, WA.
Doug Mitchell, MMEC Architecture, Spokane, WA
Tristan Burton, Structural Forte, Inc., Spokane, WA
BUILDINGS
Two prototype buildings were designed to meet both the structural and energy code requirements of the Oregon and Washington state codes. The buildings selected are both single-story, tall wall structures.
TYPE 1 is a 35,200 sf building with 28’-8” high walls. It represents building occupancies such as retail, storage, fitness/recreation, manufacturing, assembly, etc. The plan dimensions are 160’ x 220’.
TYPE 2 is a 5,820 sf building with 31’-4” high walls. It primarily represents a school or health-club gymnasium. The plan dimensions are 60’ x 97’.
Each building was designed with four different exterior wall systems, one with two cladding options. For comparison purposes all the other elements of the building were unchanged unless required by design. The buildings were each sited in the same three northwest areas mentioned previously. Cost estimates were developed for the complete exterior wall systems, including footings/foundations, designed to resist gravity and lateral loads. The concrete slab, roof system, and any interior columns required were assumed to be the same for each exterior wall option for each building type and were not included in the total cost estimates.
NOTES
The single-wythe, integral-insulated concrete masonry wall complies with the mass wall exception of the Oregon and Washington energy codes for similar building types. The CLT wall was designed to have wood exposed on the building interior rather than cover it for fire resistance. The steel frame/metal-stud wall includes the cost of perimeter steel beams, columns, and brace frames within the wall for required structural capacity.
Exterior Wall Systems
Sketches of the four wall systems compared are shown below along with descriptions of their composition.
Structural Concrete
•Colored split-face CMU
(8” or 10” wide)
• Reinforcement/grout
•Injected foam insulation
•Exterior water repellant
Structural Steel/Metal Stud with Metal Panels
•GWB interior
•Metal studs at 16” o.c.
with batt insulation
• Sheathing
•2” rigid insulation
•WRB
•RC channels
•Metal panel finish (20 ga.)
Structural Steel/ Metal stud with Brick Veneer
Same assembly as described on the left except metal panel finish replaced with standard size brick veneer. 
Concrete Tilt-up
•Architectural finish concrete tilt panels (6”-10” thick)
•2” rigid insulation
•GWB interior
Cross-Laminated Timber
•CLT panels (7-ply or 9-ply)
•2” rigid insulation
•WRB
•Brick veneer finish
COST ESTIMATES
The total estimated wall system costs for the two building types studied are shown in Tables #1-6. The estimates cover the initial costs of construction including material, labor, and equipment.
Shown in the Figure1 graph is the average cost-ratio for exterior wall system options relative to the least expensive concrete masonry choice. The integral-insulated CMU wall serves as the baseline with a ratio of 1.0. These cost-ratios indicate the level of cost increase above the concrete masonry baseline wall for the two building types studied. An interior wall insulated/gypsum board finish CMU option is included for projects where the mass wall exception does not apply. For ease of exterior wall comparison, Table 7 provides the estimated northwest average cost per square foot of opaque wall area for the different options studied.
SUMMARY
For the two building types analyzed in this study, constructing them with structural concrete masonry walls is the least costly option. For the Type 1 building, constructing it with any of the alternative wall systems increased the initial cost from 37 to 167 percent depending upon wall type and location. For the Type 2 building, constructing it with anything other than integral-insulated CMU increased the initial cost similar percentages. This finding is also true even when interior wall insulation with gypsum board finish is added to the structural CMU wall. The values in Figure 1 present this same cost information in a different manner.
Comparing the steel frame structure with various cladding options is interesting. The standard-size brick veneer is only $3/sf (4%) more than architectural metal panel cladding. If larger size brick or CMU veneer is selected, the masonry veneer option becomes a less expensive finish than the metal panels. Additionally, a classic brick/structural block masonry cavity wall, often referred to as the “perfect wall”, is cost competitive with the steel frame system. And masonry products are readily available and normally locally produced.
Results of the construction cost study are shown in the tables. They are listed by building type, location, and wall assembly.
Table1: Building Type1, 35,200 sf, Portland, OR
| Extrior Wall Assembly | Total Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Structural 8″ CMU | $1,508,214 |
| Steel Frame- Metal Panel | $1,944,555 |
| Steel Frame- Brick Veneer | $2,091,697 |
| CLT- 9.625″ | $2,752,263 |
| 6″ Concrete Tilt-up | $1,554,564 |
Table 2: Building Type 1, 35,200 sf, Seattle WA
| Extrior Wall Assembly | Total Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Structural 10″ CMU | $1,176,139 |
| Steel Frame- Metal Panel | $1,996,778 |
| Steel Frame- Brick Veneer | $2,104,147 |
| CLT- 9.625″ | $2,754,671 |
| 8″ Concrete Tilt-up | $1,607,599 |
Table 3 : Building Type 1, 35,200 sf, Spokane WA
| Extrior Wall Assembly | Total Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Structural 8″ CMU | $976,225 |
| Steel Frame- Metal Panel | $1,795,066 |
| Steel Frame- Brick Veneer | $1,903,648 |
| CLT- 9.625″ | $2,605,984 |
| 6″ Concrete Tilt-up | $1,539,564 |
Table 4 : Building Type 2, 5,820 sf, Portland, OR
| Extrior Wall Assembly | Total Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Structural 10″ CMU | $462,075 |
| Steel Frame- Metal Panel | $858,228 |
| Steel Frame- Brick Veneer | $950,358 |
| CLT- 12.375″ | $1,205,507 |
| 8″ Concrete Tilt-up | $641,332 |
Table 5 : Building Type 2, 5,820 sf, Seattle, WA
| Extrior Wall Assembly | Total Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Structural 10″ CMU | $478,894 |
| Steel Frame- Metal Panel | $879,518 |
| Steel Frame- Brick Veneer | $965,200 |
| CLT- 12.375″ | $1,231,071 |
| 8″ & 10″ Concrete Tilt-up | $663,018 |
Table 6 : Building Type 2, 5,820 sf, Spokane, WA
| Extrior Wall Assembly | Total Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Structural 10″ CMU | $425,718 |
| Steel Frame- Metal Panel | $805,861 |
| Steel Frame- Brick Veneer | $845,319 |
| CLT- 12.375″ | $1,149,425 |
| 8″ & 10″ Concrete Tilt-up | $635,461 |
Figure 1: Northwest Wall Systems Average Cost-Ratio
(Compared to Integral-Insulated Concrete Construction)
Masonry construction offers a high degree of design flexibility with numerous combinations of product color, texture, size/shape, and pattern. Table 8 provides additional masonry cost information for some of these design options. It can be used in combination with Table 7 to budget wall costs.
As stated by a local architect, “The range of masonry products available provides unparalleled design flexibility, allowing masonry buildings to fit seamlessly into almost any architectural context”. This cost study demonstrates that masonry wall systems are very cost competitive with alternative systems for the construction of exterior walls in commercial buildings. In fact, for the two building types studied it was shown that structural concrete masonry walls are the lowest cost option. Additionally, the cost of brick veneer is competitive with architectural metal panels, and structural CMU backup walls are cost competitive with steel/metal-stud construction.
Combined with all the other benefits of masonry construction it makes good sense to spend your construction dollars on masonry wall systems for your next project.
Table 7: Exterior Wall Cost Estimates
(Northwest average $/SF of wall area)
| Exterior Walls | $/SF of Wall Area |
|---|---|
| 8″ Colored Split-Face CMU with Integral-Foam Insulation | $38 |
| 10″ Colored Split-Face CMU with Integral-Foam Insulation | $41 |
| 8″ Colored Split-Face CMU with Interior Wall Insulation/finish | $46 |
| 10″ Colored Split-Face CMU with Interior Wall Insulation/finish | $49 |
| Steel Frame w/ Metal Panel | $73 |
| Steel Frame w/ Standard Size Brick Veneer | $73 |
| CLT (7-ply/alt) | $109 |
| CLT (9-ply/alt) | $119 |
| 6″ Tilt-up Concrete | $62 |
| 8″ Tilt-up Concrete | $63 |
| Standard Size Brick Veneer (running bond) | $41 |
| Standard Brick/Structural Block Cavity Wall | $75 |
Table 8: Additional Masonry Options
The tables below provide wall cost differentials for other masonry design options based upon cost-study estimates. Masonry construction offers enhanced design flexibility with numerous product choices
| Concrete Masonry | |
|---|---|
| DESIGN OPTIONS | COST DIFFERENTIAL (Approximate $/SF of Wall Area) |
| 12″ wide vs. 10″ wide CMU | +$3.00 |
| Ground face vs. split face (colored CMU) | +$2.75 |
| Natural gray vs. colored (split -face) | -$1.00 |
| Natural gray smooth vs. colored split-face | -$3.00 |
| Interior wall insulation/ gyp finish vs. injected foam insulation | +$7.50 |
DISCLAIMER
The cost estimates provided in this publication are based on the knowledge and experience of the cost study consultants who accept no liability for the use of this information. The estimates should only be used for project budgeting purposes by qualified individuals.
LIFE-CYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
Although initial construction cost is an important factor in the selection of construction assemblies for a building project, consideration should also be given to long-term costs and impacts. This is where masonry walls really shine with their high durability and low maintenance properties. Designed for a 50+ year life they are inherently highly resilient to natural and man- made disasters and sustainable. There is nothing more sustainable than constructing one 75-year building rather than three 25-year buildings. When life-cycle analyses are conducted considering the full life of a building or material from cradle to grave, masonry wall assemblies are typically determined to be the best choice for your building project.
