Posted By Yellowstone on 07/06/2008 6:05 PM
When cost are compared to "stick built" are they comparing walls equivalent in energy performance? or just a code 2x4 wall? What about comparing a Quadlock Plus Plus wall (r-40) to an stick wall (total wall R-40 with equivalent air infiltration rates)? If these wall are remotely close, the ICF wall still has the advantages of strength and durability. Also in an ICF wall has a higher percentage of your dollars in premium materials and a smaller percentage going towards labor. In other words you get more house for the money.
Don't forget that R-value is not the only factor in how efficient a wall truly is, although the pink panther would love for us to believe this (and he has done a good job of making most believe that R-value is the biggest and best thing going). Don't get me wrong, I am all about building with ICF, every one of my foundations is now ICF, the customer doesn't even have a say in it, if they want one of my houses it comes with an ICF foundation. That said, the biggest disadvantage for ICF in my area is the cost (mainly due to the price of concrete). It also depends where the house is being built, when you reach -40 for a couple of weeks a year you also lose out on one of ICF greatest benefits - Thermal Mass. Long story short, the biggest disadvantage to ICF is the cost, and depending on where you live, maybe the extra cost is easier to justify because you can exploit ALL of the benefits of ICF construction.