Looking at building in the spring and will be doing the majority of labor by myself and with help from friends and family.

Location is Ottawa, Canada

I was wondering what a cost comparison would look like in the following scenario (consider only basement walls in a 50x50 structure for easy math purposes):
- Using ICF and performing the labor myself (perhaps hiring 1 expert to work with us)
- Hiring a contractor to do a formed concrete basement, not ICF (no labor from my side)

As you can see, the two main differences are myself doing the labor on ICF vs a contractor doing the labor with traditional forms.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.  Cheers.

Brad

Brad,

Around here, poured walls are about $7.50/sq-ft for 8" wall , 10' tall. Minimal steel and no insulation. 50'x 50'= $15,000

ICF

ICF blocks, $3.00 sq-ft
50x50' =2000 sq-ft x $3.00=$6000 in blocks

Concrete
 
$3.50 a cubic ft=$94.5 a yard
8" thick wall=0.75 cubic-ft/sq-ft
2000 sq-ft x 0.75 x $3.50 =$5250 in concrete

Steel

#5 is $9.40 for a 20' pc
2' on center??
horz= 10 pc per layer, 5 layersx $9.40=$470
vert= same area = $470



Grand total=$12,190 plus your labor, excluding footers, dirt work And bracing rental

note; With ICF you will have a wall that is insulated and ready for inside finish work. The poured walls would need to be framed for drywall

Icfcontractor,

Are your estimates also including footers and slab? If so looks like we are on the same track.  I hope the original poster compares apples to apples here. The plain poured walls are not close to living space. The ICF with drywall, ele, becomes high quality living space. It's no simple task to prep a poured wall for finishing to living space.

Patrick T

Hi ICF Contractor:

I do understand that Patrick took the wall square footage ... 4 x 50 x 10 = 2000 sft

However,  in any floor plan, rarely will there be a plain box, there will be some bump-outs, and sets-ins, and some nooks, and corners ... which end up increasing the square footage of the exterior walls beyond that of just a box.

With increasing aspect ratio (length increasing and width decreasing), the square footage of walls tends to increase and for larger lengths and smaller widths, the square footage of the walls becomes practically equal to the floor square footage. So I use a rule of thumb and take the square footage of the walls as equal to the square footage of the floor at one level.

So for budgeting or rough estimating purposes taking the walls square footage some where in between for 1) house as a square box, and 2) as a narrow rectangle will make for a good range ... the square box square footage on the low end, and the narrow rectangle numbers on the high end.

Thanks Patrick for the opportunity to exchange some viewpoints here.

Hi ICF Contractor:

Thanks for a very clear explanation. I don't think we have any point of disagreement. All I was saying is that a rough estimate or first cut cost based on just square footage of the floor, my experience is that I am on the safe side by taking the area of the walls as equal to the floor area. Of course as the plans are developed and the exact layout of the walls is known, it is definitely a good idea to work with the actual layout dimensions.

A Contractor, based on his experience also has to go beyond just the measurements, for more intrinsic items such as the degree of difficulty (corners, angles, bays), location, market conditions, ..., the client's nature and temperament, and so on.

I am sure you would agree that neither one of us is saying to hang our hat on the floor square footage, or the square footage of walls ... sure that is an important consideration, but there is a lot more to it, than the length, the width, and the height of the building.