Replies

1. 
   brownbagg | Apr 07, 2006 04:32pm | #1

   labor cost is higher on block but forms are higher on walls. once you buy the forms, material be cheaper. but for a one time job, forms would kill you.
2. 
   hammer1 | Apr 07, 2006 05:51pm | #2

   In many cold climates, block foundations are not used. Nobody uses them in my area, they just don't last with the freeze, thaw cycle. If prices are similar between poured concrete and stacked block, I wouldn't even consider a block foundation.

   Beat it to fit / Paint it to match

1. 
   DanH | Apr 07, 2006 05:54pm | #3

   Hmmm... Here (southern MN) block foundations are the norm -- poured is a bit unusual, though getting more common with rising labor costs and ready access to pumpers.
   If ignorance is bliss why aren't more people

   happy?

1. 
   CVBReno | Apr 07, 2006 07:52pm | #4

   It seems to differ by regional preference or tradition.  Growing up in Illinois and Missouri (my Dad was a builder), I never saw a block foundation built after WWII.  When I moved to Ohio in 1991 all the builders were still using blocks.  I later moved to Texas (and now Nevada), where hardly anybody builds basements of any kind.  The occasional crawl spaces I have seen here in Nevada all use poured walls.

   Block walls that I have experienced are more prone to cracks and leaks, and especially efflorescence.  Personally, I would not use them for below-ground foundations.  

    

1. 
   DanH | Apr 07, 2006 09:55pm | #5

   There's a lot of regional variability, and no real "killer" reason for using one vs the other. Block foundations leak no worse than poured, and with sufficient rebar/grout are as strong as poured.
   If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison

1. 
   alrightythen | Apr 07, 2006 10:08pm | #6

   >>>> "Block foundations leak no worse than poured, and with sufficient rebar/grout are as strong as poured."

   not trying to start anything, just curious....is that opinion or fact.

2. 
   BobKovacs | Apr 07, 2006 10:52pm | #7

   I doubt anyone has really done a factual analysis on it, but it makes sense.  The strength of a solid concrete wall is more than a typical foundation wall would ever be exposed to, either laterally or via gravity loads.  Therefore, a partially grouted CMU wall, while not as strong as a solid concrete wall, is more than adequate.

   As far as "leaking" is concerned, both walls will allow moisture to pass through- it's just a matter of how fast.  Regardless, if you have a potential moisture situation, proper drainage and waterproofing is required for either wall system- especially if the basement will be used for living space.

   Bob

3. 
   Piffin | Apr 08, 2006 12:26am | #8

   It's his own opinion.mine is that the poured re-inforced concrete wall is way stronger than any CMU wall even when it is sporadicly re-inforced, but few of them are even that well re-inforced. 

    

   Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!