Commercial Building: CMU vs Stucco

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.

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.

Anyone have any thoughts on difference in the costs of cmu (concrete

Max:

Do you have an architect? If so, seek some recommendations from your architect. A common type of finished surface in the Seattle area is EIFS (a sort of synthetic stucco). EIFS systems have improved over the past several years and could be a cost effective alternative provided it is installed correctly.

The choice of a finished surface depends on the use of your building, fire code issues, location on the property, the size of the building, etc.

CMU is the best bet and it can be stuccoed over.

Please note there is a distinct definition for "stucco." You can find it in ASTM C926. Many assume "decorative cementitious coating" is synonymous with stucco and they are not the same. So if you want/specify "stucco" make sure you GET stucco.