COST COMPARE - MP Side Support vs. Two Stage Pour

Significant savings of 55% can be achieved by monopouring the footing and wall compared with pouring the footing first, then the wall.

In order to make the cost comparison as clear as possible, a very simple foundation 30' by 40' with four corners was chosen. A more complex foundation would achieve similar, if not greater, savings.

MP staked monopour cost comparison, project details

The spread sheet below compares the costs of this project using material and labour costs of Greater Vancouver. Any costs equal for both methods (for example, the cost of concrete in the footing) are excluded so the differences between the two methods are highlighted.

MPSS cost analysis

Savings of 55 %

Savings of this level are seldom achieved in construction and are a result of the following:

  • Elimination of the pump for the concrete footings;
  • Elimination of placing and screeding the concrete footing. With the monopour, as the bottom of the ICF wall forms the top of the footing, there is no screeding or finishing required;
  • As there is no separate concrete delivery for the footing, there is no priming of the pump and no wastage of concrete;
  • Steel reinforcing can be reduced as the structural engineer can now treat the monopoured foundation as an inverted "T" beam rather than a separate footing and wall with a cold joint between;
  • Adapting the bottom of the ICF wall to the pre-poured concrete footing is always a challenge as the footing is never level. As well rebar dowels coming out of the footing interfere with the ICF webs. This cannot occur with the monopour, hence labour costs are reduced;
  • Stripping costs are reduced with the monopour as the Fastfoot prevents the concrete from being in contact with the lumber;