What am I missing???

[2fst4u_7]

What am I missing. After reading forums on here for a few months I am getting ready to break ground on a 36’x48’ pole barn….or so I thought. I have been working out of an excel spreadsheet to anticipate the project cost. I plan on doing everything except dirt work and concrete.

My plan was to build a pole barn and then use OSB, wrapping, and cottage lap siding on the outside to replicate the appearance of my home. 6x6 poles came in at around $1700 but after pricing out 2x6x16’ for the framing it is coming in around $1000.00. At this point, does it make more sense for stick built? Are the cost savings of pole barn only if you stick with metal siding and no osb on the outside?

Any input appreciated!

 

[GMCGarage]

I think with a pole barn you dont necessarily need a footing, could do a floating slab if your subgrade is adequate.

 

[Cyberbear]

After reading this forum for a while, I believe based on the type of questions asked, that stick built is the proper way to go for most applications. Pole built seems to lend itself easily to agricultural applications while stick built covers everything else. I've not seen much mention of pole style residential homes, and wonder why?

 

[GMCGarage]

After reading this forum for a while, I believe based on the type of questions asked, that stick built is the proper way to go for most applications. Pole built seems to lend itself easily to agricultural applications while stick built covers everything else. I've not seen much mention of pole style residential homes, and wonder why?

I Think also most pole barns dont get finished on the inside, insulated, etc. Stick framing lends itself to that also.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Foundation is where you save on a pole building.

Plus there is normally little to no dirt work.

 

[2fst4u_7]

Foundation is where you save on a pole building.

Plus there is normally little to no dirt work.

So pouring around the poles vs pouring and then building on top makes a difference?

 

[matt_i]

If you build a stick building then you traditionally have to pour or build some kind of a foundation that eventually sits below the frost line. So that adds a lot of work down below the grade, even just for the layout, then backfill & compact. Fill the inside with gravel, level and compact. Now you can begin to pour the slab.

There are a number of variations, like a trench-foundation which is a mono-pour, or using block walls for the foundation, or even a frost-protected shallow foundation.

But all of these are more work than drilling holes, doing all the layout above ground level, set the posts to a line + vertical level, and backfill.

Unless you live where it doesn't really freeze, ever, the foundation cost for a stick building is going to be higher.

I like the idea of a permacolumn post-frame, then build bookshelf girts inside (don't need the super-long 2x6s), sheet with OSB/ply and side to suit. You are then all set to insulate and finish the inside at your leisure, could even start some years from now to recoup savings. I haven't actually built one but this is what I'm advising my brother to do for his building. Has the "fast build" advantages of the post-frame, the siding & roof to match house, plus the ability to easily insulate. The bookshelf girts would seem to be produced assembly-line style, bam-bam-bam and they are up.

 

[GMCGarage]

So pouring around the poles vs pouring and then building on top makes a difference?

Usually unless a floating slab builidng, stick built gets foundation wall down to frost depth. Pole barn just has ploles to frost depth, and then floating slab. Floating slab can move more than if you have footing to frost depth.

 

[Radix2]

Usually unless a floating slab builidng, stick built gets foundation wall down to frost depth. Pole barn just has ploles to frost depth, and then floating slab. Floating slab can move more than if you have footing to frost depth.

To me the biggest problem with a finished pole building is the joint at the bottom of the walls. Grade boards buried with cement poured against them is cheap but not long term. If you have frost that moves the slab it is even worse. Great for a metal sided storage building, for a finished building more compromise than it is worth imo.

And you get a better siding job if the sheathing is attached to vertical stick framing so that the siding can nail through to that - rather than just relying on nails into thin osb. So girts behind sheathing is a compromise again- why?, to save a few bucks on studs? How many are you going to save if you are going to nail up sheathing anyway?

There are no legit savings outside of the foundation...and the compromises are clear there, esp in a freezing climate.

I would suggest the low cost but full performance option would be a Frost protected shallow foundation with stick built walls.

The roof is again no advantage to a pole building unless you are going to widely space your trusses - which is another compromise you could make with stick walls if you wanted...

 

[73RR]

So pouring around the poles vs pouring and then building on top makes a difference?

Yes.
The requirements for a structural slab is more involved than a 'floating' slab typically used in a pole structure which 'usually' does not support the building.
Depending on your frost depth you might look into Frost Protected Shallow Foundations for an effective alternative to deep footings and stem walls.
Around here the frost depth is about 2-feet and a FPSF works very well and is relatively easy to form/build.

In order to have comparable numbers, your spread sheet will need to have lines for:
drilling the large/deep holes for the posts
a couple yards of granular fill for the holes
grading, fill material and compaction for the floating slab
material and labour for the slab

then for comparison:
excavation for the SFPF edges
backfill and compaction for the interior of the slab
formwork for the footing/slab
insulation for the footing and slab
re-bar for the footing/slab
material and labour for the slab

 

[Jlbc212]

When I built my garage I went with a concrete foundation with footings 48" below the grade line and concrete walls that extended well above the surrounding grade. Yes, it cost a lot more, but IMHO the advantages outweigh the additional cost. The wood framing and siding is well above grade so that I will never have an issue with wet/damp wood that would grow mold and eventually rot. Damp wood at grade level also attracts carpenter ants, termites and other vermin, such as mice and rats. From my experience driving around New England looking at old barns, the ones that are still standing and usable are the ones with stone foundations that extend well above grade and also have a roof that has been maintained. There's plenty of 'em to see that have fallen in or are ready to fall in that have essentially no foundation (like many a pole building). If you're not interested in having the building outlast you, take the cheap route.