Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've got 150' of 5' wide brick sidewalk that's in bad enough shape the city's gonna make me do something with it one day soon. Brick looks cool, but it's a constant struggle to keep up with the weeds. Can anyone speak to the cost comparo of having the brick 'fixed' over replacing it with concrete?
I've asked for bids from concrete guys, but those wheels turn slowly in this small town.
I've got 150' of 5' wide brick sidewalk that's in bad enough shape the city's gonna make me do something with it one day soon. Brick looks cool, but it's a constant struggle to keep up with the weeds. Can anyone speak to the cost comparo of having the brick 'fixed' over replacing it with concrete?
I've asked for bids from concrete guys, but those wheels turn slowly in this small town.
Obviously costs are going to vary widely with location, but I recently had my original 1959 brick sidewalk, which is about 75 feet long and 3 feet wide, rebuilt along with part of the front steps at a cost of $2500. Rebuilding, in this case, consisted of digging out the old mortar between the bricks, resetting the bricks, and putting in new mortar. I believe the mason also had to add a couple of vintage bricks as well to replace some badly cracked ones. he had done my neighbor's sidewalk and steps, and has worked on historic homes in the area. He's a very exacting craftsman and did a beautiful job. In fact, one of my neighbors who is quite elderly and has lived here for over 60 years said the walkway didn't look that good when it was originally installed.
No mortar in this. And not full 'depth' bricks, either. Looks like they were cut in half and just sit in the dirt. It may have been a quick fix for a sale some time back. Other sidewalk that would have also been brick was replaced with concrete (by a previous owner).
As the previous poster noted, costs can vary greatly by location. Where I live, for example, concrete is in high demand and therefore costs more than it would somewhere else.
The other cost factor is that brick work (as you describe it) is labor intensive, concrete not so much.
If you decide to do the brick, I would fix the base beneath it before replacing the bricks.
Streets are also brick (also in bad shape). If I can get a concrete guy to actually come and look at it, that's probably what I'll do.
Kills me when even the guys that have done work for you before don't follow through.
If your streets are brick and your walkways are brick- are you allowed to replace it with concrete? Sounds like a hysterical ( err historical ) district.
It sounds like concrete might be the answer but would encourage you to have it tinted when the sealer is applied versus the basic white that will probably look out of place with the overall picture. https://www.concretenetwork.com/prod...er/tinted.html
It sounds like concrete might be the answer but would encourage you to have it tinted when the sealer is applied versus the basic white that will probably look out of place with the overall picture. https://www.concretenetwork.com/prod...er/tinted.html
Worst idea ever! Concrete is pretty much maintenance-free. Adding a “tinted sealer” makes it an annual maintenance nightmare!
There are dyes for concrete- but they fade with sun/weather exposure. Best bet- just “Let It Be”!
If your streets are brick and your walkways are brick- are you allowed to replace it with concrete? Sounds like a hysterical ( err historical ) district.
Not a historical district.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.