Many couples and families have this moment when they sit down with their first set of house plans, completely overwhelmed by the decisions ahead of them. Among the most crucial choices you probably face is selecting the best material to build a house.
It’s a decision that affects everything. From how long your home will last and how much energy you’ll use, to how it will look and how much maintenance you’ll be doing on weekends.
Having spent multiple years in construction, I’ve seen firsthand how different building materials perform over time. I’ve watched wood-frame houses settle after decades, helped restore century-old brick buildings, and seen concrete homes withstand hurricanes that flattened everything else in the neighborhood.
There’s not one answer that will satisfy everyone’s needs, but there is a best choice for your specific situation.
Comparing the Best Materials to Build a House
Let’s have a look at some of the best materials that you can build a house with.
Brick vs Wood House
Last summer, I visited two homes in the same neighborhood that were built around the same time – one brick, one wood. The difference after 30 years was striking, and it perfectly illustrated the classic debate between these materials.
Wood House Construction
The wood-frame house had undergone two significant renovations over its lifetime, including a kitchen expansion and added second story. This adaptability is exactly why wood has dominated North American residential construction for generations.
When most people decide to build their first home, they choose wood framing primarily because of cost – it typically runs 15-20% cheaper than comparable brick construction. The building company can finish framing in just three weeks, and you’ll be able to move in four months after breaking ground.
During the winters, many appreciate wood’s natural insulation properties. There’s a warmth to wood homes, they feel more organic and cozy. The best part is that if you decide to add a sunroom or another extension, your contractor will simply open up the back wall and tie in the new structure without major complications.
Brick House Construction
My parents’ brick home in Charleston has survived three major hurricanes with barely a scratch. Built in 1978, it looks remarkably similar to the day they moved in, while neighboring wood homes have been resided at least once, some twice.
The durability of brick is its most compelling feature. When we were renovating historic properties in Savannah, we worked on brick structures from the 1880s that were still structurally sound. The maintenance on those buildings was minimal – mostly repointing mortar joints every few decades. During summer heatwaves, the thick brick walls kept the interior noticeably cooler, reducing air conditioning costs substantially.
Dad always mentioned how quiet their house was during thunderstorms – the density of brick provides excellent sound insulation from outside noise. Their homeowners insurance has always been lower than comparable wood-frame houses in the area, reflecting brick’s superior fire resistance and durability.
The downsides became apparent when they wanted to add a window in the dining room. The project cost nearly three times what it would have in a wood-frame home and took a specialized mason a full week.
The home’s initial construction also took almost seven months, significantly longer than similar-sized wood houses. And despite brick’s thermal mass benefits, they eventually had to add substantial insulation to meet modern energy codes, as brick alone doesn’t insulate particularly well.
The Verdict
From my experience with both materials, I’d say wood makes more sense if you’re on a tighter budget, need to build quickly, or anticipate making changes to your home’s layout over time.
Brick is worth the investment if you’re building a forever home, value minimal maintenance, or live in an area with extreme weather conditions. I’ve noticed brick homes typically command 7-10% higher resale values in most markets, which can offset some of the initial cost difference.
Stone vs Brick House
On a restoration project in Vermont, we had the chance to work on both a fieldstone farmhouse from the 1840s and a brick colonial from roughly the same period. The differences between the stone and brick house were striking.
Stone House Construction
Walking into that old stone farmhouse was something extraordinary. The massive walls, nearly two feet thick in places, created a sense of solidity and permanence I’ve rarely experienced elsewhere. During a fierce summer thunderstorm while we were working on this project, we could barely hear the rain and thunder from the outside – the stone absorbed virtually all external noise.
The most remarkable quality was the home’s connection to its landscape. Built from stones cleared from the surrounding fields, the house seemed to grow naturally from the land itself.
Each wall had a unique character with variations in color and texture that no manufactured material could replicate. The current owners told me they’ve never needed to run air conditioning despite summer temperatures occasionally reaching the 90s – the stone’s thermal mass naturally regulated indoor temperatures.
When we examined the structure for the renovation, the engineer was amazed by its condition. After nearly 180 years, the stone walls showed minimal degradation. The few issues we found were related to the roof and wooden components, not the stone itself.
The renovation process, however, was complicated. When we needed to create a new opening for French doors, the process was painstakingly slow and required temporary structural support that added significantly to the cost. The homeowners mentioned their heating bills were quite high before adding modern insulation, as stone itself provides poor thermal resistance despite its excellent thermal mass.
Comparison with Brick Construction
The brick colonial presented a very different experience. While still an impressive historic structure, it had a more formal, manufactured quality compared to the organic feel of the stone house.
The restoration was more straightforward, as the standardized dimensions of bricks made repairs more predictable.
I’ve summarized the key differences between stone and brick based on my work with both materials:
| Feature | Stone | Brick |
| Cost | Working on the stone house cost about 40% more than similar brick projects | More economical while still providing masonry benefits |
| Appearance | Each wall unique with natural variations in color and texture | More uniform appearance with repeating patterns |
| Construction process | Labor-intensive placement of irregular pieces | Faster, more predictable installation of uniform units |
| Regional character | Strongly reflects local geology and building traditions | More standardized appearance across regions |
| Weather resilience | Exceptional durability even after centuries | Very good performance over decades |
| Temperature regulation | Superior thermal mass | Good thermal mass |
| Modification difficulty | Extremely challenging and expensive | Difficult but more manageable |
| Historical value | Often increases value significantly in historic homes | Good value retention but typically less premium |
The Verdict
In my professional opinion, stone represents the ultimate premium choice for those with the budget and patience for it. I’d recommend it for a legacy home in a rural or estate setting where its natural character can shine.
Brick offers many similar benefits at a more accessible price point. For most homeowners seeking masonry’s benefits, brick represents the more practical choice.
Concrete vs Wood House
There are benefits and drawbacks for both concrete and wood houses.
Concrete House Construction
When we were building a concrete house in coastal Florida after Hurricane Andrew, the owner was explaining to us that he had lost a previous wood-frame house to the storm and was determined to build something that would stand up to the next big one. Twenty years later, that concrete home has weathered multiple direct hurricane hits without significant damage.
During summer, the home stayed noticeably cooler than surrounding houses, with more stable temperatures compared to the wooden house throughout the day.
However, the construction process is quite different and longer than standard wood framing.
How Concrete Compares to Wood
On a recent project in Colorado, I built identical floor plans side by side – one with concrete, one with wood framing – which allows me to tell you the direct comparison between the two.
The concrete home cost approximately 20% more initially but achieved 38% better energy efficiency in the first year of occupancy. The concrete construction took about six weeks longer to complete, primarily due to concrete curing times and the sequential nature of the process.
What really stood out was the difference in interior environment. The concrete home maintained much more stable temperatures and humidity levels throughout seasonal changes. During a spring heatwave, the concrete home stayed comfortable without air conditioning while the wood-frame house quickly became uncomfortably warm.
The wood-frame house offered more design flexibility during construction. When the owner decided to move an interior door at the last minute, we made the change in less than a day. A similar change in the concrete house would have been prohibitively expensive once the walls were poured.
Insurance costs told another interesting story – the concrete home qualified for approximately 15% lower premiums due to its superior fire resistance and durability ratings. Over time, this difference will help offset the higher initial construction costs.
The Verdict
I typically recommend concrete construction for homeowners planning to stay in their homes for at least 15-20 years, especially in regions with extreme weather threats.
The higher upfront investment pays dividends through energy savings, lower maintenance, and peace of mind. Wood framing remains the more practical choice for budget-conscious builds, projects with tight timelines, or situations where future modifications are likely.
Concrete vs Brick House
Working with both concrete and brick extensively has given me insight into how these materials compete and complement each other in modern construction.
Comparing Concrete and Brick Construction
Last year, I consulted on two custom homes in the same development – one concrete, one brick. Following up with the homeowners after their first year of occupancy revealed interesting contrasts in their experiences.
The concrete home used insulated concrete forms (ICFs) throughout, creating 8-inch thick walls with continuous insulation on both sides of the concrete. The construction process moved remarkably efficiently once the foundation was in place. The crew assembled the foam forms, placed reinforcing steel inside, and then filled them with concrete in a continuous pour. The entire wall system for the 2,500 square foot home was completed in about three weeks.
By contrast, the brick home featured traditional double-wythe brick construction with a cavity wall system. The masons worked methodically, laying each brick individually, with the process taking nearly seven weeks for the same square footage.
From a structural perspective, the concrete walls created a monolithic system with excellent resistance to lateral forces like high winds. The brick home, built with proper ties and reinforcement, also offered excellent structural integrity.
The homeowners reported different experiences with their interior environments as well. The concrete home maintained very stable indoor temperatures, even during rapid outdoor temperature swings. The brick home performed well but showed more temperature fluctuation during extreme weather events. Both homes were energy-efficient but achieved this through different means.
Aesthetically, the contrast was striking. The brick home presented a traditional, timeless appearance with the natural warmth and texture of fired clay. The concrete home initially had a more industrial appearance but was finished with a combination of stucco and manufactured stone veneer that created an attractive exterior at a lower cost than full masonry.
I’ve compiled this comparison table based on my observations of both projects:
| Characteristic | Concrete | Brick |
| Initial cost (per sq ft) | $135-150 for ICF system | $160-180 for full brick |
| Construction time | 3-4 weeks for wall system | 6-8 weeks for wall system |
| Labor specialized | Moderate specialization | Highly specialized masonry |
| Weather vulnerability during construction | Less vulnerable to rain delays | More vulnerable to weather delays |
| Energy efficiency | Excellent with continuous insulation | Good with proper cavity insulation |
| Sound transmission | Superior sound blocking | Very good sound blocking |
| Design flexibility | Curves and unusual angles possible | Limited to more rectilinear forms |
| Finished appearance | Requires additional cladding systems | Natural finished appearance |
| Interior wall space loss | Minimal with ICF systems | Greater wall thickness reduces interior space |
| Aging characteristics | Maintains appearance with minimal change | Develops character with age |
The Verdict
Concrete construction makes more sense for contemporary designs, especially in regions prone to extreme weather events like hurricanes or tornadoes. It generally offers better value for money when considering the complete building system.
Traditional brick construction remains unmatched for classic architectural styles and offers a proven track record of performance over centuries rather than decades. The choice ultimately depends on your aesthetic preferences, budget constraints, and performance priorities.
Steel Frame vs Wood Frame House
My background includes commercial construction where steel framing is standard, as well as residential building primarily using wood framing.
Steel Frame Construction
The construction process differed significantly from traditional wood framing. We prefabricated many steel frame components in a warehouse, which saved time on site but required more detailed advance planning. The crew needed different skills and tools, including specialized screw guns rather than nail guns, and metal-cutting equipment instead of saws.
One challenge we encountered was the learning curve for subcontractors. The electrician initially struggled with running wires through steel studs instead of drilling through wood. We solved this with rubber grommets to protect the wiring where it passed through the metal studs. The plumber had similar adjustment issues but adapted quickly after the first few days.
The thermal conductivity of steel created another challenge. Unlike wood’s natural insulation properties, steel readily transfers heat, creating potential thermal bridges through the wall system. We addressed this with continuous exterior insulation that wrapped the entire structure, preventing the steel from creating cold spots.
Wood Frame Construction Comparison
The immediate difference is cost. The wood framing package came in around 15% less than my steel frame had cost for a similar-sized home. His construction moved more quickly as well.
His home feels different inside. There’s a subtle organic quality to wood construction that steel doesn’t quite match. During the first winter, he noticed some minor settling as the wood members adjusted to temperature and humidity changes – nothing structural, but enough to cause a few nail pops in the drywall that needed touching up.
From an environmental perspective, the comparison was mixed. The wood came from managed forests and represented a renewable resource with carbon sequestration benefits. Steel frame contains about 80% recycled content and will be fully recyclable at the end of its useful life, but its production requires significantly more energy.
His construction process created substantially more on-site waste, with wood cutoffs filling multiple dumpsters. Our steel framing generated minimal waste, as components were precisely cut to length before delivery, and the few scraps were all recyclable.
This table summarizes my firsthand observations comparing both materials:
| Factor | Steel Frame | Wood Frame |
| My actual cost difference | 14% more expensive | Baseline cost |
| Construction timeline | 8 weeks for complete frame | 6 weeks for complete frame |
| Contractor availability | Limited – 3 bids received | Abundant – 11 bids received |
| Straightness of walls | Perfect – no variation | Minor variations visible |
| Seasonal movement | None detectable | Seasonal settling noticeable |
| Maintenance in first 5 years | None required for structure | Minor settling repairs needed |
| Modification ease | More difficult, specialized tools | Relatively simple with basic tools |
| Sound characteristics | Less creaking and settling noise | More “movement” sounds |
| Insulation complexity | Required special attention to thermal breaks | More straightforward |
| Weather during construction | More challenging in rainy conditions | More forgiving construction |
| Future remodeling potential | More complicated for non-specialists | Readily modified by any contractor |
The Verdict
I recommend steel framing for those planning to build a lifetime home in areas with high termite pressure, moisture concerns, or extreme weather risks. The added investment pays off in durability and stability over decades.
Wood framing remains the more practical choice for most homeowners due to its cost advantage, construction speed, and the universal familiarity contractors have with the material.
So, What’s The Best Material to Build a House?
After spending two decades building homes with all these materials, I’ve learned that the “best” material is always situation-dependent.
Factors to Consider When Choosing Your Building Material
When my clients ask for my honest recommendation, I start by asking questions about their specific circumstances. Your climate should heavily influence your decision.
I’ve seen wood homes in humid coastal environments require significant maintenance after just a decade, while similar homes in dry mountain regions look great after 30 years.
If you live in hurricane country like Florida, the wind resistance of concrete or steel becomes a crucial factor. In earthquake-prone California, the flexibility of wood or steel frames often outperforms rigid masonry structures.
Your budget naturally shapes your options, but I always encourage clients to consider the complete lifecycle cost rather than just initial construction expenses. A brick home might cost 20% more upfront than a comparable wood-frame house, but when you factor in lower insurance premiums, reduced maintenance costs, better energy performance, and stronger resale value, that equation can change dramatically over 15-20 years of ownership.
For environmentally conscious clients, I recommend considering more than just the raw materials. Wood from certified sustainable forests can be an excellent environmental choice, especially when combined with advanced framing techniques that reduce waste.
Concrete can incorporate recycled content like fly ash, while steel framing typically contains a high percentage of recycled metal. The operational energy efficiency of your finished home often has a greater environmental impact than the construction materials themselves.
Your timeline can limit your options as well. Wood framing typically allows the fastest construction, while stone masonry is almost always the slowest. If you need to be in your new home by a specific date, this practical consideration might outweigh other factors.
The Hybrid Approach
Some of my most successful projects have used hybrid approaches that combine different materials strategically. One home project used concrete for the foundation and first-floor walls (providing thermal mass in a climate with large daily temperature swings), steel framing for the roof structure (offering large clear spans for an open floor plan), and wood accents throughout for warmth and character.
Wood framing with brick veneer has become one of our base recommendations for clients wanting the look and weather resistance of brick without the full expense of structural masonry. This approach provides a durable, low-maintenance exterior while maintaining the construction speed and interior flexibility of wood framing.
These hybrid approaches are often the most intelligent solutions, allowing you to invest in premium materials where they provide the greatest benefit while economizing in less critical areas.
The Best Material to Build a House Depends on Your Specific Needs
After comparing brick vs wood house, stone vs brick house, concrete vs wood house, concrete vs brick house, and steel frame vs wood frame house constructions across hundreds of projects, I’ve come to a simple conclusion: the best material to build a house is the one that best serves your specific needs, preferences, and circumstances.
If you’re building your forever home in an area with severe weather risks, the durability of concrete, brick, or steel might well justify the higher initial investment. If you’re building a starter home you expect to sell within a decade, the economics likely favor wood construction. If architectural character and timeless appeal are your priorities, brick or stone might be worth their premium price.
I’ve seen families thrive in homes built from each of these materials. The happiest homeowners are invariably those who chose materials that aligned with their values, needs, and lifestyle—not those who simply selected the most expensive option or followed a current trend.
The best advice I can offer from my years in construction is to visit homes built with different materials, preferably ones that have stood for at least 10-15 years. Talk to the owners about their experiences.
Consider how each material would perform in your specific climate and site conditions. Work with an architect or builder who has experience with multiple materials and can offer objective comparisons rather than pushing a single solution they’re most familiar with.
Remember that your home is likely the largest investment you’ll ever make. Taking the time to thoroughly understand your building material options will help ensure that this investment serves you well for many years to come.
Sky-Root will Build Your Perfect Home
Sky-Root will transform your ideas into perfectly executed homes using the best material to build a house for your specific situation. Our approach begins with you – just share some inspiration photos and tell us what you envision for your dream home.
We’ll work closely with you to understand your preferences, whether you’re drawn to the warmth of wood, the durability of brick, the strength of concrete, the character of stone, or the precision of steel framing.
What sets Sky-Root apart is our detailed 3D blueprint development process. We don’t just sketch vague plans – we create comprehensive visual guides that ensure everyone involved in building your home knows exactly what to do and where to do it. This precision planning eliminates the confusion and miscommunication that plague many construction projects.Visit Sky-Root.com today to see our portfolio of homes across various materials and building styles. Let us help you choose the best material to build a house that will serve your family for generations to come. Your dream home is just a consultation away. Contact us now.
