For most warehouse and logistics projects, the core trade-off is straightforward: construction speed and flexibility vs traditional mass construction logic.
01
30-90 days
steel timeline
vs 6-12 months concrete
02
20-30%
budget gap
steel often lower total cost
03
up to 36 m
clear span
without internal columns
04
50+ years
service life
with proper maintenance
Why steel is often selected
- faster delivery and earlier operational start,
- lower foundation intensity due to reduced structural mass,
- easier expansion and phased growth,
- better fit for large clear-span logistics layouts.
Where concrete can still be preferred
- multi-storey heavy-use configurations,
- very high concentrated load cases,
- specific underground or special-purpose facilities.
Quick comparison
| Criterion | Steel structures | Concrete |
|---|---|---|
| Timeline | 30-90 days | 6-12 months |
| Cost profile | often lower by 20-30% | higher baseline |
| Span potential | up to 36 m | typically lower without special solutions |
| Flexibility | high | low to medium |
| Reconfiguration | easier | more expensive |
Decision logic for business owners
If speed-to-operation, modular expansion, and capex efficiency are key priorities, steel-frame solutions are usually more competitive for warehouse use.
Need side-by-side options?
We can prepare both steel and concrete scenarios for your site, with cost and timeline delta.
Ключевой вывод
In Kazakhstan's current logistics cycle, steel structures are the default choice for most warehouse projects. Concrete remains relevant for narrower technical scenarios.