ᐅ Is a solid (masonry) house significantly less energy efficient than a timber-framed house?

Hello everyone,

My wife and I had a meeting yesterday evening with a construction manager who is connected to us through several acquaintances. It turned out he works for Keitel-Haus. He strongly advised us against building a solid construction house (concrete or masonry), giving arguments such as:

• Solid construction houses have a much higher heating energy demand, costing around €2500 per year with a heat pump compared to €800 for a timber house
• The moisture from construction remains inside the building even after completion, leading to an unhealthy indoor climate
• Masonry walls have not changed significantly since the 2009 energy-saving regulations, and some figures are manipulated to meet current thermal insulation requirements
• For solid construction houses, the primary energy demand is never calculated properly; you essentially buy the heating system blindly without coordination with the building

As a trained civil engineering technician with a strong background in concrete, I was naturally shocked by such allegations.

Does anyone have experience comparing these building methods? I only found one online study indicating that heating costs for solid construction are actually lower than for timber houses.
We want to build the house with a regional provider, who are mostly solid construction builders in our area... and so far, we have had the best feeling regarding their advice and service. Google also shows no negative reviews.

In short: that’s all nonsense.

Anyone who plans properly performs a room-by-room heating load calculation independent of the walls. In recent years, walls have become significantly thicker and more energy-efficient. It used to be different, as traditional solid constructions were often less energy-efficient than prefabricated houses. Nowadays, there is practically no difference.

It is true that more moisture is introduced during the construction phase—less from the masonry itself and more from the thick base plaster. Both building methods use screed. Any moisture that enters the indoor climate is also ventilated out quickly.

PS:
I’d also like to bring up the topic of thermal mass here. Solid constructions often use concrete ceilings, which help to buffer heat nicely during the summer.

WilderSueden schrieb:

Does anyone here have experience with this comparison?

WilderSueden schrieb:

To put it simply: it’s all nonsense.

There is really nothing more to add. However, it is easier to achieve insulation standards with timber frame construction. That’s where the advantage ends. You can build a true passive house just as well with a solid wall structure as with a timber frame. And ventilation is always necessary in both types of houses — so a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery is recommended.

I am surprised that, as a construction technician, you pay attention to such nonsense.

Otherwise, I can only agree with the post by @WilderSueden.

hanghaus2023 schrieb:

I’m surprised that, as a construction technician, you believe such nonsense.

Otherwise, I completely agree with the post by @WilderSueden.

Better to ask one time too many than one time too few.

But seriously, thanks for your contributions. Now I’m informed.

Aphelios schrieb:

It turns out he works at Keitel-Haus.

You sing the song of the one whose bread you eat.
If you criticize the competition that harshly,
keep a respectful distance from that gentleman.
@WilderSueden explained it well.
Additionally, there is the issue of sound insulation, which is much better in a solid (masonry) house.
PS: Our neighbors in the timber frame house can’t sleep anymore when our lawn mower starts up early at 11 a.m.