Certainly, this discussion has probably come up once or twice before – but now, in 2015, how does the technology really stand?
I want to exclude soundproofing from this discussion, since we are building in a very quiet residential area, as are most such areas. The special case of building a house near a flight path, on a main road, or similar, I don’t want to discuss here, especially since a double or triple-layered wall also provides some sound insulation (actually quite good).
I have always had concerns about mold, but on the other hand, where would the moisture come from? In the case of a pipe leak and significant moisture damage, sources suggest that solid/concrete houses have worse problems than timber structures. The procedure here is to remove drywall, dispose of insulation in the affected area, allow it to dry for a week (using controlled mechanical ventilation with professional equipment), then install new insulation, close it up, and it’s done.
Normally, without a pipe break, moisture shouldn’t actually penetrate, right? Just like with solid construction, only the first few millimeters of the wall serve as a moisture buffer. It is well known that there is no “breathing wall.”
Regarding summer heat protection, I have experienced that even shaded solid model homes can become quite warm over the weekend. The two types of houses don’t differ much in this respect. I have even read that the heat cannot be released from the masonry at night, whereas in a timber house with low thermal mass, you can ventilate and thus lower the temperature, or use a brine-earth heat exchanger with the controlled mechanical ventilation system to achieve comfortable temperatures.
How does durability compare? Why is it said that timber houses don’t last as long, and what would be a realistic lifespan?
What are the real disadvantages of modern timber frame prefabricated houses from established manufacturers (Bien-Zenker, Weberhaus)? I am not referring to those from Poland or the Hunsrück region.
I want to exclude soundproofing from this discussion, since we are building in a very quiet residential area, as are most such areas. The special case of building a house near a flight path, on a main road, or similar, I don’t want to discuss here, especially since a double or triple-layered wall also provides some sound insulation (actually quite good).
I have always had concerns about mold, but on the other hand, where would the moisture come from? In the case of a pipe leak and significant moisture damage, sources suggest that solid/concrete houses have worse problems than timber structures. The procedure here is to remove drywall, dispose of insulation in the affected area, allow it to dry for a week (using controlled mechanical ventilation with professional equipment), then install new insulation, close it up, and it’s done.
Normally, without a pipe break, moisture shouldn’t actually penetrate, right? Just like with solid construction, only the first few millimeters of the wall serve as a moisture buffer. It is well known that there is no “breathing wall.”
Regarding summer heat protection, I have experienced that even shaded solid model homes can become quite warm over the weekend. The two types of houses don’t differ much in this respect. I have even read that the heat cannot be released from the masonry at night, whereas in a timber house with low thermal mass, you can ventilate and thus lower the temperature, or use a brine-earth heat exchanger with the controlled mechanical ventilation system to achieve comfortable temperatures.
How does durability compare? Why is it said that timber houses don’t last as long, and what would be a realistic lifespan?
What are the real disadvantages of modern timber frame prefabricated houses from established manufacturers (Bien-Zenker, Weberhaus)? I am not referring to those from Poland or the Hunsrück region.
I
Irgendwoabaier25 Jul 2015 12:18"Hausqualle schrieb:
Wooden houses should actually always be cheaper than solid houses ..Why? Usually, wooden houses tend to be somewhat more expensive. Not by much—if quality, features, etc. are comparable—but they are still a bit more costly. Wood has simply become expensive.
H
Hausqualle25 Jul 2015 12:25And this is exactly where the problem lies: you cannot send the same design with the same construction for a single-family home to a supplier of a solid masonry house and, at the same time, to a timber-frame builder and expect it to be a valid comparison. The details are crucial. To get a real comparison, much more effort is required. Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges... every timber-frame house has to be cheaper than a solid construction house...
Bautraum201525 Jul 2015 12:35We didn’t send anything but instead had several meetings with the individual suppliers. However, it doesn’t matter what I say now; you already have your opinion, don’t even provide a reason for it, and just present it as a fact. Great basis for an argument.
I
Irgendwoabaier25 Jul 2015 12:39Hausqualle schrieb:
every timber frame house must be cheaper than a solid (masonry) house ...Repeating this statement does not make it true.
There are designs that can be built either with masonry or timber framing, there are designs that can only be realized with timber framing (and the price tags that come with these are not exactly cheap...), and there are designs that cannot be built with timber framing (but their prices are usually not cheap either...).
For designs that can be executed in either method, timber framing is usually somewhat more expensive. Material costs need to be considered, as well as the structural effort for the respective construction, and so on. But timber framing also offers different possibilities compared to masonry construction, and for us, those different possibilities justified the additional cost.
H
Hausqualle25 Jul 2015 12:47nathi schrieb:
Why actually? .. because with wood and a timber frame construction, you can build a complete shell in significantly less time, for example within just a few days including roof covering, at most one to two weeks. Additionally, the time needed for finished interior walls is much shorter since panels are used and screwed onto the existing timber frame. In contrast, a solid house requires masonry work, channels must be cut for pipes, and everything has to be plastered afterward. Reinforced concrete slabs need formwork, steel and reinforcement mesh must be laid, followed by concrete pouring, etc. Knee walls have to be concreted, the roof structure erected, and the roof covered. You can calculate that—1 that adds up to weeks, and this labor time is expensive; labor costs are higher than material costs. However, a timber frame house must be planned differently than a solid house because the timber structure should be simple and cost-effective. Here, we are talking about a standard affordable single-family house, not a "timber villa" like those by "HUF," which becomes expensive, very expensive even.H
Hausqualle25 Jul 2015 12:51Irgendwoabaier schrieb:
But with timber framing, you have different options compared to masonry construction, and these different options were worth the extra cost for us.. Such a discussion cannot take place in the forum because it lacks constructive evidence and supporting data. Regarding your quoted sentence: do you mean the opposite > that with a solid house you have more options than with a timber-framed house, or what exactly did you compare here?Similar topics