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.
H
Hausqualle26 Jul 2015 18:23ypg schrieb:
Enough! – Take care of your animals, who cannot object. .. enough of what? oh, so you’re not allowed to clarify anything that was written incorrectly here in the forum..
well, this is a great forum..
Hausqualle schrieb:
.. what is enough?
oh, you’re not allowed to clarify anything that was misspelled here in the forum..
well, what a great forum..You seem to be a persistently self-centered forum troll. Recently, it hasn’t been about making a “clarification” for you at all, but about trying to embarrass other members here. That behavior is inappropriate both in real life and in the forum. If you want to troll, find a flamewar forum or join a bullying group on that social network.
B
Bauexperte26 Jul 2015 22:25Good evening,
sorry, I just got back. The user "Hausqualle" is now free to troll wherever they want. Their behavior at the main station has alienated them; nobody needs that.
Regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte
sorry, I just got back. The user "Hausqualle" is now free to troll wherever they want. Their behavior at the main station has alienated them; nobody needs that.
Regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte
Bauexperte schrieb:
That is another misconception you seem to have. It is highly likely that you will no longer be living in the house once you reach retirement age. To pick up the discussion again – why do you think that?
I don't plan to move for work reasons, just in case that’s being considered. The employer can object all they want.
We also want to build big enough now so that we don’t have to move later due to size constraints.
Besides, the location of the plot is really great; I wouldn’t want to move to a less favorable location. Plots in such good locations are rare and expensive, and that probably won't change anytime soon.
Regarding buildings from the 1980s or generally anything built between World War II and recently: that was a different time, focused on creating affordable housing in large quantities. Even in East Germany, prefabricated panel construction certainly wasn’t architecture at its finest. But if I look back 100 years: a historic building from the pre-war era still has a practical layout today. It was simply planned to be large enough. Just like I have a living room bigger than 30sqm (about 320 sq ft) here, new builds today hardly plan for bigger than that. And that’s in a two-room apartment, to be clear. So fundamentally, nothing really changed; there was just a few decades long phase where affordability was the main focus in housing development.
So how long does a house last? I’ve read that roof tiles and roof shingles now come with a 30-year warranty, and electrical installations and underfloor heating systems are said to be very, very durable. Doing external plastering, renovating bathrooms, replacing the heating system, repairing walls and floors, etc., are for me fairly routine maintenance tasks. But a complete teardown back to the shell after a certain number of years—and then having to redo electrical wiring, plumbing, heating distribution, and so on?
I believe that if you maintain the house regularly, it won't be necessary to demolish it for "practical" reasons.
Why are houses demolished? For example, here it usually happens only for densification purposes. In other areas, it might also be to reduce vacancy (but this is less common for single-family homes).
Neither of these happens as long as someone still wants to live in the house.
Why are houses demolished? For example, here it usually happens only for densification purposes. In other areas, it might also be to reduce vacancy (but this is less common for single-family homes).
Neither of these happens as long as someone still wants to live in the house.
Similar topics