Hello everyone, this is my first time here. I’ll keep it brief.
Until now, I was a complete fan of brick houses. Somehow, I associated wooden houses with “cheap, not durable, no good, etc.”
For the past few weeks, I have been researching wooden houses and learned that:
- They last longer
- They save a lot on energy costs (up to 400€ per year)
- They are usually more expensive than a brick house of the same size
- Banks assign them a higher loan-to-value ratio (or something like that)
- In case of fire, they are even safer than brick houses (I would have bet a lot against this)
I wonder: is all of this true?
Looking forward to your answers.
Until now, I was a complete fan of brick houses. Somehow, I associated wooden houses with “cheap, not durable, no good, etc.”
For the past few weeks, I have been researching wooden houses and learned that:
- They last longer
- They save a lot on energy costs (up to 400€ per year)
- They are usually more expensive than a brick house of the same size
- Banks assign them a higher loan-to-value ratio (or something like that)
- In case of fire, they are even safer than brick houses (I would have bet a lot against this)
I wonder: is all of this true?
Looking forward to your answers.
Musketier schrieb:
Regarding fire safety... fire protection in prefabricated houses is important since combustible materials are used. With solid construction using masonry, I don’t have this problem at all. So why should a prefabricated house be better than a solid-built house? At best, it can only be as good as a solid house. The main issue is steel (see Twin Towers) which melts at a certain temperature.In a real fire, whether it’s a brick house or a prefabricated one, you will have to rebuild it afterwards. At least where we live, fire-resistant drywall panels are installed inside. They help only up to a certain point, probably just buying you an extra minute to get out alive. Brick houses also burn like kindling when the fire really takes hold. And the roof structure is always made of wood anyway. I would claim that after a fire, demolition and rebuilding is cheaper than repair. And after all, you are insured.
It’s true that banks value prefabricated houses lower, which we have painfully experienced ourselves. Our house is worth nearly €70,000 less than what we paid. Yet today there really isn’t much difference in terms of living comfort. For us, there are mostly advantages. But that is another story.
B
Bauexperte19 Jul 2013 10:24Hello,
Regards, Bauexperte
Musketier schrieb:That has always been the case
Some banks seem to be gradually changing their approach, at least for high-quality prefabricated homes, and no longer apply discounts for prefab houses.
Musketier schrieb:A practical example—whether prefab or solid construction: when a fire occurs, only the fire-rated doors (e.g., from the utility room to the garage) generally remain intact. Everything else is usually no longer usable after the fire has been extinguished in both cases. The difference is that the prefab home burns faster.
Regarding fire... fire protection is important in prefabricated homes since combustible materials are used. With solid construction using masonry, I don’t have that issue at all.
Regards, Bauexperte
Hello – thank you for the many responses. So
Fire Safety
A wooden house is considered safer in terms of fire because the timber beams remain standing during a fire, whereas steel melts and the whole structure collapses. This was confirmed to me by the fire department. Of course, in the end, both types of buildings can be demolished anyway.
Wooden House ≠ Prefabricated House
The term "prefabricated house" was often used here. However, in the conversations I had, three groups were always compared: brick house – prefabricated house – wooden house. Naturally, a wooden house can also be a prefabricated house. Here, I am not referring to "low-quality wooden houses" but to high-quality ones.
Information and Advertising Link
One of my information sources was the wooden house construction company Sonnleitner. However, I also had three other sources: two wooden house owners, one civil engineer, and of course, many “brick house owners” (I myself have lived in brick houses my entire life so far). The statements were consistent. The corresponding explanations were also immediately understandable from a physical and logical perspective (see, for example, fire safety above).
“Rarely read such nonsense”
Yes, that’s what I thought until now. I have fundamentally changed my opinion because my previous arguments were technically incorrect. The simple reason for me was: “I didn’t know.”
Fire Safety
A wooden house is considered safer in terms of fire because the timber beams remain standing during a fire, whereas steel melts and the whole structure collapses. This was confirmed to me by the fire department. Of course, in the end, both types of buildings can be demolished anyway.
Wooden House ≠ Prefabricated House
The term "prefabricated house" was often used here. However, in the conversations I had, three groups were always compared: brick house – prefabricated house – wooden house. Naturally, a wooden house can also be a prefabricated house. Here, I am not referring to "low-quality wooden houses" but to high-quality ones.
Information and Advertising Link
One of my information sources was the wooden house construction company Sonnleitner. However, I also had three other sources: two wooden house owners, one civil engineer, and of course, many “brick house owners” (I myself have lived in brick houses my entire life so far). The statements were consistent. The corresponding explanations were also immediately understandable from a physical and logical perspective (see, for example, fire safety above).
“Rarely read such nonsense”
Yes, that’s what I thought until now. I have fundamentally changed my opinion because my previous arguments were technically incorrect. The simple reason for me was: “I didn’t know.”
B
Bauexperte20 Jul 2013 22:38Hello,
With all due respect – the timber house seller seems quite skilled in what he does.
“Solid construction methods offer a significantly higher level of safety due to their more favorable overall structural behavior from a fire protection perspective compared to combustible timber structures.” Professor Schneider highlights the major advantage of the additional load-bearing reserve of floor slabs, which exists for structural reasons in almost all solid construction buildings. In the event of a fire, load redistribution occurs, and the fire resistance duration can more than double. Collapse of the entire structure can be ruled out due to multiple load-bearing supports. Furthermore, in reality, single- and double-skin solid walls – considering the existing fire loads – can resist fire for almost indefinitely long periods. Even the effect of insulation materials is negligible because they are sufficiently protected from fire exposure by plaster for a long time. The geometry and shape of the nearly monolithic structure essentially remain preserved during a fire.
This contrasts sharply with the situation in residential timber buildings, according to the study. Not only do component constructions using combustible materials present increased hazard potentials, but these include additional fire loads, increased smoke generation, the transmission and spread of fire through construction cavities, thus creating smoldering nests, as well as an increased risk of flashover. Timber constructions generally have no built-in load-bearing reserves. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that compartmentation will remain effective for longer than about 30 minutes in a fire and that the entire load-bearing structure will remain stable and secure. Not only do the elements and components fail, but also the connections and joints between elements and components. According to Schneider’s statements, “fire exposure in timber construction leads to a reduction of the load-bearing cross sections with increasing internal stresses, whereby the predominantly metallic connections of individual components quickly lose their load-bearing capacity when heated.”
Source: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Schneider, Professor of Structural Engineering.
Regards, Bauexperte
Haustom schrieb:
Fire Safety
A timber house is considered safer in a fire because the beams remain standing during a fire, while steel melts and the entire structure collapses. This was confirmed to me by the fire department. Of course, in the end you can demolish either type of building.
With all due respect – the timber house seller seems quite skilled in what he does.
“Solid construction methods offer a significantly higher level of safety due to their more favorable overall structural behavior from a fire protection perspective compared to combustible timber structures.” Professor Schneider highlights the major advantage of the additional load-bearing reserve of floor slabs, which exists for structural reasons in almost all solid construction buildings. In the event of a fire, load redistribution occurs, and the fire resistance duration can more than double. Collapse of the entire structure can be ruled out due to multiple load-bearing supports. Furthermore, in reality, single- and double-skin solid walls – considering the existing fire loads – can resist fire for almost indefinitely long periods. Even the effect of insulation materials is negligible because they are sufficiently protected from fire exposure by plaster for a long time. The geometry and shape of the nearly monolithic structure essentially remain preserved during a fire.
This contrasts sharply with the situation in residential timber buildings, according to the study. Not only do component constructions using combustible materials present increased hazard potentials, but these include additional fire loads, increased smoke generation, the transmission and spread of fire through construction cavities, thus creating smoldering nests, as well as an increased risk of flashover. Timber constructions generally have no built-in load-bearing reserves. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that compartmentation will remain effective for longer than about 30 minutes in a fire and that the entire load-bearing structure will remain stable and secure. Not only do the elements and components fail, but also the connections and joints between elements and components. According to Schneider’s statements, “fire exposure in timber construction leads to a reduction of the load-bearing cross sections with increasing internal stresses, whereby the predominantly metallic connections of individual components quickly lose their load-bearing capacity when heated.”
Source: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Schneider, Professor of Structural Engineering.
Regards, Bauexperte
For a few weeks now, I have been researching wooden houses and learned that:
- They last longerWhy should a wooden house "last longer"? Stones don’t just dissolve after a few decades...
How should this claim be evaluated?
- Saves huge energy costs (<=400€ / year)This statement is questionable in several ways...
a) Compared to what? A poorly insulated concrete or masonry house???
I can insulate a concrete or masonry house as well as a wooden house to varying degrees, I can install a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery in both, etc. So why should a wooden house save "huge energy costs" compared to a similarly insulated concrete or masonry house?
b) What are the additional construction costs associated with this energy saving? Does it even make sense to save <=400€ per year if, for example, you had to invest an extra 50,000 initially?
- Is "usually" more expensive than an equally sized brick houseIt is possible that a wooden house built by a local carpenter is more expensive than a comparable brick house... is this really an advantage?
- Has a higher "loan-to-value" ratio at the bank (or whatever it’s called)The wooden house is usually valued lower because the bank knows that concrete or masonry houses typically depreciate less upon resale than wooden houses.
- Is safer than a brick house in case of fire (I would have bet otherwise)This has already been covered by building experts...
I drive past a burned-out house every day... the walls are still standing, but the wooden roof frame has completely collapsed... I can only imagine what the house would look like if it had been built entirely from wood...
By the way, wooden houses are often held together by a lot of steel in the form of screws, brackets, etc.
One of my sources was the wooden house construction company Sonnleitner. However, I also had three other sources: two wooden house owners and a structural engineer, and of course many “masonry house owners.”It’s hardly surprising that the wooden house company markets its concept as the best... Wooden house owners and masonry house owners are also hardly reliable sources... or did they each live in comparable wooden and masonry houses to make direct comparisons?
It is understandable if someone moves from a 1960s concrete or masonry house to a new wooden house and praises only the advantages... The reverse is probably true as well.
I don’t want to say that concrete or masonry houses are always better than wooden houses! It strongly depends on the individual house... You can build a poor wooden house and also a poor concrete or masonry house...
Similar topics