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.
Grym schrieb:
Regarding buildings from the 1980s or generally anything constructed between World War II and until recently: it was simply a different time, focused on creating affordable housing on a large scale. Even in East Germany, the panel buildings were certainly not architectural masterpieces. In East Germany, single-family houses definitely need to be assessed differently than in the former West Germany. Many were built using large-format precast concrete panels. Building materials were scarce, so people had to use whatever was available. Depending on personal connections to building suppliers and craftsmen within friends and family, the quality of these houses varies significantly.
When searching for existing properties, we therefore focused on relatively young used homes from the mid-1990s onward. Since the market for these types of properties was quite limited, building a new house was the next logical step.
I think it’s more about the type of use... when you’re 65, you start thinking about the 90cm (35 inches) next to the bed, and the thought of vacuuming three empty children’s rooms is dreadful. You might also want a sauna by now, and since you’ve saved well, a garage next to the house and a gazebo in the garden – and ideally, never have to deal with stairs again!
As young parents, you’re happy as long as every child has a room and the bathroom is small – because it’s affordable. Building your own carport works fine for now, and the sauna at the public saline spa is enough (which you hardly ever visit anyway, since it costs around 120 euros with the kids).
As young parents, you’re happy as long as every child has a room and the bathroom is small – because it’s affordable. Building your own carport works fine for now, and the sauna at the public saline spa is enough (which you hardly ever visit anyway, since it costs around 120 euros with the kids).
B
Bauexperte27 Jul 2015 11:11Grym schrieb:
I have no intention of relocating for professional reasons, in case that is being considered. The employer can oppose all they want. Likewise, we want to build the house large enough now so that we won’t have to move later due to size constraints. You are coming in with a lot of preconceived ideas; so I’m almost certain I might as well write to a wall...
I’m actually referring to retirement age – if you’re even lucky enough to reach that in reasonably good health; so somewhere around 65 years. Today you may put a lot of effort into designing a house (an architect can do that better) that considers your needs in old age. Your mistake there – how do you know what you will want when you are older? You can’t even reliably predict what will happen tomorrow.
Biographies change; sometimes faster than you would like.
Regards, Bauexperte
N
nordanney27 Jul 2015 13:20Grym schrieb:
To revisit the discussion—why do you think that?
I have no plans to move for work reasons, if that’s what you’re implying. The employer can certainly be stubborn about that.
We also want to build large enough now so that we don’t have to move again later due to size issues.
Besides, the location of the plot is really great; I wouldn’t want to move to a less desirable location, and land in such good areas is rare and expensive. That probably won’t change in the future.
As for buildings from the 1980s or generally everything built between World War II and recently: that was a different time, focused on creating affordable housing. Even in East Germany, panel buildings were hardly the pinnacle of architecture. But if I look back 100 years: a historic old building from the Gründerzeit period still has a usable layout today. It was simply planned to be spacious. Just as I have a living room over 30cm (12 inches) in size here, new construction nowadays rarely plans for bigger rooms—even in a two-room apartment. Fundamentally, nothing has changed much; there was just a phase lasting decades where budgets were tighter in housing development.
And how long does a house last? I read that roof tiles and shingles now have a 30-year warranty, and that electrical installations and underfloor heating systems are usually very durable. Doing some exterior plaster work, renovating the bathroom, replacing the heat generator, or repairing walls and floors, etc. are, to me, just normal maintenance tasks. But a complete teardown back to the shell after a certain number of years, followed by replacing electrical wiring, plumbing, heating distribution systems, and so on?So you’re a clairvoyant for the next 40 years and are building a house full of compromises—right now it’s too big for you (no kids yet), in five years it will be too small (after the triplets, you’ll have another child), and in old age, you won’t want a house that never really fit your life and isn’t suitable for your wheelchair.
U
Username_wahl22 Sep 2015 20:43Regarding the main topic. In our experience, banks and home insurance companies do not always respond favorably to a wooden house. They are often only familiar with "solid construction" or "prefabricated houses."
At least when it comes to banks, this is changing. The savings bank never made a distinction from the start, and our house bank recently told me that they also no longer make a general difference.
I find it quite understandable that the building insurance is higher, because if there is a fire, everything really needs to be replaced...
I find it quite understandable that the building insurance is higher, because if there is a fire, everything really needs to be replaced...
Similar topics