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
Hausqualle25 Jul 2015 13:58Bautraum2015 schrieb:
which is supposed to be so much cheaper.... I already wrote that .. but in your frenzy you seem to have overlooked it ...H
Hausqualle25 Jul 2015 13:59Bautraum2015 schrieb:
....read a good book like "Discussions for Dummies" and then we can talk again....Mr. Expert .. oh, now your real "education" is showing ..N
nordanney25 Jul 2015 14:58Hausqualle schrieb:
.. because with wood and a timber frame construction, you can build a complete shell in significantly less time, for example within a few days including roofing, at most one to two weeks. Additionally, the time needed for the finished interior walls is much shorter since panels are used and simply screwed onto the existing timber frame. In contrast, a solid house requires masonry work, channels for piping must be cut, and everything needs to be plastered afterwards. Reinforced concrete ceilings have to be shuttered, steel and reinforcement mesh laid, concrete poured, knee walls concreted, roof trusses erected and roof covered. You can calculate this time yourself — it adds up to weeks, and labor costs are expensive; labor is more expensive than materials. However, a timber frame house must be planned differently than a solid house because the timber structure should be cost-effective and simple. Here, we are talking about a normal affordable single-family home, not a “wooden villa” like those from “HUF,” which become expensive, even very expensive. Short question: Who pays for the labor time involved in the preparations of a “timber house” — cutting wood, planing, assembling the structure, etc.?
My experience in our building area (so far around 150–160 houses) shows that prefab houses are generally somewhat more expensive than solid builds. Unfortunately, there are no identical houses (and many families do not openly discuss prices) that would allow a direct price comparison.
We decided on an architect-designed house built with solid construction because comparable prefab houses were more expensive.
If it’s obvious that no one planning to build a house is expert enough to compare apples with apples, then insisting that only a professional can build a timber frame house cheaper than a solid masonry house is rather pointless.
Especially since you have to spend a lot of time adjusting the criteria for comparison so they fit timber frame construction, while the homeowner’s personal needs generally tend to take priority over structurally determined factors.
Especially since you have to spend a lot of time adjusting the criteria for comparison so they fit timber frame construction, while the homeowner’s personal needs generally tend to take priority over structurally determined factors.
H
Hausqualle25 Jul 2015 17:28oleda222 schrieb:
Especially since you have to spend so much time defining the criteria for a comparison to fit timber frame construction but precisely for that reason, you can’t simply claim and state that a timber frame house is more expensive than a masonry house or has disadvantages. That is incorrect. And if the market for prefabricated timber frame houses allows for high prices and great profits (as Nordannery mentions), then these prefab manufacturers are the last ones not fully capitalizing on such profit margins. Fuel prices for all suppliers have also risen sharply ahead of the holiday season, and it’s the same situation at the building supply stores.Absolutely! When designing a house according to personal preferences, and if timber frame construction is usually more expensive than solid masonry, this may still be subjective but reflects individual needs. If timber frame construction rarely meets these needs without compromise, any potential price advantage becomes less relevant, especially if there is no demand for it.
It is quite ironic that you criticize the lack of comparability but at the same time expect (independent) expert knowledge for comparison, which is simply not available to the average homeowner.
It is quite ironic that you criticize the lack of comparability but at the same time expect (independent) expert knowledge for comparison, which is simply not available to the average homeowner.