block vs timber frame

muffler

galwaytt wrote: »

Oh, and btw - pyramids are tombs - not buildings for living in.
And neither is the Great Wall, btw....

They wanted them to stand the test of time so they choose stone

galwaytt wrote: »

The picture of Dun Aengus is of the rampart wall - not a building, either.

Thats actually in my county and its An Grianan of Aileach

creedp

galwaytt wrote: »

..maybe you are

I agree that he may be biased, and that blocks are cheaper. But not better



'Seem' that's some subjective measure alright. As for the damp: 2 simple questions for you : how would a TF get wet, and, speaking of timber.....what's your roof made of......??




Amen. Hallelujah. +1. etc etc.

In my experience, this market is nearly always price-led. Quality is not oftenr valued. In the UK, whilst value is always important, Quality is always on the agenda.

This thread seems to have run into the ground between the evangilists on both sides of the argument. I note above Galwaytt that you are suggesting that blocks are not better than timber. Does this mean that you are saying that a block house built to a high standard is inferior to a timber framed house built to a similar std? I have to say I disagree with this and I have no axe to grind with either.

I think what's important here is personal choice and high std of workmanship in either case. I find it hard to rationalise people's staunch views on choices such as this as if there is an absolute better/best way of doing anything. Just because some people like timber, mainly from what I can see from an environmental and ease of construction perspective doesn't mean that block build is a no no. I built block but I could just as easily built TF but I just saw them a choices to achieve the same outcome, i.e. a house. Is there really more to the argument than this? I think in this country progressive people like to downgrade the way we have done thinks in the past as if far away fields are always greener. Its good we have more choice in building/design these days but that doesn't mean there is any wrong with a block built square house. Sounds a bit like design 'nose in the air to me'!!

crossmolinalad

Maybe this will be a reason not to build timberframe

Found this text in my insurance policy
Does it means timberframe whats prefabricated is not insured ??
If so then i have a problem


What is your house made from? If your home is made from non-standard materials you may not be able to get cover - for example for a prefabricated structure.

BryanF

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Maybe this will be a reason not to build timberframe

Found this text in my insurance policy
Does it means timberframe whats prefabricated is not insured ??
If so then i have a problem


What is your house made from? If your home is made from non-standard materials you may not be able to get cover - for example for a prefabricated structure.

what a load of ....

get on to your insurance company to clarify the term prefabricated. I'm sure there's a miss-understanding here with regards to timber frame

galwaytt

creedp wrote: »

This thread seems to have run into the ground between the evangilists on both sides of the argument. I note above Galwaytt that you are suggesting that blocks are not better than timber. Does this mean that you are saying that a block house built to a high standard is inferior to a timber framed house built to a similar std? I have to say I disagree with this and I have no axe to grind with either.

I think what's important here is personal choice and high std of workmanship in either case. I find it hard to rationalise people's staunch views on choices such as this as if there is an absolute better/best way of doing anything. Just because some people like timber, mainly from what I can see from an environmental and ease of construction perspective doesn't mean that block build is a no no. I built block but I could just as easily built TF but I just saw them a choices to achieve the same outcome, i.e. a house. Is there really more to the argument than this? I think in this country progressive people like to downgrade the way we have done thinks in the past as if far away fields are always greener. Its good we have more choice in building/design these days but that doesn't mean there is any wrong with a block built square house. Sounds a bit like design 'nose in the air to me'!!

I'm sorry, but you're putting words in my mouth - I did not say TF is better, or more specifically, that concrete 'worse'. My choice (even before I got my day-job) to use timber-based on my own build, came specifically based on my first house (in the 90's) being of concrete blocks (direct labour - I physically laid all foundations, blocks, roofed it, and plumbed it, myself), and was built to (at the time) a good standard. However, things move on. And the single biggest issue I had, was how to build a better quality and higher-performing house, when the time came to do so again. I didn't have an axe to grind one way or the other, so, like everyone else, I did my research. When I had that done, I had empirical and anecdotal data on a whole load of things, and on balance I came to the conclusion that the easiest way for me to build a high-performing, and better quality house, was to not use blocks in the main. If it had come out the other way, I'd have done it the opposite. I voted with my own wallet. There is a time and place to use them, and I still do, but only where it stacks up and makes sense.

For me - and you say this yourself - quality is the biggest arbiter of any build. Quality of materials, quality of design/system, quality of workmanship, quality of finish, etc.

Indeed, I was on a tour of a bespoke house a few month's ago, and one of the visitors asked the homeowner (in an attempt to get his head around the whole thing), what was BER and airtightness doing for his build, to which the homeowner replied, and I thought it was a very apt way to put it: in his eyes, the BER indicates the quality of design, and the airtightness (as measured), indicated the quality of workmanship. It's not the perfect answer, but I thought it was a well-put context.

So then to me, what is the best way to deliver a warranted quality-of-build, backed up with objective, empirical data ? To me, that's off-site construction. Pragmatically speaking, to me, it is easier to ensure quality of build of a product in a factory, then on a wind and rain-swept site. You can make, measure, and check the product before it goes out the door.

This is not an aspersion on individual workmen on site - I have been that guy on the scaffold in driving January rain, laying blockwork gables, so I'm not un-familiar with the issues that come up, and how hard it can be. I don't think there isn't a single blocklayer who wouldn't take up the offer of making his job easier AND the finished product better, if it was offered. Having spent 2 days on a very, very wind-swept site in Mayo last week, and having met with them on the site, I still believe it to be so.

And, it stands to reason that if it is easier to do a job well, it is more likely to be done well, as a result.

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Maybe this will be a reason not to build timberframe

Found this text in my insurance policy
Does it means timberframe whats prefabricated is not insured ??
If so then i have a problem


What is your house made from? If your home is made from non-standard materials you may not be able to get cover - for example for a prefabricated structure.

As pointed out by someone else above, but that is nonsense. Any building made off-site, of any material: timber, steel, concrete, ICF, is pre-fabricated - so that comment above is so completely misleading.

All houses, no matter of what material, concrete blocks, TF, SIP, LGSF, ICF, Pre-cast concrete panels - must pass the same testing, and meet the same standards, for durability and fire, for Building Regulations. This is not a variable, it is an across-the-board requirement. There is no premium extra for living in a TF house, (nor discount for a concrete one, btw........). If someone tries that on, you need to correct them and report it to someone (DoE, Dept of Trade and Enterprise, etc).

If what you say was true, then in excess of 30% of new build stock in recent years here, (70% in Scotland), would be un-insurable. Which of course, it isn't.

Don't forget that the State itself, including some local authorities, uses off-site construction too.........including schools, colleges, universities.

What that statement in your insurance means that you must tell them what it's made of. They want to know - and there is no reason not to tell them.

Brianaldo

8vSport wrote: »

hi all

we are building in mayo and hoping to start soon, we were going for a block house but then we received a price from a timber frame company for €42000 plus vat, the house is 2300sqft, dormer bungalow. when calculating up the prices on the block, roof etc, there is not much in the difference. just wanted to see what peoples thoughts were on a timber frame or if anyone recently used any company that they could recommend. we only have received one quote yet but want to look into a few more

thanks

Hi

I was wondering what company you priced with the timber framed house.
Thanks

colmhd

Of course you can always opt for a combination of both and you could reap the benefits of block and timber.