Why don’t we build more timber frame houses in this country?

Not really, if you’re doing a one-off. I did a couple about 5 years ago. None of the Irish suppliers at that time would do anything but their own standard designs, usually clad in masonry, and none would provide, or even suggest a builder to do all the other work. (dig holes, put in drainage, roof finishes, etc.) And builders are very reluctant to to do them either, as they miss out on about half the money, some would say the easy half. The company I did use would only consider a raft foundation, while our engineer advised that rafts in this country were suicidal. All in all, a lot of trouble, but a reasonable end result.

they are not bomb/bullet proof and they can burn

but you get to play with a nail gun…

and you can do it yourself if you dream hard enough…

timber here is 90 x 45 pine is around 1.20 euro a metre = 6 euro a sq. metre… which would take you all of what a few minutes to build

Goneill, why are the rafts supposed to be suicidal?

raft foundations are suicidal? first time I heard that

The timber can be treated to be fire reppelant

the walls must be thicker than a block wall house

A greater amount of insulation is required

and until recently it was impossible to get companies to insure timber frame constructiion

Can’t remember. Will dig out the engineer’s advice whcih I vaguely recall included a photocopy of an article written by John O’Connor. I also vaguely recall that the location of two houses side by side had a bearing on the matter (excuse pun)

@cgcsb wrote:

raft foundations are suicidal? first time I heard that

The timber can be treated to be fire reppelant

the walls must be thicker than a block wall house

A greater amount of insulation is required

and until recently it was impossible to get companies to insure timber frame constructiion

I don’t think the walls need be thicker (than say 300mm)
You don’t need more insulation, it’s just that you have the space to provide it.
I think the insurance issue is a myth. My parents’ house has been insured since 1966

@goneill wrote:

I don’t think the walls need be thicker (than say 300mm)
You don’t need more insulation, it’s just that you have the space to provide it.
I think the insurance issue is a myth. My parents’ house has been insured since 1966

in the south pole you can do 90mm timber 40mm cavity 110mm brick… say 250mm including plaster. Some prebuilt options also have 70mm wall thickness including steel but these would cause cold bridge issues ect….

Timber frames market share went to nearly 35% of speculative built estates towards the end of the bubble.

The main reason why timber dosen’t have a higher market share, is because most of the early stick built stuff was dreadful. polythene and quit. This has left a detrimental legacy on public perception and many architectural professionals are making decisions on opinion rather than a thorough analysis of timber frame as an option. In fear they hold on to cavity wall as a tried and tested build method, failing to recognise that expectations and standards of new homes have moved on. Most architects are still building 20th century homes in our new epoque of scarcity.

The SIP panels being offered nowadays with diffusion open materials and heat modulating properties, offer U values and airtightness compatible with achieving Passive standard. In many cases when designing a low energy home, concrete block and polymer insulants have to be ruled out for their limitations in performance in the short and long term. Many Architects are still approaching the technical design of a building as guesswork, delivering what the builder is happiest to provide, failing to realise that an empirical approach to design determines how the building must be build. The heating load of a building is fast becoming the lead design consideration, with budget rendering most design decisions subservient to this. The new generation of Timber frame provides the best option for delivering a results focused project. Expect to see it become the leader.

Its worth noting that a wall with rendered fibre cement outerleaf and a services cavity with fermacel board liner has better thermal storage properties than a cavity wall. natural materials regulate temperature better and 25mm of thermal mass is the maximum usable thickness in this climate.

Re: Rafts
Checked file. Received note from engineer, (who had received trial hole results) advising against raft. He enclosed notes for lecture on engineers and litigation which advised not to use rafts, as they are a very common cause of engineers being sucessfully sued. Called engineer this morning. he said his office will not design rafts and if client insists they are asked to take their business elsewhere. He also said Homebond advises against them, although if I have the latest book it isn’t quite that explicit. The problem apparently can be differential settlement.

I pass these opinions on only as I received them. I’m sure it’s possible to design perfectly good rafts

@goneill wrote:

Re: Rafts
Checked file. Received note from engineer, (who had received trial hole results) advising against raft. He enclosed notes for lecture on engineers and litigation which advised not to use rafts, as they are a very common cause of engineers being sucessfully sued. Called engineer this morning. he said his office will not design rafts and if client insists they are asked to take their business elsewhere. He also said Homebond advises against them, although if I have the latest book it isn’t quite that explicit. The problem apparently can be differential settlement.

I pass these opinions on only as I received them. I’m sure it’s possible to design perfectly good rafts

That does not say much for the engineering profession if they are advised to walk from a problem rather than solve it….

To a layman it doesn’t make sense why a 20th century technology like timber frame, used all over the world including the US, should not be more widely available here. I suspect it’s due to a lack of experience, expertise and sharp practice?

Anyway, my perception is that it’s cheaper for same or better quality, so why don’t we build more other than negative perception, are there real reasons?

Now that large building sites have gone by the wayside, individuals building houses seem a little worried about involving yet another set of sub contractors (the timber frame people) into their equation… although, it appears that there are significant savings to be had… so, if you have the time to research it, I think Timber Frame is a good option..particularly on detached houses.

@SunnyDub wrote:

To a layman it doesn’t make sense why a 20th century technology like timber frame, used all over the world including the US, should not be more widely available here. I suspect it’s due to a lack of experience, expertise and sharp practice?

Anyway, my perception is that it’s cheaper for same or better quality, so why don’t we build more other than negative perception, are there real reasons?

firstly, TF are not cheaper than block builds… they are quicker build and therein lies their advantage.

secondly, ireland has a climate with very very high humidity levels, a climate almost unique (yes i know!!!) in the world….. build systems from the US Canada or even mid europe may not be suitable in these climates. High humidity mixed with badly constructed TF houses is a recipe for disaster. there are some very good TF systems on teh market, but there are also bad ones!…

Thanks for the above.
🙂