Wood framed houses in the UK

[Amp34]

I suspect this is partly the exported American dream. America does have quite a lot of rich and middle class areas, but a large portion of America is extremely poor.

America only looks like a rich country, it's a powerful country with massive debts and huge wealth inequality that hosts some of the poorest and most run down areas in the world.

On house prices, to put things into perspective of what I'm talking about, consider this random search on a property site in Kansas....
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sa...738,-93.841095,38.56481,-95.309144_rect/9_zm/

Built:1925, last updated 2010.

The price in no way reflects the cost of building a new home today. You can buy really cheap homes in some places in northern England, that doesn’t reflect the cost to build them though, just the housing market in that particular area. It’s even worse in places like the US because living in small town nowherevill means you rely on local jobs. If they go no one will be interested in your house because it’s several hours from anywhere they could work.

See: https://www.homeadvisor.com/cost/architects-and-engineers/build-a-house/

Which is pretty much bang on the amount I put above. 2,000sqft home today will cost you around US$300,000 to build.

For £40k, if new built, you’re realistically looking at something like this.

Which was probably built in a factory, trailered to location and put on a base. Not far off a static caravan.

Out of interest, Anyone have a good idea of the actual cost of the structural/framing part of a 3-4 bed newbuild in the UK?

 

[BF-Bert]

Built:1925, last updated 2010.

The price in no way reflects the cost of building a new home today. You can buy really cheap homes in some places in northern England, that doesn’t reflect the cost to build them though, just the housing market in that particular area. It’s even worse in places like the US because living in small town nowherevill means you rely on local jobs. If they go no one will be interested in your house because it’s several hours from anywhere they could work.

See: https://www.homeadvisor.com/cost/architects-and-engineers/build-a-house/

Which is pretty much bang on the amount I put above. 2,000sqft home today will cost you around US$300,000 to build.

For £40k, if new built, you’re realistically looking at something like this.

Which was probably built in a factory, trailered to location and put on a base. Not far off a static caravan.

Out of interest, Anyone have a good idea of the actual cost of the structural/framing part of a 3-4 bed newbuild in the UK?

Timer frame for a 190m2 house would be about £70k

 

[Amp34]

Two things:
1. The required wind speeds to actually collapse a UK style twin block and brick wall with metal ties, 2x12 wooden beams, slate roof and 8 foot foundations... is a LOT higher than taking apart one of those houses in the Kansas properties link which I highly doubt would survive a standard winter Atlantic storm with 85+mph winds.
2. the damage is limited to brick the house, anyone inside and possibly cars parked outside. Where as, when one of those Kansas houses is ripped apart in a Tornado or large storm, large sharp parts of it will fly for miles at high speed causing damage to other properties and killing people for a considerable distance around.

I watched a video of a recent tornado, think it was last year. The video was from a school security camera. The doors blew in the windows were smashed by debris, parts of the roof lifted, but the brick building survived and protected the kids hiding inside. The hallways were full of debris etc. etc. It was a large violent tornado. The building was repairable. Normal wooden buildings and houses around it were completely leveled, turned into a strewn mass of wooden debris and nothing else.

You're making the mistake again in thinking that UK weather is somehow extreme relative to large parts of the rest of the world.

It's not. Kansas sits on the Prairies which means strong winds are pretty common. 60+mph winds will happen more regularly than most places in the UK for example. 70+mph winds aren't uncommon either. They also have to contend with things like golfball sized hail and the aforementioned tornadoes. For example, an article from this spring.

Severe storms are expected to sweep across the Kansas City area Wednesday evening bringing the possibility of damaging straight-line winds in excess of 70 mph and large hail.

https://www.kansascity.com/weather/article210300064.html

I used to think the same as you, before I moved here. Now I realise there are a lot more nuances than first glance. For example I'd put my money on a decent shingle roof surviving a proper hail storm better than a slate roof.

Wooden houses are standard in villages and towns up and down the eastern seaboard too. They don't get blown away in the Atlantic winter storms, which are just as ferocious as those on the west coast of Ireland and Scotland.

There's no doubting brick houses are stronger, but there's a point of diminishing returns. 1 foot thick stone walls are even stronger, but we don't build with them. Both a well built brick and well built wood building will survive everything but extreme weather (in which case if the roofs been ripped off the brick walls may well end up being condemned anyway), but wood has it's advantages of being cheaper, quicker to build, potentially more readily available (why build with clay that needs importing from thousands of miles away when you can build from wood from the forest next door?) and better insulating. It's difficult to get 6" of insulation in a brick wall for example, but it fits neatly in a 6x2 framed house (you can even remove any cold bridging by using 4x2 at closer intervals with 6 or even 8" base and top plates).

For the UK market the issue is going to be mortgages and insurance as already mentioned, rather than weather and wear and tear.

 

[Amp34]

Timer frame for a 190m2 house would be about £70k

I'm guessing most of the difference will be cost of materials?

Any idea what a brick "frame" would cost in comparison

 

[sovietspybob]

For reference my 220m2 frame cost around £26k delivered to site if i remember correctly, that's including all the steel we had for the large openings we wanted.

 

[BigT]

Sure I read somewhere that the life expectancy of UK timber framed houses is just 60 years.

Blimey. Mine’s done well to get to 600 years old then.

 

[ron3003]

Yours would be oak beams not the softwood used in todays shoeboxes.

 

[Amp34]

Blimey. Mine’s done well to get to 600 years old then.

Well yes. How many 600 year old houses are there left, and how many were originally built?

 

[Firestar_3x]

Plenty of 18th century barns left in the US, Oak will basically last forever if treated correctly.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I love threads like this where people with no idea throw in some random thoughts about warping etc.

Timber buildings are generally durable, relatively easy to maintain and ecologically friendly as wood is the only truly sustainable form of building material. The UK has proof of this with many fine examples still standing from the 15th century onwards. Timber framed buildings are also ideal in a cold climate where homes need to be able to be built fast (a typical timber frame house can be weather-tight in less than five days) and can be highly energy efficient. This naturally makes timber frame the most popular form of construction in Scotland.

The modern timber frame home differs from buildings built by our ancestors who used large section, solid hardwood oak frames. However, subject to quality building materials and techniques being used, timber can last indefinitely in the right conditions. Granted, it can be prone to wet and dry rot as well as damage by vermin but all this is preventable with proper maintenance. As for fire risk, it is not uncommon for a burnt out building to still have the charred timber frame left when all else has combusted! Again, it's very much down to the quality of the build and size and type of the wood sections used.

Most insurers consider a brick or similar outer with tiled roof as std construction. Whether the internal is block or timber frame isn't relevant. But you do need to check as some are a bit vague.

One of my mates was a architect (just retired) and he says that timber frame is often better structurally as its made to fine tolerance and has all loadings accurately understood. Blocks are much more difficult as its often down to the skill of the layer, if the muck is the right consistency (its often not), and whether its been affected by frost or similar. Because of the inherent risks you have to go ott on block as there are too many variables and they have to pretty much assume worst case, just in case.

 

[Pocah]

I must confess I am not sure why peeps are going on about houses falling down. I mean it's not exactly a common problem in the UK whether it be brick or wood. But remember that most modern timber frame houses have a brick outer shell in the UK so they are not completely wood. Timber constructions are somewhat less prone to damage during earthquakes but again they are not very common in the UK and once again, our timber frame are a combination of timber and brick so the argument doesn't really apply. Fact is that strength has little to do with it. I honestly think it comes down to personal choice. Some people like timber frame, some people like brick and block. Personally I prefer block but there you go, that's just me. I would even go so far as to say I wouldn't touch a timber frame with a barge-pole.

 

[Derek W]

I love threads like this where people with no idea throw in some random thoughts about warping etc.

Timber buildings are generally durable, relatively easy to maintain and ecologically friendly as wood is the only truly sustainable form of building material. The UK has proof of this with many fine examples still standing from the 15th century onwards. Timber framed buildings are also ideal in a cold climate where homes need to be able to be built fast (a typical timber frame house can be weather-tight in less than five days) and can be highly energy efficient. This naturally makes timber frame the most popular form of construction in Scotland.

The modern timber frame home differs from buildings built by our ancestors who used large section, solid hardwood oak frames. However, subject to quality building materials and techniques being used, timber can last indefinitely in the right conditions. Granted, it can be prone to wet and dry rot as well as damage by vermin but all this is preventable with proper maintenance. As for fire risk, it is not uncommon for a burnt out building to still have the charred timber frame left when all else has combusted! Again, it's very much down to the quality of the build and size and type of the wood sections used.

Most insurers consider a brick or similar outer with tiled roof as std construction. Whether the internal is block or timber frame isn't relevant. But you do need to check as some are a bit vague.

One of my mates was a architect (just retired) and he says that timber frame is often better structurally as its made to fine tolerance and has all loadings accurately understood. Blocks are much more difficult as its often down to the skill of the layer, if the muck is the right consistency (its often not), and whether its been affected by frost or similar. Because of the inherent risks you have to go ott on block as there are too many variables and they have to pretty much assume worst case, just in case.

^^ At least there is some common sense in this thread along with Maccapacca.

The bit i highlighted is dealt with in the regulations as its generally designed out during the build process. If there is any kind of rot / damage from vermin it would be more down to poor workmanship or poor maintenance by the owner.

1. Why mention America as a comparison....completely different and a truly pointless exercise.
2. Timber frames are going to float away in the wind......do roofs in England float away? No and they're made of timber. Unusually enough, in a timber frame the roof is tied to the frame and the frame is tied to the foundation so the structure isn't going anywhere. All of the projects I've worked on have extensive Engineering (although most are standard details) which take into account wind loadings appropriate for their geographical location.

 

[sovietspybob]

I must confess I am not sure why peeps are going on about houses falling down. I mean it's not exactly a common problem in the UK whether it be brick or wood. But remember that most modern timber frame houses have a brick outer shell in the UK so they are not completely wood. Timber constructions are somewhat less prone to damage during earthquakes but again they are not very common in the UK and once again, our timber frame are a combination of timber and brick so the argument doesn't really apply. Fact is that strength has little to do with it. I honestly think it comes down to personal choice. Some people like timber frame, some people like brick and block. Personally I prefer block but there you go, that's just me. I would even go so far as to say I wouldn't touch a timber frame with a barge-pole.

Interested to know why you wouldn't yourself?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

^^ At least there is some common sense in this thread along with Maccapacca.

The bit i highlighted is dealt with in the regulations as its generally designed out during the build process. If there is any kind of rot / damage from vermin it would be more down to poor workmanship or poor maintenance by the owner.

1. Why mention America as a comparison....completely different and a truly pointless exercise.
2. Timber frames are going to float away in the wind......do roofs in England float away? No and they're made of timber. Unusually enough, in a timber frame the roof is tied to the frame and the frame is tied to the foundation so the structure isn't going anywhere. All of the projects I've worked on have extensive Engineering (although most are standard details) which take into account wind loadings appropriate for their geographical location.

Yes sorry I think that does sound a bit dramatic (the bit you highlighted). I think instead of prone that the word potential would be more reflective.
Also what people fail to consider is that these are often designed and installed by the same people, so again to the same level of tolerance.

 

[Pocah]

Interested to know why you wouldn't yourself?

Two reasons, really, the main one is that I prefer working with block walls for any building and decorating. I am a devil for changing a house and I just prefer block construction for that. Second reason is that I lived in a timber frame house a while back and it was a pain. It creaked all the time as people moved about it in and over the years it slowly slumped so that eventually none of the doors would shut.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I think we need to clarify exactly what timber framing we are talking about here as i would say people are crossing the lines

I have a brick and block house, the the internal walls (other than one specific one thats brick in the middle) are carcassed. These tend to be the ones that suffer movement, I have exactly that issue on one door. These are non structural walls.
You get this in the vast majority of houses in the UK built for the last 30+ years. Virtually no one builds solid internal walls now.

Timber framed normal refers to the main outer structural walls. Yes sometimes they are also internal but for a STD house thats unlikely that all the walls are structural its simply unnecessary and just adds cost. They will normally be the same as a brick and block in that the majority of the internal walls are simply room dividers.
Its just as important in a timber framed as a block house to know if the internals are load bearing (structural) or not.

 

[PaulCa]

You're making the mistake again in thinking that UK weather is somehow extreme relative to large parts of the rest of the world.

I have to counter this and point out that the UK faces weather unique to only two places in the world. The UK (or rather the west shores of Europe) and the north west unitied status and canada.

People always wonder why the UK is obsessed with it's weather as if there was no reason to be. This is not true.

Being on the Eastern shore of an ocean presents unique weather in the Northern Hemisphere. The Eastern shores of the Atlantic in particular present unique weather due to the combination of the jet stream, artic cell and gulf stream and how they interact.

If you watch this you will note that constantly, all year round, the heat of the gulf stream creates energetic weather which runs up off the east coast of the US, gets picked up the jet stream, bumped up against the artic cell and spun up into Atlantic depressions which then slam into the UK. We get these every few weeks usually. Most of fairly beign, very few are "extreme", but they are nearly continuous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4mBYwBNULk

I note you are from Canada. The UK's provailent weather is much more like that of Vancouver and Alaska.

It may not be extreme in most instance of weather but it is prevailent and relentless. I am from Northern Ireland, so there is very little land between me and the ocean so we experience the full brunt of the Atlantic storms. Scotland gets it even worse as it too is exposed, but further north and storms that move further north tend to spin up higher winds as they interact with the artic cell.

So while we do not get hurricanes in Autumn (though we get the left overs quite often), what we do get is a constant stream of fairly nasty Atlantic depressions. They are lower energy, but much, much larger. Our storms do not last for a few hours and cover 20 miles, our storms last several days and cover 1000 miles.

In Ireland we get about 230 days a year with rain. A similar number of days will deliver winds of 30+mph. Storms with gusts of hurricane force happen several times a year, often accompanied with heavy rains and freezing temperatures. They last for days.

So not extreme, but persistent, common and severe.

Not all areas of the UK get the same weather. In particular England and Wales are mostly shadowed and shielded by Ireland. To a degree we act as their wind and rain break to take most of the guts out of the Atlantic storms. Scotland as mentioned takes the full brunt of it as does the west coast of ireland. Not even very much grows there, the west coast of ireland often looks like the surface of the moon with a bit of grass. Similar in many way to Alaska.

The plus point however is that gulf stream keeps the west coast of Ireland a few degrees warmer than it would be otherwise, or we would get weather much more like Alaska and Scandinavia.

The whole point of asking about wood framed buildings was a concern that short-termism would start to change the amount of property damage that occurs during these frequent events. I love lying in bed listening to my roof creak and crack in gales but only because I know I am in a house that was built to last the UK's weather.

It seems the wood construction in the UK is still partly controversial. It would require looking at statistics of storm property damage and how it compares to the more "Traditional" build standards.

Personally, I am in the proceeds of buying a house and I will make sure and check I am not buying a wooden framed house. There is too much risk in my view.

 

[PaulCa]

1. Why mention America as a comparison....completely different and a truly pointless exercise.
2. Timber frames are going to float away in the wind......do roofs in England float away? No and they're made of timber. Unusually enough, in a timber frame the roof is tied to the frame and the frame is tied to the foundation so the structure isn't going anywhere. All of the projects I've worked on have extensive Engineering (although most are standard details) which take into account wind loadings appropriate for their geographical location.

1. Because a lot of areas in America receive total destruction from similar events that in the UK cause virtually no damage. Often American houses are built to be cheap and disposable. If they get demolished by a storm, they just rebuild them. The comparison is in asking if the UK is going the same way, build them fast and cheap and rebuild them when they get destroyed or severally damaged in bad weather. A little bit of research showed me that the houses that come apart and become deadly shrapenel in the US are simply nailed together and it is the nails which get pulled out taking the building to pieces.

2. Roofs in the UK are not built the same they are in places in America. I may be corrected but they are locked into the stone work frame, use heavier beams and A-frames and most importantly they are covered in several tons of heavy slate or brick/clay slates.

Anyway, it seems it all comes down to the particular construction used. A high quality timer framed house will most likely survive the UKs weather for centuries, as will an average quality stone building. However... a poor quality, cheap, thrown up wooden frame probably wont.

My concern is more around our current political climate of short termism trying to solve the housing crisis with quick to build, non-durable prefab buildings and just create another housing crisis later down the line from poor durabilty or storm damage.

It seems most people do not believe this is the case.... except potentially some mortgage lenders who in a sense ultimately the ones take the finnancial risk of the builds.

 

[PaulCa]

Which is pretty much bang on the amount I put above. 2,000sqft home today will cost you around US$300,000 to build.

So this is apparently well over the average house price in the US to buy.
https://www.zillow.com/home-values/

 

[the_r_sole]

1. Because a lot of areas in America receive total destruction from similar events that in the UK cause virtually no damage. Often American houses are built to be cheap and disposable. If they get demolished by a storm, they just rebuild them. The comparison is in asking if the UK is going the same way, build them fast and cheap and rebuild them when they get destroyed or severally damaged in bad weather. A little bit of research showed me that the houses that come apart and become deadly shrapenel in the US are simply nailed together and it is the nails which get pulled out taking the building to pieces.

2. Roofs in the UK are not built the same they are in places in America. I may be corrected but they are locked into the stone work frame, use heavier beams and A-frames and most importantly they are covered in several tons of heavy slate or brick/clay slates.

Anyway, it seems it all comes down to the particular construction used. A high quality timer framed house will most likely survive the UKs weather for centuries, as will an average quality stone building. However... a poor quality, cheap, thrown up wooden frame probably wont.

My concern is more around our current political climate of short termism trying to solve the housing crisis with quick to build, non-durable prefab buildings and just create another housing crisis later down the line from poor durabilty or storm damage.

It seems most people do not believe this is the case.... except potentially some mortgage lenders who in a sense ultimately the ones take the finnancial risk of the builds.

there is so much wrong in this post I don't have the time to respond