Timber frame or brick & Block

[jack]

 

2 minutes ago, Dreadnaught said:

Out of interest, which timber-frame company did you use?

 

MBC Timberframe.

[Ian]

On 22/04/2018 at 12:47, Ian D said:

Have done loads of research but still can’t decide on a build method.

 

The biggest single advantage of timber frame over masonry is that you can build a weathertight shell much quicker, especially if the timber frame is part fabricated off site.

This can be a big advantage in areas of the UK such as Scotland, Wales etc where a particularly wet or cold climate can lead to long delays with masonry construction. For example, on my own timber frame build on a very awkward site on a steep hill in Wales, our shell construction only took 2 weeks.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Ian

[StructuralEngineer]

For a self build there's no real benefit in timber frame. Blockwork is much more durable and forgiving, and you could build quicker with block than timber anyway for a single dwelling. Housebuilders use timber frame because they can throw houses up quicker on big sites.

 

Personally I would go with SIPS or a steel frame, or a combination of both, and I would seriously consider not having a brick outer skin.

[K78]

1 hour ago, StructuralEngineer said:

For a self build there's no real benefit in timber frame. Blockwork is much more durable and forgiving, and you could build quicker with block than timber anyway for a single dwelling. Housebuilders use timber frame because they can throw houses up quicker on big sites.

 

Personally I would go with SIPS or a steel frame, or a combination of both, and I would seriously consider not having a brick outer skin.

 

When I was last on this forum sips seemed unpopular with most. I was considering Kingspan Tek at the time.

 

Can I ask why you prefer it to timberframe or masonry for self build?  

 

 

[jack]

3 hours ago, StructuralEngineer said:

 and you could build quicker with block than timber anyway for a single dwelling. 

 

Are you including design and in-factory manufacturing in making this comparison?

[bissoejosh]

I'm in the middle of both types of construction, a blockwork lower GF/basement level and a shortly arriving timber frame upper. Out of choice I'd ditch the blockwork. Putting up a building in 440x215mm pieces seems crazy to me. If you want a solid construction I'd definitely look into ICF as I see real advantages in it over both TF and blockwork. That isn't to say timber needs to feel lightweight, I think choice of insulation plays a big part here and we're going for cellulose.

 

As others have said if you do decide to go with block try to use pumped EPS bead insulation, it eliminates the issue of builders messing up the insulation and allows the build to continue almost regardless of weather. On mine we used full fill cavity batts and they are a pain, when it rains I cover up, I have to clean out the cavity and the batts take time to cut and fit around openings. EPS beads are done in a day and fill everywhere perfectly (in theory!).

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by bissoejosh

[K78]

I stumbled across this website earlier. 250mm cement fibreboard sips at a reasonable price. 

 

They will do foundations too. 

 

http://superiorsippanels.co.uk/

 

 

[jack]

12 hours ago, bissoejosh said:

If you want a solid construction I'd definitely look into ICF as I see real advantages in it over both TF and blockwork. 

 

If I were doing another build, ICF would be at the top of my list of construction techniques to research.

[epsilonGreedy]

15 hours ago, jack said:

 

Are you including design and in-factory manufacturing in making this comparison?

 

This point warrants more emphasis, the problem with timber frame is that more of your cash is handed out to middle class yappers and clipboard huggers. The very mention of a factory creating a bespoke manufactured item triggers all sorts of additional costs,  lurking at the factory's HQ will be the Vice President of gender equal opportunities, HR managers, the director of social media reputation, the senior director of Microsoft Power Point corporate standards and don't forget the posse of H&S managers.

 

The erection of a timber frame seems efficient but you are also paying hotel costs, for the secretary who booked the rooms and for the maintenance of an HGV vehicle fleet.

 

What can be more efficient than 3 blokes who have never attended a 3 day workshop on gender sensitivity training, turning up in a tatty transit van to lay bricks in good weather?

[PeterW]

18 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

This point warrants more emphasis, the problem with timber frame is that more of your cash is handed out to middle class yappers and clipboard huggers. The very mention of a factory creating a bespoke manufactured item triggers all sorts of additional costs,  lurking at the factory's HQ will be the Vice President of gender equal opportunities, HR managers, the director of social media reputation, the senior director of Microsoft Power Point corporate standards and don't forget the posse of H&S managers.

 

The erection of a timber frame seems efficient but you are also paying hotel costs, for the secretary who booked the rooms and for the maintenance of an HGV vehicle fleet.

 

What can be more efficient than 3 blokes who have never attended a 3 day workshop on gender sensitivity training, turning up in a tatty transit van to lay bricks in good weather?

 

From that I guess you’ve not been in a TF factory or manufacturer ...??

 

Construction of mainstream TF isn’t glamourous - it’s not all HufHaus and soya lattes ...

 

Depending on what you are building then both have their merits although if 3 blokes turned up on my site in a tatty transit the first question would be where’s your CICS cards and PPE.... which means they have been on training thankfully which should hopefully save their lives ...

 

I suppose it all depends on what you want as an end result ..?

[ToughButterCup]

@Ian D, have you thought about ICF?

Read my stuff on BH about it (most of tagged as  Durisol  ) : warts and all.  There are several ICF systems, Durisol isn't perfect, but then no system is.

[epsilonGreedy]

11 hours ago, PeterW said:

I suppose it all depends on what you want as an end result ..?

 

 

I want a habitable house within 12 months that represents value for money created at low project risk.

 

Going timber frame lowers project risk for a diy project managing self builder because much work is off loaded to the FT company but this comes at a ££ price. TF also telescopes onsite build times which reduces risk further. This is the main attraction of FT from my perspective, however costs seem to escalate as different suppliers and trades try to integrate and coordinate their work on a demanding schedule.

 

Consider the foundations for my brick and block house.

 

I phoned up Mr G last week on the recommendation of a local farmer, he said Mr G is the no. 1. man with a JCB locally. We met on site last Sunday just 4 days after I made initial contact, I gave Mr G my hand drawn foundation plan with linear calculations. He ignored my numbers and instead we paced out the location of the trenches. Mr G then sniffed the air for 20 seconds and said it would be £500 for the main house or £650 for the house and garage.

 

Going low tech with a traditional build saves money. Mr G knows the local build control inspector , "she's a good un". We will dig and discover and if extra trench depth is required Mr G will do a bit free of charge otherwise there will be an extra charge.

 

Going traditional means I feel confident enough to do my own setting out, so that is £500 saved, dig & discover means I have saved £3000 on ground condition exploration, tench fill means I will just need £300 of extra pro labour onsite on the day of the concrete pour.

[newhome]

I liked the fact that the TF company covered quite a lot so we didn't have separate architect or SE fees to pay for example, and we had someone assigned to 'project manage' it from the TF perspective who worked with us pretty well, took our wishes into account, and made some good suggestions. We were given different options to choose from, so we said oak skirting for example and were then sent options to choose from in relation to skirting style / height. Brochures arrived to allow us to choose the internal doors when we didn't like the ones in the original spec, and then when we still didn't like what was on offer they sourced more brochures and sent those when we explained in more detail exactly what we wanted. We also wanted a different staircase so they sent options for that, and then it was down to them to ensure that the dimensions of the staircase fitted etc. And when we changed our mind re the layout of the staircase mid spec so that we could fit 3 tall units into an alcove in the kitchen they were very accommodating and just changed the spec and the drawings without charging any extra. So yes, they may have been a bit more expensive than us ordering all the separate elements ourselves and either having the frame made on site or choosing to build in brick and block onsite, but any issue with what was supplied by the TF company was down to them and not us. If the staircase hadn't fitted for example it was their issue to address so it took some of the risk away. We didn't use the TF company at all for the construction (in fact they didn't offer it - they just gave us the name of a preferred supplier) so the main coordination of trades / scheduling was all down to us to get right. It just removed some of the risk of ordering the wrong things / sizes for some fairly major elements of the house. Working with someone who  clearly knew what they were doing when we were both novices was a good experience too. Of course it helps if you get someone you can work with easily but we were lucky from that perspective. And they couldn't have been uber expensive as even with choosing some of the more expensive options from the TF company we still managed to bring the build cost in at under £1000 per m2. 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by newhome

[bissoejosh]

52 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

  

Consider the foundations for my brick and block house.

  

I phoned up Mr G last week on the recommendation of a local farmer, he said Mr G is the no. 1. man with a JCB locally. We met on site last Sunday just 4 days after I made initial contact, I gave Mr G my hand drawn foundation plan with linear calculations. He ignored my numbers and instead we paced out the location of the trenches. Mr G then sniffed the air for 20 seconds and said it would be £500 for the main house or £650 for the house and garage.

  

Going low tech with a traditional build saves money. Mr G knows the local build control inspector , "she's a good un". We will dig and discover and if extra trench depth is required Mr G will do a bit free of charge otherwise there will be an extra charge.

  

Going traditional means I feel confident enough to do my own setting out, so that is £500 saved, dig & discover means I have saved £3000 on ground condition exploration, tench fill means I will just need £300 of extra pro labour onsite on the day of the concrete pour.

All of the above can be applied to a timber frame house. Foundations can be exactly the same if not smaller than those for a masonry construction.

 

Timber frames are about as traditional as you can get and certainly don't need to cost a huge amount. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by bissoejosh

[dpmiller]

there's a BIG difference between getting some blokey with a Jekub to price digging some trenches, and what might end up needing to be done.

 

And yes, ther's no reason why a TF base need be any more complex than block; you need block up to FFL anyway.

[ProDave]

13 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

This point warrants more emphasis, the problem with timber frame is that more of your cash is handed out to middle class yappers and clipboard huggers. The very mention of a factory creating a bespoke manufactured item triggers all sorts of additional costs,  lurking at the factory's HQ will be the Vice President of gender equal opportunities, HR managers, the director of social media reputation, the senior director of Microsoft Power Point corporate standards and don't forget the posse of H&S managers.

 

The erection of a timber frame seems efficient but you are also paying hotel costs, for the secretary who booked the rooms and for the maintenance of an HGV vehicle fleet.

 

What can be more efficient than 3 blokes who have never attended a 3 day workshop on gender sensitivity training, turning up in a tatty transit van to lay bricks in good weather?

This could not be further from the truth.

 

My timber frame was built in sections by a gang of 4 local joiners, in a rented farm steading (barn) about 3 miles away.  It was then brought to my site a few panels at a time on a trailer and erected by the same 4 joiners, using their own plant and machinery, with each returning to their homes, within a 10 mile radius each night.

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

I want a habitable house within 12 months that represents value for money created at low project risk.

 

Going timber frame lowers project risk for a diy project managing self builder because much work is off loaded to the FT company but this comes at a ££ price. TF also telescopes onsite build times which reduces risk further. This is the main attraction of FT from my perspective, however costs seem to escalate as different suppliers and trades try to integrate and coordinate their work on a demanding schedule.

 

Consider the foundations for my brick and block house.

 

I phoned up Mr G last week on the recommendation of a local farmer, he said Mr G is the no. 1. man with a JCB locally. We met on site last Sunday just 4 days after I made initial contact, I gave Mr G my hand drawn foundation plan with linear calculations. He ignored my numbers and instead we paced out the location of the trenches. Mr G then sniffed the air for 20 seconds and said it would be £500 for the main house or £650 for the house and garage.

 

Going low tech with a traditional build saves money. Mr G knows the local build control inspector , "she's a good un". We will dig and discover and if extra trench depth is required Mr G will do a bit free of charge otherwise there will be an extra charge.

 

Going traditional means I feel confident enough to do my own setting out, so that is £500 saved, dig & discover means I have saved £3000 on ground condition exploration, tench fill means I will just need £300 of extra pro labour onsite on the day of the concrete pour.

I dug my own foundations and did my own setting out.  We had already established the ground conditions (I dug 3 deep test pits and the structural engineer looked at what came out and made a decision on the foundation type and depth.)

 

I had set out my own trenches for the dig and the bricklayer who did the underbuild confirmed it was spot on.

[Simplysimon]

On 23/04/2018 at 06:53, nod said:

You make a good point The TF go up fast Somtines to fast I work on both It amazes me how far some of the TF can be out of aquare and out of plumb They usually blame the slab construction But seem to get away with it As it’s to difficult to alter afterwards 

 

get someone that knows how to use a spirit level

 

On 24/04/2018 at 14:02, StructuralEngineer said:

For a self build there's no real benefit in timber frame.

2

unless you're a joiner of course

 

14 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

This point warrants more emphasis, the problem with timber frame is that more of your cash is handed out to middle class yappers and clipboard huggers. The very mention of a factory creating a bespoke manufactured item triggers all sorts of additional costs,  lurking at the factory's HQ will be the Vice President of gender equal opportunities, HR managers, the director of social media reputation, the senior director of Microsoft Power Point corporate standards and don't forget the posse of H&S managers.

 training, turning up in a tatty transit van to lay bricks in good weather?

2

i recently went round a  timber kit manufacturer http://c-c-g.co.uk/divisions/ no connection other than professional knowledge gathering and found a well run operation building houses for councils to passive spec small developments https://www.dormontestate.com/dormont-park/ again no connection other than a visit to see a passive house prior to my build. strangely enough non of the above were there.

 

14 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

What can be more efficient than 3 blokes who have never attended a 3 day workshop on gender sensitivity training, turning up in a tatty transit van to lay bricks in good weather?

1

a professional, trained and experienced workforce.

 

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

I want a habitable house within 12 months that represents value for money created at low project risk.

 

Going timber frame lowers project risk for a diy project managing self builder because much work is off loaded to the FT company but this comes at a ££ price. TF also telescopes onsite build times which reduces risk further. This is the main attraction of FT from my perspective, however costs seem to escalate as different suppliers and trades try to integrate and coordinate their work on a demanding schedule.

 

Consider the foundations for my brick and block house.

 

I phoned up Mr G last week on the recommendation of a local farmer, he said Mr G is the no. 1. man with a JCB locally. We met on site last Sunday just 4 days after I made initial contact, I gave Mr G my hand drawn foundation plan with linear calculations. He ignored my numbers and instead we paced out the location of the trenches. Mr G then sniffed the air for 20 seconds and said it would be £500 for the main house or £650 for the house and garage.

 

Going low tech with a traditional build saves money. Mr G knows the local build control inspector , "she's a good un". We will dig and discover and if extra trench depth is required Mr G will do a bit free of charge otherwise there will be an extra charge.

 

Going traditional means I feel confident enough to do my own setting out, so that is £500 saved, dig & discover means I have saved £3000 on ground condition exploration, tench fill means I will just need £300 of extra pro labour onsite on the day of the concrete pour.

good luck for your build.

[nod]

I recently plastered out two virtually self builds One TF The other traditional 

I asked the question of cost so far 

TF £110000 Traditional £70000

Which perhaps explains why mainstream house builders don’t do many nowadays. Also I You would limit your market As some people will always want bricks

Another was that the TF house was started seven weeks after the tradition and had caught up by pre plaster So that’s something worth considering 

[newhome]

1 hour ago, nod said:

 

I recently Platered out two virtually self builds One TF The other traditional 

I asked the question of cost so far 

TF £110000 Traditional £70000

 

 

But the TF company would have invoiced all their costs by then so things like internal doors, skirting, window cills, coving, fitted wardrobes, linen cupboard shelves etc would all have been paid for by that stage in the TF example. In my case anyway. Now I know that doesn’t add up to 40k but you’re not comparing like with like, and ultimately from a pure cost perspective the only figure that counts is the final figure at the end. 

 

 

[epsilonGreedy]

10 hours ago, bissoejosh said:

All of the above can be applied to a timber frame house. Foundations can be exactly the same if not smaller than those for a masonry construction.

 

 

Why then did @JSHarrisstrive for mm perfection with his passive slab prior to the TF erection team arriving on site.

[epsilonGreedy]

49 minutes ago, newhome said:

 

But the TF company would have invoiced all their costs by then so things like internal doors, skirting, window cills, coving, fitted wardrobes, linen cupboard shelves etc would all have been paid for by that stage in the TF example. In my case anyway. Now I know that doesn’t add up to 40k but you’re not comparing like with like, and ultimately from a pure cost perspective the only figure that counts is the final figure at the end. 

 

 

The problem with this debate is that pro TF posters use their own diverse definitions of TF to prove their point. At one end of the scale we have @ProDave who got a bare bones (I assume) TF structure fabricated 3 miles down the road in a rented barn prior to doing most of the build solo diy. At the other end of the spectrum we have wealthy Home County types who jump in their 17 plate Porsche Cayenne on a Friday evening drive out to a £300 per night boutique country hotel and attend a weekend Potton Homes self build advice symposium. On Saturday evening while quaffing an expensive bottle of red they tick boxes on the TF kit order sheet and debate matters like chrome-faced USB enabled sockets, then they drive home glowing in their new status as self-builders and wait for the front door key to be handed over.

 

Quoting selective examples from such a diverse range of self build experiences will create an impression that TF is the superior option and obscure the fact that brick & block is the industry norm for small scale development.

Edited April 26, 2018 by epsilonGreedy

[Ian]

@epsilonGreedy

his build, like many others here, has the underfloor heating pipes buried in the concrete floor slab without the sand/cement screed topping that is traditionally used.

 

The concrete slab therefore needs to be laid to a high degree of accuracy as the floor finish goes straight on top of the slab.

 

@JSHarris timber frame is also built straight off the slab edge rather than using separate foundations which also means good accuracy is needed.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Ian

[epsilonGreedy]

2 hours ago, nod said:

I recently Platered out two virtually self builds One TF The other traditional 

I asked the question of cost so far 

TF £110000 Traditional £70000

 

 

The timber frame cost calculator at this web site illustrates how the costs build up.

 

http://www.timber-frame-suppliers.co.uk/timber-frame-self-build-cost-calculator/

 

Maybe the fundamental issue is that TF attracts those who want something closer to a turnkey self build experience and so the industry has moulded itself to this market demand. The turnkey self builder is probably less price sensitive, time poor, cash rich and more risk adverse, as a result management costs creep in and create an impression that TF is fundamentally more expensive. 

[billt]

10 hours ago, bissoejosh said:

Timber frames are about as traditional as you can get and certainly don't need to cost a huge amount. 

 

Not in the British Isles, maybe in the US.

 

Timber frame of the sort being discussed here, frames made with small section timber is only about 100 years old.Traditional UK timber framing of massive structural timbers with infilled panels is a completely different system and, in my view completely unsuitable for a house intended to meet modern requirements, despite it's aesthetic attractions.

 

14 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

The problem with this debate is that pro FT posters use their own diverse definitions of TF to prove their point. At one end of the scale we have @ProDave who got a bare bones (I assume) TF structure fabricated 3 miles down the road in a rented barn prior to doing most of the build solo diy. At the other end of the spectrum we have wealthy Home County types who jump in their 17 plate Porsche Cayenne on a Friday evening drive out to a £300 per night boutique country hotel and attend a weekend Potton Homes self build advice symposium. On Saturday evening while quaffing an expensive bottle of red they tick boxes on the TF kit order sheet and debate matters like chrome-faced USB enabled sockets, then they drive home glowing in their new status as self-builders and wait for the front door key to be handed over.

 

Quoting selective examples from such a diverse range of self build experiences will create an impression that TF is the superior option and obscure the fact that brick & block is the industry norm for small scale development.

 

And here's the problem. I've no doubt that very good houses can be built with either system and probably at similar cost; which you choose depends very much on how you want to go about the build and how much involvement you have. For instance, if I were to build with my own hands I would most likely use timber frame (constructed on site) as I have no brick laying skills.If using someone else to build the choice is more open, and to some extent dependent on the external finish you want. If you re happy with render or cladding (I think they both have issues - render seems very prone to mould growth and timber cladding suffers that and discolouration unless it's painted which leads to life long maintenance), then TF is the obvious choice. If you want a brick or stone finish then it seems more rational to me to build the whole thing with masonry.

 

There's no simple answer.