Timber frame or brick & Block

[LA3222]

8 minutes ago, PeterW said:

 

As someone who has been around the industry a while, I don’t think that is the case. Spotting errors in block work can be more difficult as mortar joints can hide all sorts of issues - whilst the human body can sense a 2 degree slope, the human eye cannot identify a 2 degree line out of true. 

 

What a number of these posts are illustrating is the importance of project management, and using a PM who has plenty of relevant experience. Trust is great, but it needs to be based on experience and a common understanding. 

Peter in Lizzies case would you really say that she should have had a PM considering the glowing reviews the company she went with have received from other members on this forum.

 

If I was to pay a premium price for their services then off the back of what I have read it is safe to say I would not question their competence and would be gobsmacked at the poor standards that were delivered.

 

I don't want to turn this into a bashing of particular people/companies but I think that suggesting to people whom have had bad experiences that it would have been prevented had an experienced PM been involved is a little unfair - each situation should be analysed on its own and in Lizzies case I think she wasn't wrong to operate under the belief that gold standard was paid for and therefore gold standard would be delivered.

 

Anyway - it seems that the common theme to the whole self build journey is that even when not expected things can and do go wrong regardless of the build system employed.  The only thing you can do is arm yourself with as much knowledge as possible and then hopefully you are able to identify the issues before they become too costly to rectify.

[Juj]

I'm surprised the choice is only Timber frame or brick and block.  ICF ticks all of the boxes (Quick/ Solid/ Air Tight etc)  AND is DIY'able!

[PeterW]

28 minutes ago, LA3222 said:

Peter in Lizzies case would you really say that she should have had a PM considering the glowing reviews the company she went with have received from other members on this forum.

 

If I was to pay a premium price for their services then off the back of what I have read it is safe to say I would not question their competence and would be gobsmacked at the poor standards that were delivered.

 

I don't want to turn this into a bashing of particular people/companies but I think that suggesting to people whom have had bad experiences that it would have been prevented had an experienced PM been involved is a little unfair - each situation should be analysed on its own and in Lizzies case I think she wasn't wrong to operate under the belief that gold standard was paid for and therefore gold standard would be delivered.

 

Anyway - it seems that the common theme to the whole self build journey is that even when not expected things can and do go wrong regardless of the build system employed.  The only thing you can do is arm yourself with as much knowledge as possible and then hopefully you are able to identify the issues before they become too costly to rectify.

 

Lizzie had a PM.

 

First port of call would be the PM followed by his PI insurer as he should have picked this up not the client. Irrespective of whether the contractor did his job, buck stops with the P - that’s what you pay them to do. 

 

Whilst I also would expect a minimum standard too, it’s about how the situation is resolved by the supplier and from what I understand this was fixed later in the build. 

 

As as with anything, research is paramount and I agree that you need to do as much as possible to arm yourself with the facts. As I always say, the only stupid questions are the ones that don’t get asked. 

 

 

 

 

[Gone West]

44 minutes ago, PeterW said:

 

 the human eye cannot identify a 2 degree line out of true. 

 

Really! On a 10m frontage that would be near enough 350mm out, I'm sure I could spot that.

[lizzie]

3 minutes ago, PeterW said:

 

Lizzie had a PM.

 

First port of call would be the PM followed by his PI insurer as he should have picked this up not the client. Irrespective of whether the contractor did his job, buck stops with the P - that’s what you pay them to do. 

 

Whilst I also would expect a minimum standard too, it’s about how the situation is resolved by the supplier and from what I understand this was fixed later in the build. 

 

As as with anything, research is paramount and I agree that you need to do as much as possible to arm yourself with the facts. As I always say, the only stupid questions are the ones that don’t get asked. 

 

 

 

 

The TF supplier did the slab and frame. The  'fix' was for about 140 bags self leveller and labour for floorlayer to put it down - that mostly dealt with dips and humps on the slab inside the house....it cost more in the end and as floorlayer said he could never get it level he only try and get it 'flat'.  Lopsided out of square frame was never addressed and we have had to compensate for this ourselves with cosmetic treatment on elevations and packing under top roof trusses where dip was in flat deck etc . It has cost us a lot of time and money. I guess once frame was up not much could be done but as far as I know no offer to attempt to rectify that was ever made. 

 

I really don't want to reopen what was a fairly horrific experience for me in more ways than one.

 

There are complications with the PM/TF supplier relationship that I was unaware of at the time (and that is a relationship that is ongoing) . 

 

I just want to put it to bed no-one is going to do anything for me for all the problems/shoddy work. I am just left put of pocket with a sour taste about those involved. I can only say that without the help of my superstar carpenter and one or two others (and you guys on here)  I truly do not know where I would have ended up with this (in the loony bin I suspect...is that expression PC now?)

 

I know where the issues lay in terms of the TF but the outside world would not know now unless they looked hard and structurally it is sound so I am trying to leave it behind me and focus on what is now (to my eye) a very beautiful house that I am immensely pleased with... we got there in spite of not because of too......just wish sorting all these cock ups had not cost us so much stress, extra time and £'s.

 

I feel foolish - yes I was naive and trusting but no more - If ever I am mad enough to do this again I will use brick and block as I have more faith in it as something I could look at myself and check as it was happening.

[LA3222]

I think we could debate until the cows come home about where responsibility lies during a build and which system is best.

 

It's all horses for courses and the build type will inherently depend on each individuals requirements/taste.

 

Responsibility is a tricky one.  As the purse holder ultimately checking everything probably falls to the self builder regardless of whether you have a PM or not - once you hand over the cash are you essentially saying you are happy with the standard? If not happy then why pay? 

 

Again this isn't straightforward either - a lot of the time you have to pony up the cash to actually get the goods/service in the first place and then what? Small claims court if there are unremediated issues?

 

I do believe there are times where some members have fallen foul of bad service where it is more than reasonable to believe that the service would have been good and others have taken the line that the self builder should have checked.  I don't necessarily agree with that view but hey, such is life.

 

Nothing's ever black and white....which can be attested to by the countless healthy? debates buried away within the numerous threads of this forum.

 

As long as there is the freedom to highlight the good, bad and ugly of members various experiences then it will ensure that future self builders (Myself uncluded) can at least learn from the painful lessons others may have endured.

 

?

 

[PeterW]

Thanks @lizzie - appreciate that update on what sounds like was a difficult time. Glad you are enjoying the new house though !

[joe90]

53 minutes ago, lizzie said:

I feel foolish 

 

I don’t think you should feel foolish, had, maybe, by people not doing their job properly.

[PeterW]

18 minutes ago, LA3222 said:

Responsibility is a tricky one.  As the purse holder ultimately checking everything probably falls to the self builder regardless of whether you have a PM or not - once you hand over the cash are you essentially saying you are happy with the standard? If not happy then why pay? 

 

The contract should be the point where responsibility is assigned and I would have (and have done) no hesitation in going after a PM and ultimately a PMs PI insurer.  You have contracted with them to provide a service to you -that is where responsibilities lie. 

 

Handing over the cash isn’t the end of the transaction and it’s why retention’s on large value contracts are key.

 

However I would caution that in most (not all) contracts you are not in a position to challenge unless payment has been made in line with the contact due to title and enacting the full contract under English law. 

[LA3222]

3 minutes ago, PeterW said:

 

The contract should be the point where responsibility is assigned and I would have (and have done) no hesitation in going after a PM and ultimately a PMs PI insurer.  You have contacted with them to provide a service to you -that is where responsibilities lie. 

 

Handing over the cash isn’t the end of the transaction and it’s why retention’s on large value contracts are key.

 

However I would caution that in most (not all) contracts you are not in a position to challenge unless payment has been made in line with the contact due to title and enacting the full contract under English law. 

I get what you are saying.  The reality may not be quite so straightforward though.

 

Your house is built demonstrably wonky but you don't realise until way after the fact it's been built.  The onus lies with the self builder to take initiate legal action - at what cost both financially and mentally? Is it worth it to the individual? Can they even afford to take legal action?  If they do and win, then what?  Does the wonky house get pulled down and rebuilt? If so how much further stress is this going to put on the self builder?  Are they married with kids? Does this then impact on family life or does the self builder just suck it up and get on with life in which case the dodgy contractor has won?

 

Nothing's as simple as you portray it Peter and I imagine you would agree to a certain extent.

 

A colleague of mine took legal action against a builder, after many months he won.  The builder went bankrupt and no financial recompense was ever forthcoming.  My colleague was left with a hollow victory and legal fees to pay.

 

He even got the sheriff's involved - had to pay them to do so only to be told there was nothing to recover.  An absolute waste of time, money and energy.

 

 

 

[PeterW]

I get all the questions - and the comments - but given there is a PM involved and they should have PI insurance, that’s the starting point.

 

I also get the point around someone having assets to pursue and I’ve been on both ends of this so understand why it’s a decision point you need to make. 

 

Self building is stressful as it is - adding in legal action on top is equally so and sometimes you let it go but other times there is a place for a pointy legal stick...

[Jeremy Harris]

There's talk of a "gold standard" here, which I think is wholly incorrect.  The "gold standard" in terms of timber frame companies are people like Huf House, at around £4,000/m².  A frame company that supplies and erects the foundation and frame for around £415/m² (which is around what ours cost) is, frankly, right at the budget end of high performance timber frame and foundation suppliers.  They don't pretend to be anything other than what they are, and do need some project managing, as I and everyone else has learned.  If you don't want to project manage, or employ and independent project manager that you know little about, then go for someone like Huf House, who will pretty much manage every aspect of the build.

 

I'd just add that our house was built be the same company and all of their work is damned near flawless.  Mind you, I was on site practically every day, even if only for an hour or so, just to make sure things were OK, and I did pick up a handful of things that only I, as PM, would have spotted, and so they never turned into problems as they were caught very early on.

 

 

[LA3222]

34 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

There's talk of a "gold standard" here, which I think is wholly incorrect.  The "gold standard" in terms of timber frame companies are people like Huf House, at around £4,000/m².  A frame company that supplies and erects the foundation and frame for around £415/m² (which is around what ours cost) is, frankly, right at the budget end of high performance timber frame and foundation suppliers.  They don't pretend to be anything other than what they are, and do need some project managing, as I and everyone else has learned.  If you don't want to project manage, or employ and independent project manager that you know little about, then go for someone like Huf House, who will pretty much manage every aspect of the build.

 

I'd just add that our house was built be the same company and all of their work is damned near flawless.  Mind you, I was on site practically every day, even if only for an hour or so, just to make sure things were OK, and I did pick up a handful of things that only I, as PM, would have spotted, and so they never turned into problems as they were caught very early on.

 

 

I think our opinions diverge here somewhat Jeremy.  As a relatively new member of this forum there is a lot of information within these here walls about your supplier and I am left with the impression that these are big dogs in the TF world offering high performance houses at passive level standards and for a premium price.

 

In addition there are a hell of a lot of glowing endorsements offered by others to support that view.  To suggest otherwise seems a little disingenuous to me (just my opinion).

 

I would challenge anyone to read this forum with a non partisan mindset and not come to the same conclusion.  I certainly see them as offering "gold standard"....Huf Haus we will call "platinum"?

 

It's amusing how this thread has exploded somewhat from its original theme - I have just finished reading a 2016 thread Jeremy which you may recall - about Actis? foil insulation (or as you said "snake oil" ?) Just goes to show that there were disagreements back then just as much as there are now!

 

Free and healthy debate is always good, if I'm ever wrong then so be it...... I'm not very good at conceding defeat though so bear with me because it takes a while☺️ 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by LA3222
To change 2106 to 2016 - to my knowledge Jeremy is not a time traveller?

[LA3222]

As an aside I'm building in block so have no vested interest in TF one way or the other.  I just so happen to be argumentative and stubborn ?so will throw out a counter argument if I disagree with something - no offence is ever intended though!?

[Jeremy Harris]

22 minutes ago, LA3222 said:

I think our opinions diverge here somewhat Jeremy.  As a relatively new member of this forum there is a lot of information within these here walls about your supplier and I am left with the impression that these are big dogs in the TF world offering high performance houses at passive level standards and for a premium price.

 

In addition there are a hell of a lot of glowing endorsements offered by others to support that view.  To suggest otherwise seems a little disingenuous to me (just my opinion).

 

I would challenge anyone to read this forum with a non partisan mindset and not come to the same conclusion.  I certainly see them as offering "gold standard"....Huf Haus we will call "platinum"?

 

It's amusing how this thread has exploded somewhat from its original theme - I have just finished reading a 2016 thread Jeremy which you may recall - about Actis? foil insulation (or as you said "snake oil" ?) Just goes to show that there were disagreements back then just as much as there are now!

 

Free and healthy debate is always good, if I'm ever wrong then so be it...... I'm not very good at conceding defeat though so bear with me because it takes a while☺️ 

 

 

 

There's no doubt about the performance, but please bear in mind that we finished our passive house to a reasonably high standard (solid oak joinery throughout, mid-range kitchen and bathrooms, mix of travertine stone flooring and bamboo) for around £1380/m².  That's pretty typical, "just meets building regs", type cost for a self-build, and for that we have a house that meets (in fact slightly exceeds) the PHI standard.  Most of that is down to using a budget PH foundation and frame supplier.  No one came even vaguely close to their price for the performance - the closest we had was a SIPs supplier who was a PITA to deal with and was going to cost around 50% more, without including the passive slab foundation.

 

If you want to spec a "gold standard", then I think you MUST include companies that provide a full, project managed, service.  Touchwood springs to mind as one such supplier, but they are a heck of a lot more expensive than we paid.  I agree Huf House are really in a league of their own, but if we stick to comparing companies that will supply and install just a PH spec foundation and frame for, say, under £600/m², leaving the client to arrange all project management, design, architect or PM supervision, etc, then how many companies are there to choose from?

 

Switch to brick and block and I don't think there is a single company anywhere in the UK that will guarantee PH levels of airtightness and performance at that sort of price level.  There certainly wasn't when we were looking around, the closest were Potton, who were just starting to dip their toes into PH, had built one (I think) and we were looking at prices around 30% more than we wanted to pay, for a house with overall slightly poorer performance and without all the solid oak joinery.

[LA3222]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

 Most of that is down to using a budget PH foundation and frame supplier.  No one came even vaguely close to their price for the performance 

 

 

Ok I'll concede that if compared on a like for like the package they offer is cheap when compared to a direct competitor offering the same standards, so in that regard you could argue they are the 'budget' option. 

 

I think the gold standard perception is a consequence of my own observations being influenced by the numerous threads where others have given positive feedback from their own experiences.

 

I do feel that when reading such reviews there is little to counterbalance the argument the other way. It is this lack I think that can lull the unwary into having false expectations of the service to be expected - which could ultimately lead to oversight not being what it perhaps should be and the issues that can develop from there.

 

I think we can probably distill all of this down to two things:

 

1.  Things can and do go wrong with builds regardless of what build system is utilised.

 

2.  As the purse holder you MUST protect your own interests.  Everyone wants your cash - only YOU want a quality build.

 

Jamie

Edited August 2, 2018 by LA3222
sic

[Onoff]

I've only visited one self built passive esque place. (TF, icynene filled I believe).  Not a big name TF company either I  don't think? The attention to detail imo was second to none. That's down to the tenacity and vision of the self builder in question imo. They're not in it for a quick buck for a start. Maybe it's all about leaving a  legacy, self satisfaction, peace of mind etc. Equally it's about the control you excercise over trades that you do use. It exceeds ph standards I believe.

[lizzie]

I think costs have moved on since @JSHarris build. Last year ours was about half as much again as Jeremys quoted psm price for frame/slab. They were not the cheapest quote nor were they the most expensive. Price was not the decider for us I preferred another which was more expensive but we were talked into having the one we went with on their good customer reviews and track record but sadly in our case it was not as it should be guess there are always some....I once had a ‘Friday afternoon’ car.......maybe thats what I got in house terms who knows

[jack]

1 hour ago, lizzie said:

I think costs have moved on since @JSHarris build. 

 

You're not the first person to have mentioned this...

[dpmiller]

certainly for my installed, insulated frame kit I found MBC much dearer in a like for like comparison.

[joe90]

14 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Mind you, I was on site practically every day, even if only for an hour or so, just to make sure things were OK, and I did pick up a handful of things that only I, as PM and customer would have spotted, and so they never turned into problems as they were caught very early on.

 

Likewise i project managed our build, our builder was brilliant but like Jeremy found a couple of little issues that would have become bigger if not spotted at the time. My wife (who is bitter because she still works and I am retired!) said she could project manage our build but without building knowledge she would not necessarily see problems developing. I agree with Peter, a good PM with insurance is the way to go if you are not conversant with building yourself.

[TerryE]

@Lizzie, we used MBC like you for both the slab and the frame. It sounds like you had your unfair share of problems arising from quality issues during the laying of the slab.  In our case, I didn't have a PM, but my wife Jan and I did this all ourselves, and we monitored the progress on a daily basis during both the slab work and the frame erection.   In both phases (as we have previously discussed on the forum), we found a major thermal design flaw in the slab and another issue with the frame.  If either had been left undetected then like you we might have had similarly serious defects to air, but in both cases I picked the issue and discussed it with the TF company's PM and agreed remediation; doing this immediately  involved minor rework. 

 

Also after the slab was finished I double-checked all of the linear and diagonal measurements, and used my Dumpy to check levels.  The maximum error on the line measurements was about 5mm; the maximum off-level was a 3-4mm slump along the centre of one of the gable walls, and the placement of one of the foul water risers was about 2cm out.  However this was all within acceptable tolerances so we knew that the TF erection could proceed. 

 

I feel that the root of this issue is the culture of poor on-site quality assurance in the (domestic) building industry.  IMO, this is true across all construction methods.  Things can and do go wrong, but the impacts will be small if such errors are picked up immediately and rectified there and then.  IMO, your PM should have also done this sort of check on the slab before TF erection and identified the defect at this stage.  It would have been fairly straightforward to remedy this at this stage with maybe a 1-2 week delay on the TF erection and you wouldn't have had all of the consequential issues with trying to erect a TF on an untrue slab.

 

Jan and I have a TF house; we are absolutely delighted with it, and have no regrets about this choice.   Since we did all of the interior work less the boarding out and electrics, one thing that we found amazing was that we went from a bare slab to weather-tight house that you could lock up in 8  working days.  Also as the interior had over 18 months to dry out before we moved in we've had absolutely no issues with movement and cracking in the plasterwork.

 

Reading this thread top-to-bottom, there has been a lot of negative comment on this thread from proponents of method A pointing out a lot of  issues with method B, all based on street tales rather than evidence.  (This clearly doesn't apply in your case, Lizzie.)  IMO, this is about as relevant  as me spouting off about the "problems" of being a woman -- how on earth am I qualified to do this?

Edited August 3, 2018 by TerryE

[Brickforce69]

In any construction trade it’s all down to the individual tradesman what standard you get. Block built or timber frame both have their merits but if your bricklayer/joiner’s a numptie your on a hiding to nothing!

I'm a bricklayer myself and I’ve built around some dodgy kits, 50 mm off the plumb from floor to eaves but I’m sure there are some bricklaying horrors to match

 

 

 

 

 

[puntloos]

Let me know if I'm missing a more recent thread but I figured I'd resurrect this one since it covers a little what's on my mind. Context being our Architect telling his gut preference for B+B rather than "TF" (any variant, ICF, SIPS etc etc included). 

 

As far as I can summarize this thread so far, and when I say 'TF' I again mean all variants, rather than some specific brand or technology
 

General TF Pros:

- Ultraquick 'slab to airtight' stage.

  - To me this is quite important, but it's more a gut feeling thing.. it just 'feels' wrong to have some open house being rained soggy with wet cement. The more this can be limited the better, but perhaps not a massive deal.

- Precision

  - Clearly the TF design can also be screwed up but especially with a bunch of experts looking at this, this can be done with a high degree of certainty.

  - Reason why this matters:

      - Disagreements: Many annoying situations arise when people start to deviate from the plan, things move slightly to the left or right and suddenly things don't align, it's your fault no it's mine etc.

      - Airtightness/Insulation: much easier to get airtight, it is 'close to airtight' by default rather than something brickies will have to pay close attention to at all times. (wheras their incentive is a lot more towards speed)

 

Neutrals:

- Cost

  - Sounds like the price depends a lot on what you compare to what, and it's super tough to compare apples to apples, but in the end, while one or the other might win out, I think the variations between companies/builders and offers varies more than between 'philosophies'. maybe TF  is slightly pricier because it is good sense to make triple-sure you have everything right before going onsite, hiring a 3rd set of eyes to prevent surprises might cost you a cool 15,000. 

- Total build time

  - Because increased pressure to get it completely right, it takes more design time

  - But when ready, it's built quick. Evens out (mostly)?

- External sound insulation

  - Apparently, keeping out the sound from outside is pretty easy with TF

- Experience of the workforce

  - @epsilonGreedy seems to emphasize this, and it's clearly true that 'traditional' - by definition - is done more often historically. I call this neutral because while indeed giving an builder a massive flatpack and the ikea  style 'screw this to this' instruction leaflet is a recipe for disaster, but an experienced builder will be absolutely fine. 

 

General TF Cons:

- Corrections onsite hard/costly

  - IF something is askew onsite, you are in trouble. If the TF design or the slab was shoddy, weird stuff has to be done. 

- Internal Noisiness

   - Not insurmountable, but because TF just has less 'heft' it is easier to move, which means sound travels easier. 

   - As a result, extra hard work needs to be done to make sure the house is quiet.  As I understand it ICF might be the optimal one here, but if I remember correctly it might be hard to find, perhaps with Brexit doubly so? 

- Underfloor heating

  - Still not quite sure if this is a myth but some extra care needs to be done to allow the 1st floor be able to even carry the UFH pipes, slabs, waterworks etc.

 

 

Philosophical

A lot of discussion here is going on about risk, and a there seem to be two philosophies:

1/ Building is messy, but a skilled brickie/PM can steer the ship easily into calm waters whatever happens.

2/ Let's prevent any chance of messiness, and while the requirements for skills are not gone, they have definitely shifted away from gut feelings to precision, meticulousness, etc

 

Which, to me, kind of comes down to "Who do you trust". If you know yourself and/or your builders, you will be able to make a call on if they can either be meticulous, or skilled navigators of choppy waters. And if you don't trust the "3D computer fanciness" design will be done properly beforehand, or perhaps even that the foundation is done so poorly that a TF will almost literally fall off, where a brickie can compensate for a poor foundation. 

 

One thing I will say - I work in computer software and for me, and my philosophy, I have seen the #2 approach work very well as long as someone in the chain is strongly skilled and/or incentivised to 'lose sleep over' upfront precision/design quality.

 

Thoughts? Comments? Anything important I missed? Pointers to different discussion where I should've posted?  Please do shout.

Edited September 26, 2020 by puntloos

[Big Jimbo]

I am currently thinking of whether to build in Block and Block........Timber frame, with external Blockwork......... Or just timber frame, clad up top with Cement Board, and rendered on the Bottom half. I would rather build in just timber. Wood I beams would be great for walls and roof. The biggest problem i have is re-sale. I know that these days insurance can be just the same for standard and non standard construction. I am however concerned that somebody looking to get a mortgage on a house that is considered "Non standard construction" could be limited, and that might put them off buying my house . That and the though that non standard (through perhaps lack of understanding) might put them off altogether. I don't want to limit my end market if i decide to sell and move on.