House price with time per construction method

[MikeStout]

Timber frame seems to be getting ground and is or will be very soon the most popular construction method in this country. In Scandinavia and the US it is already the case. Still, frankly, I have my doubts.

Yet, being a rational person I wonder if there is a rational reason to say that frame houses are, after all, not so practical?

For instance, how do they hold price with time as compered to the brick and stone? Let's say in 30-50 years? I heard that in the USA it is generally assumed that these house should be demolished in 50 years time? Is this true?

And by timber frame I don't mean "post & beam" made of massive structural posts but frames made with small section timber.

 

[^woody^]

Numpty buyers don't actually know or appreciate what they are buying.

Timber frame only benefits the builder.

It's best not to compare UK construction with other countries. Termites come top mind.

 

[John D v2.0]

You can get better insulation with timber frame, also it's cheaper to build. Modern timber is pretty well treated and detailing and damp proofing in theory should keep things dry and in good condition.
I would build timber frame with cladding for an outbuilding DIY because even i can knock up some studwork and insulate it. But for something where most of the cost is the plot/location it's not a big part of the cost to have brick work which is basically impossible to permanently ruin with dampness. Well it hasn't harmed ours in the last 100 years.

 

[MikeStout]

Thanks to all but my question stands: how market sees timber frame houses? There are many research that show how cars of different makers depreciate with time. I can't find anything similar about houses. My point is, if in 50 years time the market value of such a house is around zero, ergo it looses 20% of its value every 10 years, this is not a very good investment after all, even if you save money building it.

 

[Notch7]

Thanks to all but my question stands: how market sees timber frame houses? There are many research that show how cars of different makers depreciate with time. I can't find anything similar about houses. My point is, if in 50 years time the market value of such a house is around zero, ergo it looses 20% of its value every 10 years, this is not a very good investment after all, even if you save money building it.

there is probably no difference in sale value.

timber frame construction and SIPs are both common fast build options but its quite usual to have an external brick skin, so the house looks no different.

SIPs can be built faster because the structural is factory built away from site. Im not sure the order time to completion is quicker but the site build time is faster.
Once the foundation is done a SIPs house can be up and weather tight within 2 to 3 weeks. The external brick skin can be constructed at the same time as the interior is done -which is where the saving comes in.

Long term, my guess is that timber frame or SIPs construction will only be worth less if they have significant problems and mortgages become an issue. The biggest danger of such construction is that the damp detailing is important, done incorrectly and interstitial condensation could create long term issues. My concern would be not trusting housebuilders building exactly to the exact specification as set out by the manufacturer.

 

[JP_]

Saw some houses go up near me. They were sort of timber frame - those SIPs. Went up really quickly, including the whole roof that had dormers in place already.
But then they did a brick cover that took ages - I'm sure it would have been quicker for them to build normally.

I recall an interesting discussion on timber frame houses while in a taxi in Dublin once - the main comment was fire risk. Yes,cheap to build and well insulated, but much great risk of fire spreading, worse acoustic insulation, and risk of rot etc. if not maintained well.

In fact, some total timber houses went up near me, and I know the carpenter that worked on the job. He said he'd never buy one himself as far too much maintenance required.

 

[johnny2007]

In most parts of the uk you don't really buy the house, you buy the land.
Whatever is on top of it is a bonus.
However, my favourite choice would be brick and mortar.
Insurance companies already ask what houses are made of, would be interesting to see in 50 years time the premium for timber frame.

 

[^woody^]

My point is, if in 50 years time the market value of such a house

Property is not viewed in the same way as cars or other products, nor is it tied to fashion and trends. The value of property is tied to other things such as an ASBO family moving into the street or a local school getting some good OFSTED ratings.
Although Barratt did a lot for timber frame sales back in the 80's.

However 99% of buyers can't give a fig about whether the house they are buying is timber framed or not.
What they do care about and will influence the buying decision is if the kitchen has the latest trend in gloss units and marble tops, if the internal doors are the same lovely hollow moulded doors they saw on the popular DIY show last week, and if the fascias are white plastic.

 

[John D v2.0]

Woody that's what surveyors are for. If the mortgage company says they're not a good bet, over night it becomes cash buyers only. Doesn't matter how fancy the kitchen is, if the solicitor says no because they're acting for the mortgage company, the value becomes "zero" in their eyes and the property is pretty much wiped out in terms of market.
If you're the one who owns the house already then you should have a big problem, hence the ops caution.

 

[^woody^]

Woody that's what surveyors are for. If the mortgage company says they're not a good bet, over night it becomes cash buyers only. Doesn't matter how fancy the kitchen is, if the solicitor says no because they're acting for the mortgage company, the value becomes "zero" in their eyes and the property is pretty much wiped out in terms of market.
If you're the one who owns the house already then you should have a big problem, hence the ops caution.

Surveyors are typically asked to comment on defects, not the merits of construction methods.

A typical timber frame may well be mortgagable, have no defects and be at a good market price.
But it's only later when the buyers find that they can't hang the stuff on the walls, can't put the extension on the back or side, can't do the loft conversion, or can't get rid of that persistent mould patch in the corner, that's when they wonder why they chose a timber framed house. But it's lucky that there will be plenty other numpties ready to buy it .... as long as the kitchen looks nice.

 

[John D v2.0]

Woody not sure if you're being obtuse, if the mortgage companies decree a certain type of property unmortgagable like they have with some concrete constructions and certain flats eg above Indian restaurants, then it doesn't matter what the kitchen is like.
If the surveyor writes on their report it's one of those constructions then the mortgage company won't lend. The survey includes plenty of information on construction and even location as well as condition, otherwise how will the mortgage company know this information

 

[^woody^]

Woody not sure if you're being obtuse, if the mortgage companies decree a certain type of property unmortgagable

There are thousands(/millions?) of timber framed properties of many approved construction methods, so it is very unlikely that a mortgage lender is not going to lend on a typical timber framed house in good condition. If its' in bad condition and a mortgage is refused then that's no different than a masonry property being in bad condition.

The 'concrete constructions' (ie system builds) are a different scenario all together in context of mortgage lending.

 

[Leofric]

Timber frame seems to be getting ground and is or will be very soon the most popular construction method in this country.

who says so ​

I heard that in the USA it is generally assumed that these house should be demolished in 50 years time?

don't think so if built properly.

You can get better insulation with timber frame,

not necessarily

My point is, if in 50 years time the market value of such a house is around zero, ergo it looses 20% of its value every 10 years, this is not a very good investment after all, even if you save money building it.

a strange statement

but much great risk of fire spreading, worse acoustic insulation, and risk of rot etc. if not maintained well.

it is a fact that timber can burn ( although it is fire protected ),can rot (although treatment should prevent that ) whereas masonry is fireproof and rot proof. Masonry I would suggest is better for acoustic insulation and better for retaining heat due to thermal mass.

 

[John D v2.0]

I said can get better insulation, not do get better insulation, so that implies not necessarily!
To clarify, of course you can do a passive House with double skin and 300mm cavity or a timber frame with building regs only and as draughty as a sieve, but for the width and cost timber frame can be better insulated due to the space between the timber. Whether that's a plus point overall is down to the person specifying it.

 

[Leofric]

John D - for the thickness of timber frame external wall with 140mm studding, cavity and brick external skin you could have a masonry cavity wall with fully filled 100mm cavity, Turbo block inner leaf and plasterboard lining for similar overall thickness of wall with a perfectly good U value.