Brick or wooden house

Regarding the fire... fire protection in prefabricated houses plays a role because flammable materials are used. With solid construction using stone, I don't have that problem at all. So why should a prefabricated house be better than a solid house? At best, it can only be not worse than a solid house. The only problematic material is steel (see Twin Towers), which melts at a certain temperature.

In a real fire, whether brick or prefabricated house, you will have to rebuild the thing afterward anyway. At least in our case, fire-resistant drywall was installed inside. But it only helps up to a certain degree, probably giving you one more minute to get out alive. Even brick houses burn like tinder if the fire is really heated up. And the roof structure is always made of wood anyway. I want to claim that after a fire, demolition and rebuilding is cheaper than repair. And after all, you are insured.

That banks rate prefabricated houses lower is true; we had to experience it painfully ourselves. Our house is worth almost €70,000 less than what we paid. But nowadays, there's really no difference when it comes to living comfort. For us, it's mostly advantages. But that's another chapter.

Hello,

Certain banks seem to be gradually changing their approach, at least with high-quality prefabricated houses, and no longer applying a discount for prefabricated houses.

That has always been the case

Regarding the fire... fire protection in prefabricated houses plays a role because combustible materials are used. With solid construction using stone, I don't have that problem at all.

Example from practice – whether prefabricated or solid construction: if there is a fire, only the fire doors (e.g., from the utility room to the garage) remain largely intact. The rest is no longer usable in either case after the fire-fighting operations are completed. The difference: the prefabricated house burns faster

Rhineland greetings

Hello - thanks for the many responses. So

Fire safety
A wooden house is more fire-resistant because the beams remain standing in the event of a fire, while steel melts and the whole thing collapses. The fire department confirmed this to me. Of course, in the end, you can demolish both anyway.

Wooden house is not the same as prefab house
The term "prefab house" was often used here. However, in the conversations I had, three groups were always compared: brick house - prefab house - wooden house. Of course, a wooden house is probably also a prefab house. And I am not referring to "cheap wooden houses" here but to high-quality ones.

Information and advertising link
One of my sources of information was the wooden house construction company Sonnleitner. However, I also had three other sources so far: two wooden house owners and a civil engineer, and of course, numerous "stone house owners" (I have lived my entire life so far in stone houses myself). The statements were identical. The corresponding explanations were immediately understandable physically/logically (see e.g. above fire safety).

"Rarely read such nonsense"
Yes, that’s what I thought until now as well. I fundamentally changed my opinion because my arguments were factually wrong. The reason for me was very simple: "I didn’t know that."

Hello,

Fire Safety
A wooden house is therefore more fire-safe because the beams remain standing in the event of a fire, while steel melts and the whole thing collapses. This was confirmed to me by the fire department. Of course, in the end both can be torn down anyway.

With all due respect - the seller of the wooden house is probably good at what he does

"Massive construction methods have a significantly higher safety level than combustible wooden constructions due to their overall behavior from a fire protection perspective." Prof. Schneider regards the additional load-bearing reserve of floor slabs, which is basically present in almost all buildings of the massive construction method for static reasons, as a decisive advantage. In the event of a fire, there are redistributions in the load distribution, and the fire resistance duration can more than double. A collapse of the entire structure is excluded due to multi-sided support. And: in reality, single- and double-shell walls of the massive construction method – taking into account existing fire loads – can withstand fire for almost any length of time. Even the influence of insulation materials is negligible, as they are sufficiently protected from fire exposure by plaster for a long time. The geometry and shape of the almost monolithic construction remain essentially preserved in the event of fire.

This, however, looks completely different according to the study regarding residential buildings in timber construction. Not only do component constructions with combustible building materials pose aggravating hazard potentials. These include, among others, an additional input of fire loads, the increase of smoke development, the fire entry and conduction in construction cavities and thus the formation of glowing embers as well as an increase in flash-over risk. Constructions in timber construction usually do not contain any load reserves. Therefore, it is not to be expected that the room closure remains intact for more than 30 minutes in the event of fire and that the entire supporting structure remains load-bearing and safe. Not only do the elements and components fail, but also the connections and joints between the elements and components. This means, according to Schneider's statements, "the fire exposure leads to a reduction of the load-bearing cross-sections with an increase of internal stresses in timber construction, whereby the predominantly metallic connections of the individual components quickly lose their load-bearing capacity when heated."

Source: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Schneider, Professor of Structural Engineering.

Rhineland regards

@Bauexperte: Thank you for the information. That is why I am here in this forum Bavarian greetings

For a few weeks now I have been informing myself about wooden houses and I learned:
- Lasts longer

Why should a wooden house "last longer"? The bricks do not dissolve after a few decades...
So how should this statement be assessed?

- Saves huge energy costs ( <=400€ / year )

this statement is questionable in many respects...

a) saving compared to what? An uninsulated solid house????
I can insulate a solid house just as much as a wooden house, I can install controlled residential ventilation with heat recovery in both etc etc... so why should a wooden house save "huge energy costs" compared to a similarly insulated solid house?

b) what additional costs in construction are associated with this energy saving? Is it even worth saving <=400€ per year if, for example, I had to invest 50000 additionally for it?

- Is "usually" also more expensive than an equally sized brick house

It is possible that a wooden house from the local carpenter is more expensive than a comparable brick house... is that now an advantage???

- At the bank you have a higher "mortgage lending value" (or whatever it is called)

The wooden house is rated worse because the bank knows that solid houses generally have less depreciation at resale than wooden houses

- Is even safer than a brick house in case of fire (I would have bet a lot against that)

The building expert has already said everything about that...
I drive past a burned-down house every day... the walls are still standing, but the roof truss made of wood has collapsed... I can imagine what the house would look like if it had been built entirely from wood...
Incidentally, a wooden house is also held together a lot by "steel"... in the form of screws, brackets, etc....

One of my sources was the wooden house construction company Sonnleitner. However, I also had three other sources so far: Two wooden house owners and a civil engineer and, of course, numerous "solid house owners"

That the wooden house construction company sells its concept as the best is hardly surprising... wooden house owners or solid house owners are hardly reliable sources either... or did they each live in a comparably built wooden and solid house and could therefore make direct comparisons?

That someone moving from a 1960s solid house into a new wooden house raves only about advantages is understandable... probably the same applies vice versa.

I do not want to say that solid houses are always better than wooden houses! It strongly depends on the respective house... I can build a bad wooden house and also a bad solid house...