11ant
2017-05-02 14:40:38
- #1
weren't they made of oak?
Yes, visible timber framing requires different woods than if it is clad or plastered over.
Regardless of whether prefab houses are ultimately just as good as solid houses, a large portion of potential buyers simply prefer solid houses; they are easier to sell that way.
That’s why I wrote that ultimately what matters are the prejudices of the financing bank. On the market, location and amenities count, as well as no backlog of modernization. Especially in the higher-end segment, comparisons happen at eye level. For the average consumer house, the simple-house image still lingers more vividly.
Well, for example, I wouldn't buy a prefab house from the 80s.
Depending on when in the 80s, formaldehyde is still an issue. Asbestos and lindane were long gone by then but affected solid houses as well.
The question is, what will it look like for those built today in 10, 20, or 30 years? Will they be viewed the same way or has that changed?
In ten years, I expect more of a depreciation of houses with ETICS and without basements than the value classification sticking to wood or stone. The new bone of contention might rather be controlled residential ventilation than prefab construction—especially since more and more solid buildings also have stud walls (as drywall interior walls on upper floors). The spread of underfloor heating is increasing to an extent that could push radiator heating into the “outdated” corner.
“Wood or stone” as a question with polarization potential will be nostalgia for the next generation.