Massive building vs. Prefabricated building

What do you mean by prefabricated house?
Timber frame? The quality can vary widely.

We wanted stone on stone. But Passive House.
The solid stone-on-stone builders we talked to all declined.

Timber frame has it much easier with that, and many have KFW 55 or KFW 40 as standard. They also don’t decline Passive House.

In the end, we ended up with solid wood from a small company around the corner.
Warm in winter, cool in summer – Nordlys, others can do that too.

Wobbling with timber frame is a thing. There are show houses where you get seasick when you walk up the stairs; when the kids jump upstairs, the dishes in the kitchen downstairs rattle. There are also ones where you can jump upstairs as an adult and nothing wobbles downstairs.

If the wall structure doesn’t matter to you, then look for a building partner based on other criteria.

Regarding durability. My parents and my aunt built in the same year. My parents stone on stone, my aunt prefabricated house. Both houses have roughly the same renovation needs after about 40 years.

KFW 40 means that only 40% of the primary energy demand is used compared to a reference house according to the Energy Saving Ordinance in its currently valid version. This says nothing about the storage capacity of materials.

The heat storage capacity (Q), which is relevant for construction, depends on the specific heat capacity (c), the mass (p), and the wall thickness (d). The following applies: Q = c*d*p. It therefore depends on how the material is used.

The specific heat capacity of spruce wood is about a factor of 2.7 higher than that of calcium silicate brick.
The specific weight of spruce wood is about a factor of 2.5 lower than that of calcium silicate brick.

With the same wall thickness, the materials do not differ much. What makes the difference are air inclusions and insulation.

I will gladly admit that a timber construction can be just as pleasant to live in as stone and just as durable. However, we never even thought about wood. For us, it was fixed. Monolithic or, if not too expensive, brick-faced. No ETICS, because we didn’t want a pockpock wall, but a bububub wall, simply desired in terms of feel. Because of the feeling of solidity. And above all, for my wife, it was fixed that the construction should be with a local company. No showrooms, no premium-price palaces, no paperwork for lawyers, no tricks or traps... it should be around the corner and personally managed by the boss. Something like that does not exist here in wood. In this respect, the question did not even arise. KfW was irrelevant to us because we didn’t want anything from them anyway. Indoor climate, we can’t imagine anything under that, good air is sleeping with the window open, in winter it has to be warm, in summer cool, then it’s fine, what is indoor climate? Something esoteric? Tested by dowsers? We have always lived in a stone house and never felt that there was anything wrong with it. So it simply became a stone house. Karsten

I can only keep marveling at how much fuss is made by people whose understanding of physics is based on "pub knowledge" about wall constructions. The fact is: no wall building material used today by a builder / house manufacturer is even remotely capable of being either a Messiah or Beelzebub. The room enclosures are overrated, and all wall- and ceiling-penetrating stuff (pipes, cables, climate equipment) leads a shadowy existence. I also have preferences, and not all are objectively justified - but I would not bother to underestimate other wall constructions. The comparison-test obsession of enlightened consumers today sometimes takes on almost comical traits. Homeowners who trust their builder to know how building works are by no means worse off.

I can only marvel again and again at how much fuss is made by people whose understanding of physics is based on "pub knowledge" about wall constructions. The fact is: none of the wall building materials used today by contractors/house manufacturers even remotely have what it takes to be the Messiah or Beelzebub.

Thank you! You speak from my heart. There are some never-ending discussions in this forum, and the topic of timber framing / solid construction seems not to die out. Timber framing is always the paper hut, solid construction always the fortress (on whose ETICS unfortunately not even a lamp will hold, but whatever). Unfortunately, the world is not black or white, but at this point some want to irrefutably prove that they have made exactly the right decision and everything else would have been much worse. Maybe it is because this decision is irreversible and one cannot subsequently switch from one construction method to another by remodeling, so it is a fundamental decision that must be defended tooth and nail. The longer I read here in the forum, the less motivated I am to write posts. But I liked yours!

Every building material has advantages and disadvantages, and almost every builder has their preferences. Otherwise, all buildings would look the same.