Which building material - objective distinction or matter of belief?

Hello everyone,

I have been dealing with the construction of my single-family house for a while now. Since we have no preferences regarding the building material, we have requested offers for both solid construction and timber frame construction.

Now we are in the situation of objectively comparing the building materials against each other and thus choosing our favorite. Unfortunately, this is not as easy as we thought, because each building material has its advantages and disadvantages, and of course each builder swears by their preferred material.

Therefore, we wanted to get the opinion of the experts here in the forum. We would be interested to know which favorite you would have and for what reason.

The offered building materials for the exterior walls are:
#1 - Solid house
= Ytong aerated concrete block, 36.5 cm thick. Without additional insulation.

#2 - Solid house
= Hollow brick (probably made of clay) with additional external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS)

#3 - Timber frame construction
= Wall structure: wood fiber insulation board 100 mm, insulation of the compartments with cellulose (WLG040), timber frame construction 180 mm, wood-based panel 15 mm, installation level, Fermacell board 12.5 mm

What might also be interesting for the assessment:
- The house is being built in a rural area without significant traffic load.
- It has a large glass surface on the south side.

We would really appreciate input from your side.

Many thanks,
matze007

Neither nor

With which provider do you feel better understood?
Who has the sample selection (if a ready-to-move-in option is desired) that appeals more to you?

Neither. I would take bricks without [WDVS].

Neither. I would take bricks without ETICS.

I was just about to write that. It's simply the standard in our area.

Reading threads on this topic - here and elsewhere - inevitably leads to the realization that "or a matter of belief?" is the "right answer," and this is by far not only true for exterior walls. Every stone has its preachers, and some of them flatly declare alternatives to be outright nonsense (or vice versa).

Reading threads on this topic - especially here - quite quickly leads to my mantra, which I would like to mention again: that the stone - none of which are either saviors or bringers of ruin - should not be selected "absolutely" (i.e., purely according to the technical properties of the stone). Instead, the horse should be saddled from the builder's perspective.

In my conviction, the "relatively" best stone is the one that the builder knows best. With each material, the connections to other components vary. Therefore, my advice: if the builder knows Stone X best, then let him use it. Even if Stone Y leads in some parameter compared to the technical datasheets.

This advice applies analogously to timber frame walls: the supplier - which is quite possible with small carpentry firms - should not be pressured into a wall "recipe" that deviates from the variant they master best.

I agree with 11ant: if you know who you want to build with, then take the construction method that this provider prefers.

Otherwise, I would stand in various newly built houses: where do you feel most comfortable? What do you like best? Then you decide on a construction method and should then look for a provider who exactly does that.

For us, it was always clear that we want a wooden house; we like the indoor climate better than in brick houses. Accordingly, we only looked for wooden house providers.

From a purely rational point of view, there are advantages and disadvantages to every construction method. Ultimately, you have to decide what is decisive for you:
- to build with a certain GU/provider (then see argumentation 11ant)
- you decide what kind of house you want (then look for a suitable provider)
- you don't care at all -> get offers for everything and choose the one that seems best to you