Why don't we build more timber homes, like the US does?

stuart45

Timber frame houses with a brick or block outer skin have got more common in recent years. The market for them collapsed in the early 80's after a TV programme slated them. In the USA it's quite rare for anything other than a timber framed houses for residential low rise construction. It helps having a supply from Canada.

The major house builders in the UK know that most people here like bricks and mortar, so the majority of timber framed houses have masonry exteriors. Some people don't even realise that their house has a timber inner skin.

stuart45

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81950055#Comment_81950055

In areas like Florida the majority of homes are built with reinforced blockwork. It's also more termite proof.

bobster2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81949888#Comment_81949888

Yes - really poor in our damp climate. It will just rot away on no time😀

In fact some of the oldest surviving houses in the UK were built from timber. Although it was usually oak.

And in the case of the one below - they avoided the fire problem that @flaneurs_lobster pointed out by having a moat!

mills112

timber frame houses were very popular at some point but they seemed to have fallen out of favour these days.

m0bov

Far more clay in the uk than timber. In the use, much more Forest and available timber from logging than clay. In Scotland and Wales. Much more stone

TroubledTarts

Persimmon homes (as well as others) use timber frames, often clad with brick so not quite your American dream but that structure and strength is all in the timbers

BikingBud

I don't want an American dream! I want a house that is well insulated for sound and heating and provides space comfort and energy efficiency.

We should building them up and down the country in the large storage sheds that we have built alongside the strategic road networks so that the Uk's old inefficient housing stock can be replaced.

Instead, and unfortunately, we continue to build poor housing to poor standards and charge excessively for them.

stuart45

Space is one of the biggest differences between American and UK homes.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81950473#Comment_81950473

Yes - really poor in our damp climate. It will just rot away on no time😀

In fact some of the oldest surviving houses in the UK were built from timber. Although it was usually oak.

"Surviving" is the key word there - if you assess the longevity of timber structures on the basis of what has survived then you overlook the thousands of timber structures that rotted or decayed to the point it was easier to demolish (or burn) than repair. A handful of surviving timber structures doesn't negate that timber is a poor construction material in environments where there is cyclic wetting and drying.

As I pointed out, regular maintenance is necessary to give timber a chance of survival, which means the building likely has status which justifies the expenditure - such as churches or tithe barns - or that the owner is wealthy and money is no object. I.e "where appearance and style were the most important factors."

The owners of Little Morton Hall (in your picture) were wealthy landowners. Little Morton Hall is a statement of that wealth, and it will have survived at least in part due to the family continuing to want to make that statement (regardless of maintenance costs) whilst timber-built structures in the surrounding area decayed and rotted. Worth noting too that the hall is only timber framed rather than wholly of timber, and crucially the timber frame is set on a dwarf masonry wall. This is important because it keeps the vulnerable timber frame away from contact with the wet ground where rot is most likely to start.

Furthermore, Little Morton Hall is 16th century. Which makes it a youngster when compared to the countless Saxon and Norman churches scattered around English villages. If timber was a good construction material for the UK climate then each of those villages would likely still have a Saxon hall as a family home (albeit with the addition of a bathroom, central heating and a fitted kitchen).

stuart45

There's a big difference between the old hardwood timber framed structures and the modern brick faced house with a timber inner skin.

The main advantage of a modern timber framed house is to the developer. The panels can be made in a factory and erected and made weather tight really quickly compared to a traditional build. Ventilation in the cavity is really important through weepholes, but over the years these tend to become blocked up, if not already blocked with mortar droppings.

The VCL is also really important to stop any condensation reaching the softwood panels, but is never 100% effective. it's why they changed the name from Vapour barrier to Vapour control layer. It will also get less effective as people drill holes in the walls. Having worked on sites doing the brickwork on timber framed houses I've seen the amount of damaged house wraps that gets hidden by the brick skins.