Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
#47
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 121
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
I'm a bricklayer I was bricklaying for 14 years in England I was doing both residential and commercial work. I also did a lot of NHBC (National House Building Council) work which means that normally there has to be a 10 year guarantee.
Here the company I work with only gives 1 year. I live in Calgary now doing the similar work. This is my opinion but the houses here really are not built to last, yes they are very warm in the winter as I live in one. However a brick and block house built in England would last longer there really aren't the same methods used here like are used in England to prevent damp problems. I've done some brick repair work on a few homes and the wood in places is rotten behind the brick this wouldn't happen to brick and block structures. In the future I would like to build a house using the same methods as I would in England on a plot of land and Im sure it would work fine.
There appear to be little or no building standards here. I have been working here for two years and not once has a building inspector been out to the site to check on the work and the procedures used on residential jobs. In England an inspector was on site once a week to check cavity cleanliness, damp courses and trays were set correctly, weep holes were correctly put in.
John
Here the company I work with only gives 1 year. I live in Calgary now doing the similar work. This is my opinion but the houses here really are not built to last, yes they are very warm in the winter as I live in one. However a brick and block house built in England would last longer there really aren't the same methods used here like are used in England to prevent damp problems. I've done some brick repair work on a few homes and the wood in places is rotten behind the brick this wouldn't happen to brick and block structures. In the future I would like to build a house using the same methods as I would in England on a plot of land and Im sure it would work fine.
There appear to be little or no building standards here. I have been working here for two years and not once has a building inspector been out to the site to check on the work and the procedures used on residential jobs. In England an inspector was on site once a week to check cavity cleanliness, damp courses and trays were set correctly, weep holes were correctly put in.
John
#49
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
Whilst I know a few carpenters who would like to take the credit, methinks that there is a design and off site manufacturing period which takes between (based on UK periods) 6 to 10 weeks prior to the panels being delivered to site.
#50
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
Brick or brick with wood/vinyl siding is more common around here than wood. Looking out of my window I can't see a single all wood house....
As Iain alluded to earlier, I think it's down to climate, being milder here, they can use brick without a problem....
As Iain alluded to earlier, I think it's down to climate, being milder here, they can use brick without a problem....
#51
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 72
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
We've extended our current UK brick house twice and it cost an arm and a leg, I'd like to renovate and extend something in Canada.
Is it cheaper to extend a wooden house?
Is it cheaper to extend a wooden house?
#52
Binned by Muderators
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,682
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
That's right - here in Vancouver those extremes are all too familiar. It's like being in the arctic circle in winter and the sahara in the summer; no wonder those wooden houses I've been looking at on mls seem to always look like they are falling to bits once they get more than 30 or 40 years old. Either that or they've had 7 new walls and three new roofs or something.
(I've got nothing against wooden houses, but lets be honest, the first reason you gave is the only real reason).
(I've got nothing against wooden houses, but lets be honest, the first reason you gave is the only real reason).
#53
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
Yeah there's nothing like having a 400 year old house with 3 foot thick stone walls and 5 foot high doorways where you have to wear a hardhat just to survive in it.
#54
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,227
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
I am sure brick houses would be just fine in the climate of SW coastal BC. I'm not so sure about Prince George or Fort Nelson. Unless we are to develop different building codes for each municipality then the codes have to specify construction methods that are suited for the climates they may have to endure.
#55
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
Timber frame settle and shrink vertically over time and that is why you leave room for this expansion below windows, doors and at floors. If you don't leave this you get problems. Thus there will be differential movement between the existing structure and any side / rear extension subsequently built making it more difficult to tie in the two. This is also an issue on masonry buildings but not to the same extent.
From recollection most of the "Property Ladder" type TV Shows in US / Canada either renovated the existing building or demolish and rebuild it which probably reflects my above assessment.
Yelkcub
#56
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
Timber frame settle and shrink vertically over time and that is why you leave room for this expansion below windows, doors and at floors. If you don't leave this you get problems. Thus there will be differential movement between the existing structure and any side / rear extension subsequently built making it more difficult to tie in the two. This is also an issue on masonry buildings but not to the same extent.
Yelkcub
Yelkcub
All houses move. In the good old days when UK houses had rendering on inside walls there would be a massive loss of water once the central heating went on and dried everything out.
#57
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
The earthquake issue is another flawed argument. Of course timber is more ductile than masonary. Masonary is brittle which is why in earthquake zones building codes require reinforcement of the masonary to produce a ductile failure which should be less catastrophic - this can be retrofited to older historic structures which were constructed prior the earthquake implications being understood. For new buildings the reinforcement can easily be provided within the hollow blocks used here. I would certainly rather be in a timber frame building rather than an unreinforced multi story masonary building in an earthquake. Adding reinforcement is going to put masonary at a further commercial disadvantage.
There is nothing wrong with using timber - it's cost effective in terms of the initial cost and the buyer accepts it in the residential market here.
#58
slanderer of the innocent
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,695
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
I don't know the building code in BC but I'd be very suprised if there was any prohibition on masonary due to cold climate. Certainly in Alberta masonary is used successfully up north and generally is the preferred choice for durable municipal buildings.
The earthquake issue is another flawed argument. Of course timber is more ductile than masonary. Masonary is brittle which is why in earthquake zones building codes require reinforcement of the masonary to produce a ductile failure which should be less catastrophic - this can be retrofited to older historic structures which were constructed prior the earthquake implications being understood. For new buildings the reinforcement can easily be provided within the hollow blocks used here. I would certainly rather be in a timber frame building rather than an unreinforced multi story masonary building in an earthquake. Adding reinforcement is going to put masonary at a further commercial disadvantage.
There is nothing wrong with using timber - it's cost effective in terms of the initial cost and the buyer accepts it in the residential market here.
The earthquake issue is another flawed argument. Of course timber is more ductile than masonary. Masonary is brittle which is why in earthquake zones building codes require reinforcement of the masonary to produce a ductile failure which should be less catastrophic - this can be retrofited to older historic structures which were constructed prior the earthquake implications being understood. For new buildings the reinforcement can easily be provided within the hollow blocks used here. I would certainly rather be in a timber frame building rather than an unreinforced multi story masonary building in an earthquake. Adding reinforcement is going to put masonary at a further commercial disadvantage.
There is nothing wrong with using timber - it's cost effective in terms of the initial cost and the buyer accepts it in the residential market here.
I looked up the BC Building Code online but you have to buy it.
#59
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
It is not just earthquake risk. 99.9999% (approximately) of new houses in all of North America are wood frame. Why? Because lumber is cheap and plentiful (isn't there an environmental benefit in using local and renewable building materials) and they are best suited to the extremes on the North American climate.
#60
Binned by Muderators
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,682
Re: Brick houses vs wooden and 'other materials'
[QUOTE=Alan2005;8439347]I didn't know there were restrictions on use of bricks in the building codes. Are you sure about that?[/QUOTE]
No, you are probably right.
No, you are probably right.