The Timber Construction

It does not matter whether you are looking for ecological and practical housing, if you are looking for originality or just want to be closer to nature – a timber house will just make you happy.


One undeniable advantage of timber houses is that during their construction no wet-processes are needed which eliminates the necessary technology breaks and thus shortens the construction time. Usually it is not necessary to use heavy machinery, and so the destruction near the construction site and the costs of its renovation are minimal. In principle, any use of wood instead of concrete or brick is less destructive for the environment. It is not possible to make suitable brick clay and limestone, but it is possible to cultivate a tree in a very nice way! (And the energy used for its growth is free - it's the sun - so actually we build "solar houses") In addition, the price of wood already includes the price of planting new trees, if we wanted to take amount into account with bricks or concrete, their price would not be competitive. Wooden buildings are also very environmentally friendly because their energy footprint is minimal. This also applies for potential demolition. Are you interested in the progress of construction? Check out the GALLERY.


A timber construction is a subtle structure and saves living space - a favorable ratio between built-up area to habitable area. A related fact is the area of ​​the roof and foundations, including their cost, to the working area. The house built on an area 150 m2 in comparison with a brick building of the same area with the same insulation parameters will have about 12-15 meters of floor space more, and that's one additional room. With that is also related lower portion of the garden area, which may be an important factor especially in urban and suburban buildings, where garden is often very small and the lot, very expensive.
Direct comparison of prices of timber and brick construction is tricky. In principle, this does not compare, because these two types of houses, though architecturally similar, may have different properties. We can achieve the same thermal characteristics, but it is only one of many specifics. A wooden house with a diffusion open structure can hardly compare with a house of foam silicone sealant coated with polystyrene. In principle it can however be said that of the two "identical" buildings, one brick and one timber, with the most similar characteristics, the timber one will be cheaper.
The already mentioned lower level of destruction of the land and its surroundings without demanding a renovation is a saving itself.


Minimal heat accumulation of timber houses is another financial advantage over brick construction. We heat the house only when needed. So we can go in the winter to the mountains for the weekend, turn the heating off on departure and turn it on at our arrival - or by remote control briefly beforehand. It applies also during the day when we are at work. We do not have this opportunity for buildings with high thermal inertia and we are losing one way of a significant saving.


Based on the concrete experience of users with flooding, whether caused by a ruptured water pipe or a flood, it may be concluded that timber buildings cope much better with this kind of inconvenience than masonry construction. In case of flooding, brick structure absorbs several times more water than a timber building; the water soaked into the material dries out much longer. Water does not harm the actual wooden construction in any way and moisture from diffusion open structure comes out fairly easily. In case mineral or glass wool insulation, it does not absorb water either - it does not act like a sponge.


Like any other building complies with all fire regulations and standards.


Material and technology of a building themselves do not determine its lifespan. No construction is forever, just look around. You'll rarely find a brick house, which for 20 years has not undergone any major repair and shows no disturbances. Proof that timber constructions may last forever is the Finnish city of Rauma, whose city center contains over 600 commonly used timber houses from the years 1700 to 1890. Lifespan of a timber building is not shorter than the one of a brick building, everything is a matter of design, implementation and maintenance.


In forty years of communist effort of concrete prefabrication the tradition of timber buildings was discontinued. In European countries, the proportion of wood-based construction is considerably higher, eg. in neighboring Austria, the share of wooden structures is over thirty percent. Naturalness of timber buildings is also appealing also in our country, it is estimated that in the last five years, the annual number of completed timber houses has almost doubled.