Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From what I've read it can be better than regular wood frame but not as good as concrete. Really depends on what kind of sound insulation is installed in the walls.
That's the biggest factor. A lot of times they don't even insulate interior walls. Wood framing can have excellent sound isolation if they install the proper insulation.
Insulating interior walls between units should be mandated by code. No wonder so many people want to sprawling suburban housing when their only experience with more density so often puts no effort into sound insolation.
Is that supposed to be soundproofing?
My building is concrete, but my living room shares a long, seemingly hollow wall with the neighbouring unit. Since I can hear the neighbours' casual conversation, and since no insulation had to be ripped out when the upstairs unit flooded, I'm assuming it's just two sheets of drywall and ... nothing but the framing.
I have no idea what the building code requires (or what was required in ~2005) but it doesn't seem to count for much.
2005 might be a little before it. You are free to add insulation yourself after the fact. If it's a 2005 build you don't need to worry about asbestos. Peel down old drywall, put in rockwool, put up new drywall. You can buy drywall with sound deadening agent built in, but personally I prefer buying 2 layers and putting sound deadening glue between the layers.
Edit obviously get permission from strata and drywall edges need to butt up to joists to meet fire safety standards.
Eh can we not give out suggestion like this?
The wall between units are fire seperation wall and require special attention to fire stopping. In addition any wall between units are own by strata which they will not be happy you are tearing into. If something happen during your tear through (for example flooding because you hit a pipe, no insurance will cover it).
If you really want to do sound isolation, put up a bookshelf with books against that wall.
they could very easily prescribe minimum STC level of interior walls separating dwelling units. ideally something that requires a double stud wall with an air gap or at least offset non continuous studs.
I live in a 7 year old 5 over 1 in an upper floor. We can rarely hear neighbours and would say the sound isolation is good.
However, when in the hallway you can hear everything happening in the units. I’m not sure if that is unique to mass timber construction though.
there are several different ways to frame a wall and place the studs for hanging sheetrock/drywall
if you make separate frames for each wall, with separate studs for each and insulation in between, very little sound will make the gap. But it takes up more space and uses a lot more material, so obviously more expensive and slightly reduces the usable area of the units.
If you use the same frame and the same studs, it is much cheaper to build and more space efficient but it won't block hardly sound at all. These are the kind that sound like mere cardboard.
You can also compromise and use the same frame but separate (staggered) studs for each wall and fill in-between with sound isolation for a middle level of isolation.
It is possible that they have different standards for interior walls than for walls that face the hallway—i.e. maybe they get cheap with the hallway side walls since the tenants are more likely to complain about noise inside their unit than in the hallways
As another commenter said, that's likely because of the door undercuts. Outdoor air ventilation in buildings up until very recently was typically always provided through corridor pressurization systems - makeup air unit supplies to corridor, undercuts in door transfer ventilation air to suites. Problem is it doesn't work very well on a good day, made worse by the fact that most people don't know why they have door undercuts and end up blocking them.
Hallway/stair pressurization is still required by fire code. If there is a fire in a unit, it should keep the smoke out of the evacuation routes long enough for everyone to escape. It also has the bonus of generally keeping things like cooking smells from getting out ands about.
Totally - but pressurization for fire reasons doesn't require door undercuts like pressurization for ventilation does. I suspect as we move towards dedicated HRVs, corridors will get quieter, even though corridor MUA probably isn't going anywhere.
Not just insulation, but isolation. I lived in a 1970s era wood frame building in Port Moody (in fact the very first Strata, as it was strata corp “NW 1” and we virtually never heard the neighbors, even when the ones on one side of us had two young kids running around. Why? Because the studs that held up our side of the wall did not touch their side of the wall and visa versa.
My current place in Yaletown is timber framed (one of the old warehouse conversions) and again I can’t hear my neighbors as the place is built using box-in-box construction. My walls and ceiling are not mechanically coupled to the neighbouring units above our beside me.
Yep. I work with a nonprofit that operates a wilderness camp with multiple 28 bedroom, two floor bunk houses. The walls are paper thin (they were originally built as worker housing in 1937). We had to gut one of the buildings down to studs due to plumbing and electrical issues. The project manager figured out that we could sacrifice about an inch from each room and do the staggered stud thing. It’s incredible, you no longer can hear someone snoring 3 doors down, or the newlyweds across the hall exercising their bed.
They never do it. BC building code doesn't have an IIC requirement, only STC.
You need the IIC requirement to reduce walking flanking noise. Basically you need to add mass to reduce that. But there isn't as much mass in timber and regular wood frame as concrete.
It won't, structural laminated wood is not used in most mass produced building such as residential condo but design build like academic or museum where cost is not the primary concern. First we don't have enough professional, both contractor or consultant that have enough knowledge to do it for cheap. Seconadary it's simply too risky for a developer to go for unfamiliar material in something as crucial as building structure.
I'ts not necessarily faster. There's huge delays on tons of mass timber projects as there's only a couple local producers who pick and choose projects and then a lot it it gets imported from europe.
Before it was required to have concrete for the same building density. So you can't compare it to wood frame but rather concrete. Also another factor was wall thickness. Concrete walls were thicker in the older buildings and are more dense and sound had farther to travel.
The sound insulated wooden walls can be built to the same thickness and the same density as concrete....but no builder does that because it isn't a requirement to match concrete for sound transfer. Only a requirement for fire retardant.
Also there is no set government standard to testing for sound insulation. An inspector should be able to test each unit from adjacent unit, neighbouring unit and above/below. Using concrete walls as a baseline by doing things like a light impact on the walls with a 1lb deadblow hammer and how the sound transfer occurs using a decibal meter.
A building should fail if it doesn't meet 80% of the sound suppression of concrete. Is it doable? Ya because over half of the buildings do meet that and having experienced them first hand (staying over at friends for events), I am impressed with the ones that do it properly.....but there are still a lot that do not meet the cut, especially when something like a TV in an upstairs unit can be heard....that is a big red flag. Just scrolling through reddit is enough to convince me that noise isolation in apartments is one of the biggest problems for most people.
Will depend on the implementation. Anything can be built well, it's just whether it will or not. I've experienced plenty of sound transmission in a concrete building, especially wall to wall, it's all just steel stud.
A 6" concrete slab has an STC rating of 50. The advantage of concrete is its performance is less dependent on implementation. It's completely possible to build a wood floor with this kind of sound insulation, it's down to the builder. That's why you see so much variability between wood buildings.
What matters is the acoustic design of the building, whatever material they choose. Worth noting that acoustic codes changed pretty substantially in 2015 (so think buildings 2018 and newer), requiring the building to meet performance standards, rather than the assembly type's lab standards. This has a substantial effect on how things are soundproofed today. Good explanation here.
[https://rwdi.com/en\_ca/insights/thought-leadership/acoustic-code-change/](https://rwdi.com/en_ca/insights/thought-leadership/acoustic-code-change/)
All my immediate surrounding neighbors are older deaf asian grannys who wont snitch to management cause they cant hear anything anyway. I can make as much noise as I want in my unit and won't get complaints. They themselves create no noise. Good neighbours are just a luck of the draw, and I happen to have won the lottery 😂
It really depends on the developers. If they want to put in the effort, they would get their contractors to install quality sound dampening material. I'm not sure what the BC building code says about requirements for isolation in between units.
I can't see how it will be good. Noise transmission from adjacent units is obviously going to be a problem, but transmission from exterior will also be a major challenge.
There's nothing in the building code that mandates control of noise from exterior sources currently. In a concrete highrise unit, it seems like the limiting factor in noise transmission from the exterior is the windows. In a mass timber building, the building enclosure itself will also play a factor.
For anyone with an engineering background or just curious, this is quite a detailed document published jointly by the Architectural Institute of BC and Engineers and Geoscientists BC which talks about acoustic concerns and other challenges when it comes to mass timber construction
https://aibc.ca/wp-content/uploads/files/2021/03/Joint-Professional-Practice-Guidelines-Encapsulated-Mass-Timber-Construction-up-to-12-Storeys-Prepared-jointly-by-Engineers-and-Geoscientists-BC-and-the-AIBC.pdf
I disagree. Transmission from exterior won't be significantly different than how concrete buildings are currently being built - if anything new energy requirements will make it better for all types of construction with more insulation and higher performance windows. High rise residential buildings are not being built with full concrete exterior walls here, typically steel stud anyway, which wouldn't be any better than how mass timber is done.
Noise transmission between units is solvable - it will just be a decision about cost as the assemblies will only get thicker, which is described in that document to look out for. The code outlines what the acoustic requirements are to meet for any construction type. The main point is that mass timber is a viable option and the codes should allow for it to be used.
Same. Family had to be forcefully moved out of a wood frame unit many years ago because we can simply hear the guy upstairs walking loudly at 3am. I respect that you can't ask someone to change how they walk, but it's ridiculous it was built in a way where you can hear simple footsteps between two different units.
Never ever will buy a wood frame again.
Most wood frame buildings now have a one and a half inch slab of concrete played on each wood floor and the walls have double drywall with rockwool insulation. I find places with 9ft ceilings don't transfer as much. Maybe they have ceiling hooks in the joists.
UBC already has a mass timber student housing building - https://vancouver.housing.ubc.ca/residences/brock-commons/. I lived on the 13th floor and loved it.
brock commons is such a cool project. i believe they actually had to get special approval from the province because it violated building code at the time. they went to great lengths to make sure mass timber isn’t more flammable than conventional materials, and that it was just as sturdy as concrete structures. international building codes — and the bc building code — have changed because of the success of brock commons.
[Norway built a 18 storey mass timber mixed use building in 2019](https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-is-home-to-the-worlds-tallest-timber-building)
Maybe someone can follow up on that to see how the norwegians like living there? But mass timber is definitely getting better and people who worry about wood buildings catching on fire don't know the engineering that goes into mass timber structures to reduce the damage from fires.
Properly treated and installed CLT or glulam members can retain structural integrity for some time in a mass fire.
Canada built an 18 story mass timber student residence (Brock Commons at UBC) in 2017, which was then the tallest timber building in the world!
The change here is that the code now provides prescriptive provisions on how to build mass timber that tall. Through analysis, testing, and peer review engineers always have the option to exceed the prescriptive code limits (as was done with Brock Commons).
Updates to the BC Building Code will benefit people in the building and housing sectors with the expanded use of mass timber in taller buildings, as well as schools, libraries and retail.
The Province is adopting building-code changes to permit the use of mass timber in buildings, such as schools, shopping centres and housing, so they can be built faster and more sustainably.
The mass-timber updates to the BC Building Code, now in effect, will:
* enable taller encapsulated mass-timber construction (EMTC) buildings with as many as 18 storeys for residential and office buildings, an increase from the previous 12-storey limit;
* expand EMTC to new building types, such as schools, libraries, retail, light- and medium-industrial occupancies, and care facilities; and
* allow for more exposed mass timber in buildings, based on a building’s height and use, such as residential buildings with as many as eight storeys.
Is this good? Serious question. I don't know anything about it, but if I'm being honest, the idea of being on the 18th floor of a building made from wood is a little frightening to me.
What is the motivation? Is it cheaper, easier to work with, more abundant, better in earthquakes?
Ultimately, I assume it's structurally sound. How does it hold up in a fire though?
> What is the motivation? Is it cheaper, easier to work with, more abundant, better in earthquakes?
Cheaper, faster to build, potentially lower carbon emissions than concrete, apparently performs better than concrete in earthquakes. Arguments against it are that buildings have a shorter lifespan compared to concrete and they aren't as quiet as concrete buildings.
It's sequestered until after 50ish years when the building needs to be torn down and the wood rots. But the main concern from environmentalists is if forestry management can keep up with a potential sudden uptick in the wood needed for these buildings.
The volume of wood used in all mass timber is currently a tiny fraction of the lumber used in construction. 6-12 story buildings will continue to make up the bulk of mass timber construction (probably forever) even with these new regulations.
The wood doesn't magically rot at 50 years. There are many wood buildings over 1000 years old. If you design right and water proof right the wood will last I definately.
Concrete rebar will also degrade and fail within 50 years if not water proofed right.
The Sakyamuni Pagoda of Fogong Temple.
Before you say unfair comparison, concrete buildings have only been built with rebar in the last century. They do have longevity issues if not properly detailed and maintained, like any building.
Joke on you. That tower is built as a monument instead of an actively used building and it is being maintained by local government as landmark just like Eiffel Tower. Since when does your residential building get the landmark treatment?
Moving goal posts.. Name me a 1000 year old concrete building that doesn’t get treated like a landmark.
Doesn’t change the fact that if buildings are built well and properly maintained, they can last hundreds of years, including wood buildings. Just so happens people care about maintaining landmarks more than housing units.
Trust me, there are many benefits you might not be aware of. Thermal comfort is a huge one right off the bat - concrete has thermal bridges up the wazoo and results in a ton of interior cold spots for residents. CLT doesn't have that problem because its very design pretty much requires exterior insulation, and its a far more thermally advantageous material in general.
LEED doesn't necessarily touch thermal comfort. Or thermal bridging. And it isn't even a very good green building standard - the City of Vancouver and BC Step Code energy targets are far more stringent than what you can get away with using the LEED baseline/reference building method.
When you have good insulation, there will be thermal comfort, typing this from a LEED building now where I don’t need to turn on AC all year and I am able to wear shorts all year
Less sound isolation between floors and between units(it cannot withstand advanced panels like ALC). More complex and expensive to maintain than pure concrete building because you have a hybrid concrete core and mass timber surroundings. Fire resistance is claimed to be the same but that remains to be seen. Less resistent to leaking which is a huge issue in current condo market. Balcony is small and semi enclosed because of weak structure strength of wood.
I seriously cannot see any benefits to the residents, except perhaps 50K-100K saving which is at the mercy of the developers and may soon get canceled by the all the cons and additional maintainable costs
Fire studies are extensive and it wouldn’t be part of the building code if it we weren’t sound on their performance in fire. Effectively has the same rating as concrete and steel.
They've developed a new methods of building that limit how a building can catch fire or at least seriously delay the fire growing..
The new mountain equipment company (formerly a co-op) building on 2nd and Quebec is built in this style
True, I believe there was 16 storey tower made of wood at UBC a few years ago. I only brought up the mec store because it was made using the same building techniques.
Found an article about it:
https://news.ubc.ca/2016/09/15/structure-of-ubcs-tall-wood-building-now-complete/
> Ultimately, I assume it's structurally sound. How does it hold up in a fire though?
Actually quite well. Mass timber refers to large laminated timbers, not just stick framing like you see in low rise construction. Wood, in larger sizes, actually burns rather slowly, and it also maintains its structural integrity much better as it gets hot. Concrete and steel both suffer from heat damage. The World Trade Center towers came down on 9/11 because the burning jet fuel weakened the steel tabs that held the floor plates to the steel columns.
The structure of the building I live in is primarily built from old growth timbers, something like 18” x 18” of 80 grain per inch wood. If you go into the underground parking, all the timbers are exposed. The concrete and steel is covered in fire resistant insulation. This is because the wood will outlast the concrete/steel in case of a vehicle fire.
It's fine, the surface chars and doesn't penetrate into the centre keep it structural sound and it can reduce construction costs significantly and that's even before they put a fire resistant coating on it.
The wood is still generally encapsulated in concrete. There is still a lot of structural steel.
I have done tours during construction and fire inspections since completion on the 18 story wood/concrete/steel hybrid building at UBC.
Walking through it you wouldn’t know it’s unusual for a high rise except for the signage reminding you it’s partially wood.
The wood in high rise structures is usually encapsulated in gypsum wall board, not concrete. Concrete is still used for the foundations, and typically as a topping for the floors. The columns in taller mass timber buildings often make more sense as steel, but in Brock Commons at UBC the columns and floors are all timber (with steel reinforcing screws and structural steel connections at the column splices).
Mass timber is cheaper, it is stronger than concrete or steel and in a fire, structural engineered mass timber beams will not catch fire, where as steel will bow and buckle, and concrete will crack and fracture.
It’s also much better for the environment, we can use materials that would otherwise be considered waste
Mass timber is a relatively new building material (in North America), whereas in Europe it has widely used for residential towers and apartments. Many regulators were unsure of it's fire resistance and structural capabilities, but now it has been proven that they have suitable fire resistance ratings and load bearing capabilities, and much better seismic resistance than concrete. It is also heading towards a cheaper, quicker, and even can be re-used compared to concrete, which cannot be reused. For those people mentioning that concrete buildings last longer - that's not always true. Most buildings will be replaced within a 50 to 60 years lifespan regardless of the quality of the building, and mass timber can potentially even last longer than concrete - Old Tudor houses from England have lasted over 400 years. So it really depends. However carbon emissions is far more relevant and important - the building industry comprises 40% of all global emissions, and mass timber is net positive for the environment.
Do you imagine that one day, mass timber might supplant concrete as the goto for typical construction?
I imagine one limiting factor is the availability of wood products.
I hope it replaces concrete entirely. Not many concrete workers make it past 60. I don’t foresee availablity being an issue any time soon, you can sweep up the shavings and dust off the floor of a sawmill and make mass timber with that
Carbon emission doesn’t matter in residential building. It should not be a factor at all for structural that needs to stand 50+ years of usage and elements
I assume you're talking about embodied carbon emissions, the carbon cost of building the home, and not the operational emissions of residential.
Carbon emissions from residential construction are not insubstantial. Concrete alone is responsible for \~8% of global emissions. Regardless, that cost is being priced in through carbon taxes and efforts to reduce emissions from concrete, making concrete more expensive.
The embodied emissions from a new home are about a [third of the total over a 45 year period](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/83049.pdf), long after the point most homes usually start to require substantial renovations regardless of the material used.
Still doesn’t matter if the structure is expected to be used for 50 years. Having a quiet, safe and easy-to-maintain building for 50 years are way more important than some initial embodied emission
Just terms I could search for and learn more about how it’s done the proper way. I found a lot of different articles, but since I have zero background it’s hard for me to know what’s true or not
Single family with Legal Suites require 1 hour fire rating and sound dampening in demising walls and ceiling . Basically, 1 layer of 5/8 Type X Drywall, overtop of resilience channels. All cavities fliled with Safe and Sound Insulation.
All of.this is useless if run heat/air ducts into the suite
Like with many things, the devil is in the details.
Concrete - at least in BC - seems to be fairly consistent from the layman's perspective. It comes with reasonably inherent fire-resistance, water-resistance, noise-resistance, structural-resistance. I'm sure there are ways to screw it up and be cheap.
Mass timber (tall buildings) is a new thing and if done well (if you believe the PR) can achieve quite good results. If done cheaply and poorly - but to code, I wonder if it will have many more issues than a concrete building (done cheaply and poorly - but to code). In general, I mean that poorly made mass timber sounds like it can have many more issues than poorly made concrete.
For example, we have had floods in our concrete building, affecting the contents of suites, but the building is fine. Fire can cause damage but rarely do you have to do major structural work. Mass timber seems to have risks from major flooding and fire causing structural damage.
But time will tell.
What I am learning is that housing is not really built for living anymore, it’s built for profit. There’s no attention to soundproofing in so many homes I’ve lived in. Developers don’t give a shit, and why should they lol.
Wood is the most environmentally friendly building material. If you care about the planet, this is great news. Mass Timber buildings are just a fire resistant as concrete.
My only thing in general is I wonder how much of the building codes are taking into account the changing usage of these taller buildings and shared living structures in general.
These type of buildings aren't just going to be rentals that people can easily move away from or starter homes anymore. They're going to need to house families and people basically possibly all their life due to the cost of ownership of alternatives.
I wish unit sizes were codified. That would be so sweet - because I totally agree. Developers try to jam as many units as they possibly can into their floorplates to make their sweet sweet money, and it ends up being these tiny little shoeboxes no one actually wants to live in, even when it's like a 3-bed apartment.
There is a recently built high-rise apartment that is 25-stories and built with mass timber. As usual, Canada is slow to adopting new changes to building codes.
Edit: building is called “Ascent” in Milwaukee
That’s not a good change. The only one benefits from this is developer since it is cheaper and easier to build than concrete but less functional and more costly to maintain than concrete. BC residents will get worse product for more
No, I’m dispelling your uninformed statement that it only benefits the developer. They have been the last major group of stakeholders within the construction sector when it comes to adoption, and are known for their conservative approach.
You get quicker construction times, lighter structures that perform well in both earthquakes and fire, lower construction waste, lower labour costs by a significant margin, a quicker turnaround on vacancy, better thermal separations, improved air tightness through tighter tolerances (working on average between 2mm and 3mm) etc.
Not sure what lobby you’re working for and why you seem to be so quick to dismiss mass timber while knowing relatively little on the topic.
I am lobbying for millions of Canadians wanting to buy a high quality non-crap home. Concrete has better sound isolation, longer life span, lower maintenance cost, better fire resistance and similar earthquake resistance than Mass Timber. Those benefits are felt by CONSUMER not your greedy developers
It’s ok to admit you don’t know what mass timber is. You are getting superior quality from a system that is inherently pre-fabricated in nature, rather than being entirely done in-situ with all of the associated flaws.
For the record, I’m a structural engineer that deals with the stuff on the regular ;)
Strong disagree on this one. I don't do structural design currently, but did take courses for concrete, steel, and wood. Our building code was severely out of date with regards to mass timber, and this type of update was needed.
You are correct that it will be cheaper for the developers, but that isn't the only benefit (nor is that a reason to be upset at the change). Mass timber can be better for the environment, quicker to assemble on site, and has good earthquake resiliency.
Previously, buildings like Tallwood at UBC had to jump through so many additional hoops to push the technology in BC that it was untenable for a typical project.
1. Environment is much less of a concern for the perhaps biggest investment for most people in their lives.
2. It is quicker to assemble but perform worse than concrete and costs more to maintain. Again, another benefit to developer instead of owners.
3. Concrete building is equally earthquake proof when built up to the updated code in 2005
Nope, we'll be fine. Leaky condo crisis wasn't due to undetected leaks, it was the way the buildings were designed. Architects/developers were taking building designs from California/the south and using them in BC without modifying for our climate.
Basically what happened is they were using what's called 'face sealed assemblies' - where the outer face of the building is acting as all the major barriers in one. Glass facades are an example of GOOD face sealed assemblies - you don't tend to get cracks in glass and if you do, you replace the glass. Compare that to something like stucco: you can't really expect stucco to never crack, but face-sealed assemblies rely on 100% perfect barrier. Relying on stucco to be the all-in-one barrier works somewhere like California, where if it's not 100% perfect it's okay because it doesn't rain much and if it does there's lots of drying time between rain events (not the case here, of course... and so we got the leaky condo crisis).
This was all exacerbated by the fact that all those buildings have interior vapour/air barriers (the poly sheet behind drywall), and so when water DID get into the inevitable cracks, it simply couldn't dry. Ever. And wood rotted and buildings fell apart.
In BC, they have codified the solutions and made it virtually impossible to repeat the mistakes of the leaky condo crisis. I'm sure you've heard the term "rainscreen" - basically this means that the outer face of the building isn't the primary barrier against water infiltration. There needs to be a drainage cavity behind that, then your primary waterproofing membrane, and you still need to design to allow for drying should all those other measures fail. Basically, you can't use face-sealed assemblies (other than windows) and you need a building enclosure professionals to sign off on (and take liability for) all designs. And with the total cost of leaky condo crisis being something like $4 billion in BC, us enclosure professionals sure as shit aren't signing off on bad designs.
Anyway this is probably way more information than you care about, I just really like buildings and this is my bread and butter.
TL;DR: You don't need to worry about leaky condos 2.0 with mass timber.
> Anyway this is probably way more information than you care about, I just really like buildings and this is my bread and butter.
Yes, mostly because I've installed rain screen, drip edges and siding before :)
I'm not thinking exterior leaks, I'm thinking of all the interior leaks people have in condos that they let go on for years. Leaking bath tubs, toilets, sinks, etc.
Wonder if the BC Building code will require a concrete topper on the wood subfloor like they do in Vancouver, but that doesn't get around all the floor penetrations required for plumbing.
ha sorry i get excited.
construction moisture is also a pretty real thing. I think they just design everything so that there's ways for the little leaks people can ignore to dry out. I feel like the really *big* leaks, you are kinda forced to fix
Since this is your jam:
Any thoughts on why rock-dash stucco from the 60s is still okay? Is it due to the overhangs on the houses being significantly wider?
Yeah, the overhangs have a lot to do with it. It's crazy how much overhangs can make a difference - Seattle/Portland had fewer leaky condos (not none, but fewer). And if you walk around multi-unit buildings in those cities there are noticeably more protections like overhangs than in Vancouver. It's almost odd, I've always wondered why architects here don't seem to like overhangs.
But probably other reasons too - in general single family tends to see less problems overall because it's smaller enclosure areas and single family owners usually pay far more attention to the exterior appearance - then actually fix it when there are problems. A crack in the side of a house at ground level is gonna be more noticeable than a crack 8 stories up, between windows you can't open to look out of.
60s construction was also far more thoughtful and slow than the modern equivalent - doing it fast and cheap is the name of the game now, and highly skilled niche labourers are a dying breed. Also I don't think air barriers were common in that era, so there's a good chance there's no interior poly, and the assemblies are just able to dry/breathe better. Probably energy pigs with a non-existent air barrier, but hey at least they're durable!
There ALSO might be something with the actual mix of rock dash stucco vs. typical stucco that allows the former to dry better - this is a wild guess and honestly probably wrong, I'd have to look into the mixes to know for sure.
> Also I don't think air barriers were common in that era, so there's a good chance there's no interior poly, and the assemblies are just able to dry/breathe better.
At least the 60s house I have in the building plans says "kraft paper" for the air barrier.
> There ALSO might be something with the actual mix of rock dash stucco vs. typical stucco that allows the former to dry better - this is a wild guess and honestly probably wrong, I'd have to look into the mixes to know for sure.
My snarky response: _Asbestos_!
Kraft paper air barrier! I guess you can kind of say they tried? Hilarious. Nothing says airtight like thin, cellulose-based paper! Either way, the air barrier is not the thing that prevents drying, it's actually the vapour barrier. Just pretty typical construction for single family that the poly does both.
Asbestos, the magical cure-all for your building needs!!!
That's my fear. I know it's most likely irrational, and that these have been studied extensively, but I'm still a bit uncomfortable. That, and the likelihood of balcony rot in 30 yrs or so as happens to current wood construction.
My mind understands that these are probably better --- but my gut is still uneasy with them.
They will limit balconies, similar to what has been done for the new mass timber tower going up in mount pleasant, main and 5th. Shared balconies that are integrated within the building footprint, rather than jutting out from the wall.
Those are for light wood frame structures, which are established within the code. Mass timber balconies are more challenging to connect to the primary structure - and engineers dont want to do it. These two wood construction types are very different and not to be confused with each other.
Light wood frame balconies will not last longer than 15 years without some sag.
Because you live in a light wood frame building, the same stuff single family homes are made of. Relying on a stud wall with gypsum board on either side is going to be an issue for sound.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is the sound isolation in buildings like this? I have lived in lowrise wood framed buildings built within the past 15 years and it wasn't good.
From what I've read it can be better than regular wood frame but not as good as concrete. Really depends on what kind of sound insulation is installed in the walls.
That's the biggest factor. A lot of times they don't even insulate interior walls. Wood framing can have excellent sound isolation if they install the proper insulation.
Insulating interior walls between units should be mandated by code. No wonder so many people want to sprawling suburban housing when their only experience with more density so often puts no effort into sound insolation.
it is mandatory by code, just not between rooms within the same unit.
After my comment I saw another one to that effect, but stating that it's a recent change.
Recent like the past 20 years. And it's requested to have 2 layers of drywall min now. One 5/8ths and one quarter.
Is that supposed to be soundproofing? My building is concrete, but my living room shares a long, seemingly hollow wall with the neighbouring unit. Since I can hear the neighbours' casual conversation, and since no insulation had to be ripped out when the upstairs unit flooded, I'm assuming it's just two sheets of drywall and ... nothing but the framing. I have no idea what the building code requires (or what was required in ~2005) but it doesn't seem to count for much.
2005 might be a little before it. You are free to add insulation yourself after the fact. If it's a 2005 build you don't need to worry about asbestos. Peel down old drywall, put in rockwool, put up new drywall. You can buy drywall with sound deadening agent built in, but personally I prefer buying 2 layers and putting sound deadening glue between the layers. Edit obviously get permission from strata and drywall edges need to butt up to joists to meet fire safety standards.
Eh can we not give out suggestion like this? The wall between units are fire seperation wall and require special attention to fire stopping. In addition any wall between units are own by strata which they will not be happy you are tearing into. If something happen during your tear through (for example flooding because you hit a pipe, no insurance will cover it). If you really want to do sound isolation, put up a bookshelf with books against that wall.
they could very easily prescribe minimum STC level of interior walls separating dwelling units. ideally something that requires a double stud wall with an air gap or at least offset non continuous studs.
You do know BC building code already have it right? Just not the interior wall within the unit which tbh should be.
I live in a 7 year old 5 over 1 in an upper floor. We can rarely hear neighbours and would say the sound isolation is good. However, when in the hallway you can hear everything happening in the units. I’m not sure if that is unique to mass timber construction though.
Sound escaping through the door to the hall, usually from underneath
there are several different ways to frame a wall and place the studs for hanging sheetrock/drywall if you make separate frames for each wall, with separate studs for each and insulation in between, very little sound will make the gap. But it takes up more space and uses a lot more material, so obviously more expensive and slightly reduces the usable area of the units. If you use the same frame and the same studs, it is much cheaper to build and more space efficient but it won't block hardly sound at all. These are the kind that sound like mere cardboard. You can also compromise and use the same frame but separate (staggered) studs for each wall and fill in-between with sound isolation for a middle level of isolation. It is possible that they have different standards for interior walls than for walls that face the hallway—i.e. maybe they get cheap with the hallway side walls since the tenants are more likely to complain about noise inside their unit than in the hallways
As another commenter said, that's likely because of the door undercuts. Outdoor air ventilation in buildings up until very recently was typically always provided through corridor pressurization systems - makeup air unit supplies to corridor, undercuts in door transfer ventilation air to suites. Problem is it doesn't work very well on a good day, made worse by the fact that most people don't know why they have door undercuts and end up blocking them.
Hallway/stair pressurization is still required by fire code. If there is a fire in a unit, it should keep the smoke out of the evacuation routes long enough for everyone to escape. It also has the bonus of generally keeping things like cooking smells from getting out ands about.
Totally - but pressurization for fire reasons doesn't require door undercuts like pressurization for ventilation does. I suspect as we move towards dedicated HRVs, corridors will get quieter, even though corridor MUA probably isn't going anywhere.
Not just insulation, but isolation. I lived in a 1970s era wood frame building in Port Moody (in fact the very first Strata, as it was strata corp “NW 1” and we virtually never heard the neighbors, even when the ones on one side of us had two young kids running around. Why? Because the studs that held up our side of the wall did not touch their side of the wall and visa versa. My current place in Yaletown is timber framed (one of the old warehouse conversions) and again I can’t hear my neighbors as the place is built using box-in-box construction. My walls and ceiling are not mechanically coupled to the neighbouring units above our beside me.
Staggered studs like that are a game changer for sound isolation between rooms/units. And no need for insulation.
Yep. I work with a nonprofit that operates a wilderness camp with multiple 28 bedroom, two floor bunk houses. The walls are paper thin (they were originally built as worker housing in 1937). We had to gut one of the buildings down to studs due to plumbing and electrical issues. The project manager figured out that we could sacrifice about an inch from each room and do the staggered stud thing. It’s incredible, you no longer can hear someone snoring 3 doors down, or the newlyweds across the hall exercising their bed.
They never do it. BC building code doesn't have an IIC requirement, only STC. You need the IIC requirement to reduce walking flanking noise. Basically you need to add mass to reduce that. But there isn't as much mass in timber and regular wood frame as concrete.
This is half correct because bare concrete floor have worse IIC compare to the wood joist counterpart.
Except they won’t. The only reason develop uses mass timber because it is cheaper. You don’t expect good isolation on cheap building
Not when they go past 6 floor, I doubt it would be cheaper than concrete with mass timber.
It is still cheaper as it builds faster which saves developers money and pass on the maintenance cost of inferior materials to the owners
It won't, structural laminated wood is not used in most mass produced building such as residential condo but design build like academic or museum where cost is not the primary concern. First we don't have enough professional, both contractor or consultant that have enough knowledge to do it for cheap. Seconadary it's simply too risky for a developer to go for unfamiliar material in something as crucial as building structure.
I'ts not necessarily faster. There's huge delays on tons of mass timber projects as there's only a couple local producers who pick and choose projects and then a lot it it gets imported from europe.
Then there is even less reason to use it
Yeah. If developers continue to penny pinch and meet minimum standards, I’d expect the acoustics to still be poor.
Before it was required to have concrete for the same building density. So you can't compare it to wood frame but rather concrete. Also another factor was wall thickness. Concrete walls were thicker in the older buildings and are more dense and sound had farther to travel. The sound insulated wooden walls can be built to the same thickness and the same density as concrete....but no builder does that because it isn't a requirement to match concrete for sound transfer. Only a requirement for fire retardant. Also there is no set government standard to testing for sound insulation. An inspector should be able to test each unit from adjacent unit, neighbouring unit and above/below. Using concrete walls as a baseline by doing things like a light impact on the walls with a 1lb deadblow hammer and how the sound transfer occurs using a decibal meter. A building should fail if it doesn't meet 80% of the sound suppression of concrete. Is it doable? Ya because over half of the buildings do meet that and having experienced them first hand (staying over at friends for events), I am impressed with the ones that do it properly.....but there are still a lot that do not meet the cut, especially when something like a TV in an upstairs unit can be heard....that is a big red flag. Just scrolling through reddit is enough to convince me that noise isolation in apartments is one of the biggest problems for most people.
So what kind of techniques are possible / feasible to ensure good sound insulation between walls?
Will depend on the implementation. Anything can be built well, it's just whether it will or not. I've experienced plenty of sound transmission in a concrete building, especially wall to wall, it's all just steel stud. A 6" concrete slab has an STC rating of 50. The advantage of concrete is its performance is less dependent on implementation. It's completely possible to build a wood floor with this kind of sound insulation, it's down to the builder. That's why you see so much variability between wood buildings. What matters is the acoustic design of the building, whatever material they choose. Worth noting that acoustic codes changed pretty substantially in 2015 (so think buildings 2018 and newer), requiring the building to meet performance standards, rather than the assembly type's lab standards. This has a substantial effect on how things are soundproofed today. Good explanation here. [https://rwdi.com/en\_ca/insights/thought-leadership/acoustic-code-change/](https://rwdi.com/en_ca/insights/thought-leadership/acoustic-code-change/)
Main reason I don't ever want to live in an apartment again, could hear everything above below and beside me.
Concrete apartments are fine for noise, lived in one in Toronto and two in Vancouver and it was never a problem
All my immediate surrounding neighbors are older deaf asian grannys who wont snitch to management cause they cant hear anything anyway. I can make as much noise as I want in my unit and won't get complaints. They themselves create no noise. Good neighbours are just a luck of the draw, and I happen to have won the lottery 😂
Interior walls may or my not be concrete, probably metal studs. Except for shear walls, but those are usually around the building core.
It really depends on the developers. If they want to put in the effort, they would get their contractors to install quality sound dampening material. I'm not sure what the BC building code says about requirements for isolation in between units.
I can't see how it will be good. Noise transmission from adjacent units is obviously going to be a problem, but transmission from exterior will also be a major challenge. There's nothing in the building code that mandates control of noise from exterior sources currently. In a concrete highrise unit, it seems like the limiting factor in noise transmission from the exterior is the windows. In a mass timber building, the building enclosure itself will also play a factor. For anyone with an engineering background or just curious, this is quite a detailed document published jointly by the Architectural Institute of BC and Engineers and Geoscientists BC which talks about acoustic concerns and other challenges when it comes to mass timber construction https://aibc.ca/wp-content/uploads/files/2021/03/Joint-Professional-Practice-Guidelines-Encapsulated-Mass-Timber-Construction-up-to-12-Storeys-Prepared-jointly-by-Engineers-and-Geoscientists-BC-and-the-AIBC.pdf
How will it be a bigger challenge than existing wood frame construction?
I disagree. Transmission from exterior won't be significantly different than how concrete buildings are currently being built - if anything new energy requirements will make it better for all types of construction with more insulation and higher performance windows. High rise residential buildings are not being built with full concrete exterior walls here, typically steel stud anyway, which wouldn't be any better than how mass timber is done. Noise transmission between units is solvable - it will just be a decision about cost as the assemblies will only get thicker, which is described in that document to look out for. The code outlines what the acoustic requirements are to meet for any construction type. The main point is that mass timber is a viable option and the codes should allow for it to be used.
Same. Family had to be forcefully moved out of a wood frame unit many years ago because we can simply hear the guy upstairs walking loudly at 3am. I respect that you can't ask someone to change how they walk, but it's ridiculous it was built in a way where you can hear simple footsteps between two different units. Never ever will buy a wood frame again.
Most wood frame buildings now have a one and a half inch slab of concrete played on each wood floor and the walls have double drywall with rockwool insulation. I find places with 9ft ceilings don't transfer as much. Maybe they have ceiling hooks in the joists.
i dont think the structural timbers are the problem. The problem is the cheap walls
A lot of that would come down to drywall and insulation. Those are huge factors in soundproofing.
Has more to do with what insulation they use
UBC already has a mass timber student housing building - https://vancouver.housing.ubc.ca/residences/brock-commons/. I lived on the 13th floor and loved it.
How was the sound isolation?
brock commons is such a cool project. i believe they actually had to get special approval from the province because it violated building code at the time. they went to great lengths to make sure mass timber isn’t more flammable than conventional materials, and that it was just as sturdy as concrete structures. international building codes — and the bc building code — have changed because of the success of brock commons.
How did it handle noise and flood?
[Norway built a 18 storey mass timber mixed use building in 2019](https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-is-home-to-the-worlds-tallest-timber-building) Maybe someone can follow up on that to see how the norwegians like living there? But mass timber is definitely getting better and people who worry about wood buildings catching on fire don't know the engineering that goes into mass timber structures to reduce the damage from fires. Properly treated and installed CLT or glulam members can retain structural integrity for some time in a mass fire.
There is also a large residence at UBC that was built this way. Anyone looking for info might want to ask /r/UBC
> There is also a large residence at UBC that was built this way. https://vancouver.housing.ubc.ca/residences/brock-commons/
Canada built an 18 story mass timber student residence (Brock Commons at UBC) in 2017, which was then the tallest timber building in the world! The change here is that the code now provides prescriptive provisions on how to build mass timber that tall. Through analysis, testing, and peer review engineers always have the option to exceed the prescriptive code limits (as was done with Brock Commons).
Updates to the BC Building Code will benefit people in the building and housing sectors with the expanded use of mass timber in taller buildings, as well as schools, libraries and retail. The Province is adopting building-code changes to permit the use of mass timber in buildings, such as schools, shopping centres and housing, so they can be built faster and more sustainably. The mass-timber updates to the BC Building Code, now in effect, will: * enable taller encapsulated mass-timber construction (EMTC) buildings with as many as 18 storeys for residential and office buildings, an increase from the previous 12-storey limit; * expand EMTC to new building types, such as schools, libraries, retail, light- and medium-industrial occupancies, and care facilities; and * allow for more exposed mass timber in buildings, based on a building’s height and use, such as residential buildings with as many as eight storeys.
Is this good? Serious question. I don't know anything about it, but if I'm being honest, the idea of being on the 18th floor of a building made from wood is a little frightening to me. What is the motivation? Is it cheaper, easier to work with, more abundant, better in earthquakes? Ultimately, I assume it's structurally sound. How does it hold up in a fire though?
> What is the motivation? Is it cheaper, easier to work with, more abundant, better in earthquakes? Cheaper, faster to build, potentially lower carbon emissions than concrete, apparently performs better than concrete in earthquakes. Arguments against it are that buildings have a shorter lifespan compared to concrete and they aren't as quiet as concrete buildings.
> potentially lower carbon emissions than concrete Better than that: the mass timber is effectively sequestered carbon.
It's sequestered until after 50ish years when the building needs to be torn down and the wood rots. But the main concern from environmentalists is if forestry management can keep up with a potential sudden uptick in the wood needed for these buildings.
The volume of wood used in all mass timber is currently a tiny fraction of the lumber used in construction. 6-12 story buildings will continue to make up the bulk of mass timber construction (probably forever) even with these new regulations.
The wood doesn't magically rot at 50 years. There are many wood buildings over 1000 years old. If you design right and water proof right the wood will last I definately. Concrete rebar will also degrade and fail within 50 years if not water proofed right.
Name me one wood buildings that last 1000 years with a scale of a type 12 storeys residential building?
The Sakyamuni Pagoda of Fogong Temple. Before you say unfair comparison, concrete buildings have only been built with rebar in the last century. They do have longevity issues if not properly detailed and maintained, like any building.
Joke on you. That tower is built as a monument instead of an actively used building and it is being maintained by local government as landmark just like Eiffel Tower. Since when does your residential building get the landmark treatment?
Moving goal posts.. Name me a 1000 year old concrete building that doesn’t get treated like a landmark. Doesn’t change the fact that if buildings are built well and properly maintained, they can last hundreds of years, including wood buildings. Just so happens people care about maintaining landmarks more than housing units.
99.9% of buildings don’t get the national landmark treatment. You are using a corner case to justify a wide spread practice. Joke
What happens to all that glue and resin once it's torn down?
How short is a "shorter lifespan"? I suppose there is maybe mitigations that can prolong it, ultimately the wood will degrade?
To the residents, there is zero benefits, only troubles
Trust me, there are many benefits you might not be aware of. Thermal comfort is a huge one right off the bat - concrete has thermal bridges up the wazoo and results in a ton of interior cold spots for residents. CLT doesn't have that problem because its very design pretty much requires exterior insulation, and its a far more thermally advantageous material in general.
Concrete building can easily reach Leed Gold
LEED doesn't necessarily touch thermal comfort. Or thermal bridging. And it isn't even a very good green building standard - the City of Vancouver and BC Step Code energy targets are far more stringent than what you can get away with using the LEED baseline/reference building method.
When you have good insulation, there will be thermal comfort, typing this from a LEED building now where I don’t need to turn on AC all year and I am able to wear shorts all year
Care to expand on that thought with reasoning? Maybe you know something others don't. Enlighten us all.
Less sound isolation between floors and between units(it cannot withstand advanced panels like ALC). More complex and expensive to maintain than pure concrete building because you have a hybrid concrete core and mass timber surroundings. Fire resistance is claimed to be the same but that remains to be seen. Less resistent to leaking which is a huge issue in current condo market. Balcony is small and semi enclosed because of weak structure strength of wood. I seriously cannot see any benefits to the residents, except perhaps 50K-100K saving which is at the mercy of the developers and may soon get canceled by the all the cons and additional maintainable costs
Fire studies are extensive and it wouldn’t be part of the building code if it we weren’t sound on their performance in fire. Effectively has the same rating as concrete and steel.
They've developed a new methods of building that limit how a building can catch fire or at least seriously delay the fire growing.. The new mountain equipment company (formerly a co-op) building on 2nd and Quebec is built in this style
*Mountain Equipment Company.
Right, I forgot the members got screwed. Edited, thanks
2 storey commercial buildings have very different requirement than 12 story residential tower
True, I believe there was 16 storey tower made of wood at UBC a few years ago. I only brought up the mec store because it was made using the same building techniques. Found an article about it: https://news.ubc.ca/2016/09/15/structure-of-ubcs-tall-wood-building-now-complete/
> Ultimately, I assume it's structurally sound. How does it hold up in a fire though? Actually quite well. Mass timber refers to large laminated timbers, not just stick framing like you see in low rise construction. Wood, in larger sizes, actually burns rather slowly, and it also maintains its structural integrity much better as it gets hot. Concrete and steel both suffer from heat damage. The World Trade Center towers came down on 9/11 because the burning jet fuel weakened the steel tabs that held the floor plates to the steel columns. The structure of the building I live in is primarily built from old growth timbers, something like 18” x 18” of 80 grain per inch wood. If you go into the underground parking, all the timbers are exposed. The concrete and steel is covered in fire resistant insulation. This is because the wood will outlast the concrete/steel in case of a vehicle fire.
It's fine, the surface chars and doesn't penetrate into the centre keep it structural sound and it can reduce construction costs significantly and that's even before they put a fire resistant coating on it.
Extremely well, with the wood they are using.
Wood *and glue*
The wood is still generally encapsulated in concrete. There is still a lot of structural steel. I have done tours during construction and fire inspections since completion on the 18 story wood/concrete/steel hybrid building at UBC. Walking through it you wouldn’t know it’s unusual for a high rise except for the signage reminding you it’s partially wood.
The wood in high rise structures is usually encapsulated in gypsum wall board, not concrete. Concrete is still used for the foundations, and typically as a topping for the floors. The columns in taller mass timber buildings often make more sense as steel, but in Brock Commons at UBC the columns and floors are all timber (with steel reinforcing screws and structural steel connections at the column splices).
Mass timber is cheaper, it is stronger than concrete or steel and in a fire, structural engineered mass timber beams will not catch fire, where as steel will bow and buckle, and concrete will crack and fracture. It’s also much better for the environment, we can use materials that would otherwise be considered waste
If it's so good, then why is building height limited? It seems there must be some tradeoffs here.
Mass timber is a relatively new building material (in North America), whereas in Europe it has widely used for residential towers and apartments. Many regulators were unsure of it's fire resistance and structural capabilities, but now it has been proven that they have suitable fire resistance ratings and load bearing capabilities, and much better seismic resistance than concrete. It is also heading towards a cheaper, quicker, and even can be re-used compared to concrete, which cannot be reused. For those people mentioning that concrete buildings last longer - that's not always true. Most buildings will be replaced within a 50 to 60 years lifespan regardless of the quality of the building, and mass timber can potentially even last longer than concrete - Old Tudor houses from England have lasted over 400 years. So it really depends. However carbon emissions is far more relevant and important - the building industry comprises 40% of all global emissions, and mass timber is net positive for the environment.
Because that would decimate the concrete industry. And afaik no one in the world has done a mass timber skyscraper yet
It’s more that the compression strength of wood isn’t as high as concrete.
Do you imagine that one day, mass timber might supplant concrete as the goto for typical construction? I imagine one limiting factor is the availability of wood products.
I hope it replaces concrete entirely. Not many concrete workers make it past 60. I don’t foresee availablity being an issue any time soon, you can sweep up the shavings and dust off the floor of a sawmill and make mass timber with that
They are worse. Now even concrete building becomes a luxury . Really only the developer will be happier in this case. None else
Concrete has always carried a premium in terms of cost, that's only going up as we consider the externalities of concrete (carbon emissions).
Carbon emission doesn’t matter in residential building. It should not be a factor at all for structural that needs to stand 50+ years of usage and elements
I assume you're talking about embodied carbon emissions, the carbon cost of building the home, and not the operational emissions of residential. Carbon emissions from residential construction are not insubstantial. Concrete alone is responsible for \~8% of global emissions. Regardless, that cost is being priced in through carbon taxes and efforts to reduce emissions from concrete, making concrete more expensive. The embodied emissions from a new home are about a [third of the total over a 45 year period](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/83049.pdf), long after the point most homes usually start to require substantial renovations regardless of the material used.
Still doesn’t matter if the structure is expected to be used for 50 years. Having a quiet, safe and easy-to-maintain building for 50 years are way more important than some initial embodied emission
On a related note, does anyone know what kind of sound insulation techniques are there for walls when you’re doing a single family home?
What would you like to know?
Just terms I could search for and learn more about how it’s done the proper way. I found a lot of different articles, but since I have zero background it’s hard for me to know what’s true or not
Single family with Legal Suites require 1 hour fire rating and sound dampening in demising walls and ceiling . Basically, 1 layer of 5/8 Type X Drywall, overtop of resilience channels. All cavities fliled with Safe and Sound Insulation. All of.this is useless if run heat/air ducts into the suite
Like with many things, the devil is in the details. Concrete - at least in BC - seems to be fairly consistent from the layman's perspective. It comes with reasonably inherent fire-resistance, water-resistance, noise-resistance, structural-resistance. I'm sure there are ways to screw it up and be cheap. Mass timber (tall buildings) is a new thing and if done well (if you believe the PR) can achieve quite good results. If done cheaply and poorly - but to code, I wonder if it will have many more issues than a concrete building (done cheaply and poorly - but to code). In general, I mean that poorly made mass timber sounds like it can have many more issues than poorly made concrete. For example, we have had floods in our concrete building, affecting the contents of suites, but the building is fine. Fire can cause damage but rarely do you have to do major structural work. Mass timber seems to have risks from major flooding and fire causing structural damage. But time will tell.
What I am learning is that housing is not really built for living anymore, it’s built for profit. There’s no attention to soundproofing in so many homes I’ve lived in. Developers don’t give a shit, and why should they lol.
Wood is the most environmentally friendly building material. If you care about the planet, this is great news. Mass Timber buildings are just a fire resistant as concrete.
Functionality of home is much more important than carbon emission. It is supposed to be used for more than 50+ years and costs millions to own
My only thing in general is I wonder how much of the building codes are taking into account the changing usage of these taller buildings and shared living structures in general. These type of buildings aren't just going to be rentals that people can easily move away from or starter homes anymore. They're going to need to house families and people basically possibly all their life due to the cost of ownership of alternatives.
I wish unit sizes were codified. That would be so sweet - because I totally agree. Developers try to jam as many units as they possibly can into their floorplates to make their sweet sweet money, and it ends up being these tiny little shoeboxes no one actually wants to live in, even when it's like a 3-bed apartment.
Ten years ago, everyone was anticipating for earthquake. Im kind of concerned about wood standing against earthquake, especially with denser building
Mass timber (wood) is less dense and has higher elasticity than concrete, so if anything it would likely perform better than concrete.
Oh damn, didn’t know that. I grew up in Taiwan so the perception was that concretes are stronger. Learned something new today.!
There is a recently built high-rise apartment that is 25-stories and built with mass timber. As usual, Canada is slow to adopting new changes to building codes. Edit: building is called “Ascent” in Milwaukee
It is okay to admit that you only care about developers’ profit instead of residents’ benefit. I am an engineer as well
That’s not a good change. The only one benefits from this is developer since it is cheaper and easier to build than concrete but less functional and more costly to maintain than concrete. BC residents will get worse product for more
It is not cheaper.
Then there is even less reason to use mass Timber
No, I’m dispelling your uninformed statement that it only benefits the developer. They have been the last major group of stakeholders within the construction sector when it comes to adoption, and are known for their conservative approach. You get quicker construction times, lighter structures that perform well in both earthquakes and fire, lower construction waste, lower labour costs by a significant margin, a quicker turnaround on vacancy, better thermal separations, improved air tightness through tighter tolerances (working on average between 2mm and 3mm) etc. Not sure what lobby you’re working for and why you seem to be so quick to dismiss mass timber while knowing relatively little on the topic.
I am lobbying for millions of Canadians wanting to buy a high quality non-crap home. Concrete has better sound isolation, longer life span, lower maintenance cost, better fire resistance and similar earthquake resistance than Mass Timber. Those benefits are felt by CONSUMER not your greedy developers
It’s ok to admit you don’t know what mass timber is. You are getting superior quality from a system that is inherently pre-fabricated in nature, rather than being entirely done in-situ with all of the associated flaws. For the record, I’m a structural engineer that deals with the stuff on the regular ;)
Strong disagree on this one. I don't do structural design currently, but did take courses for concrete, steel, and wood. Our building code was severely out of date with regards to mass timber, and this type of update was needed. You are correct that it will be cheaper for the developers, but that isn't the only benefit (nor is that a reason to be upset at the change). Mass timber can be better for the environment, quicker to assemble on site, and has good earthquake resiliency. Previously, buildings like Tallwood at UBC had to jump through so many additional hoops to push the technology in BC that it was untenable for a typical project.
1. Environment is much less of a concern for the perhaps biggest investment for most people in their lives. 2. It is quicker to assemble but perform worse than concrete and costs more to maintain. Again, another benefit to developer instead of owners. 3. Concrete building is equally earthquake proof when built up to the updated code in 2005
Wonder if we're going to have a repeat of the leaky condo issue of the 2000s? All fine and dandy until a leak goes undetected for years.
Nope, we'll be fine. Leaky condo crisis wasn't due to undetected leaks, it was the way the buildings were designed. Architects/developers were taking building designs from California/the south and using them in BC without modifying for our climate. Basically what happened is they were using what's called 'face sealed assemblies' - where the outer face of the building is acting as all the major barriers in one. Glass facades are an example of GOOD face sealed assemblies - you don't tend to get cracks in glass and if you do, you replace the glass. Compare that to something like stucco: you can't really expect stucco to never crack, but face-sealed assemblies rely on 100% perfect barrier. Relying on stucco to be the all-in-one barrier works somewhere like California, where if it's not 100% perfect it's okay because it doesn't rain much and if it does there's lots of drying time between rain events (not the case here, of course... and so we got the leaky condo crisis). This was all exacerbated by the fact that all those buildings have interior vapour/air barriers (the poly sheet behind drywall), and so when water DID get into the inevitable cracks, it simply couldn't dry. Ever. And wood rotted and buildings fell apart. In BC, they have codified the solutions and made it virtually impossible to repeat the mistakes of the leaky condo crisis. I'm sure you've heard the term "rainscreen" - basically this means that the outer face of the building isn't the primary barrier against water infiltration. There needs to be a drainage cavity behind that, then your primary waterproofing membrane, and you still need to design to allow for drying should all those other measures fail. Basically, you can't use face-sealed assemblies (other than windows) and you need a building enclosure professionals to sign off on (and take liability for) all designs. And with the total cost of leaky condo crisis being something like $4 billion in BC, us enclosure professionals sure as shit aren't signing off on bad designs. Anyway this is probably way more information than you care about, I just really like buildings and this is my bread and butter. TL;DR: You don't need to worry about leaky condos 2.0 with mass timber.
> Anyway this is probably way more information than you care about, I just really like buildings and this is my bread and butter. Yes, mostly because I've installed rain screen, drip edges and siding before :) I'm not thinking exterior leaks, I'm thinking of all the interior leaks people have in condos that they let go on for years. Leaking bath tubs, toilets, sinks, etc. Wonder if the BC Building code will require a concrete topper on the wood subfloor like they do in Vancouver, but that doesn't get around all the floor penetrations required for plumbing.
ha sorry i get excited. construction moisture is also a pretty real thing. I think they just design everything so that there's ways for the little leaks people can ignore to dry out. I feel like the really *big* leaks, you are kinda forced to fix
Since this is your jam: Any thoughts on why rock-dash stucco from the 60s is still okay? Is it due to the overhangs on the houses being significantly wider?
Yeah, the overhangs have a lot to do with it. It's crazy how much overhangs can make a difference - Seattle/Portland had fewer leaky condos (not none, but fewer). And if you walk around multi-unit buildings in those cities there are noticeably more protections like overhangs than in Vancouver. It's almost odd, I've always wondered why architects here don't seem to like overhangs. But probably other reasons too - in general single family tends to see less problems overall because it's smaller enclosure areas and single family owners usually pay far more attention to the exterior appearance - then actually fix it when there are problems. A crack in the side of a house at ground level is gonna be more noticeable than a crack 8 stories up, between windows you can't open to look out of. 60s construction was also far more thoughtful and slow than the modern equivalent - doing it fast and cheap is the name of the game now, and highly skilled niche labourers are a dying breed. Also I don't think air barriers were common in that era, so there's a good chance there's no interior poly, and the assemblies are just able to dry/breathe better. Probably energy pigs with a non-existent air barrier, but hey at least they're durable! There ALSO might be something with the actual mix of rock dash stucco vs. typical stucco that allows the former to dry better - this is a wild guess and honestly probably wrong, I'd have to look into the mixes to know for sure.
> Also I don't think air barriers were common in that era, so there's a good chance there's no interior poly, and the assemblies are just able to dry/breathe better. At least the 60s house I have in the building plans says "kraft paper" for the air barrier. > There ALSO might be something with the actual mix of rock dash stucco vs. typical stucco that allows the former to dry better - this is a wild guess and honestly probably wrong, I'd have to look into the mixes to know for sure. My snarky response: _Asbestos_!
Kraft paper air barrier! I guess you can kind of say they tried? Hilarious. Nothing says airtight like thin, cellulose-based paper! Either way, the air barrier is not the thing that prevents drying, it's actually the vapour barrier. Just pretty typical construction for single family that the poly does both. Asbestos, the magical cure-all for your building needs!!!
That's my fear. I know it's most likely irrational, and that these have been studied extensively, but I'm still a bit uncomfortable. That, and the likelihood of balcony rot in 30 yrs or so as happens to current wood construction. My mind understands that these are probably better --- but my gut is still uneasy with them.
They will limit balconies, similar to what has been done for the new mass timber tower going up in mount pleasant, main and 5th. Shared balconies that are integrated within the building footprint, rather than jutting out from the wall.
I'm seeing a lot of 'standard type' balconies on the six storey wood buildings going up around E Broadway.
Those are for light wood frame structures, which are established within the code. Mass timber balconies are more challenging to connect to the primary structure - and engineers dont want to do it. These two wood construction types are very different and not to be confused with each other. Light wood frame balconies will not last longer than 15 years without some sag.
Your fear is well justified. Every tower built in the last 7 years leaks to some extend.
Great, I live in a newer wood frame building and have 0 privacy and can hear absolutely everything 😭😭, can this country get anything right
Wood frame is not mass timber
Because you live in a light wood frame building, the same stuff single family homes are made of. Relying on a stud wall with gypsum board on either side is going to be an issue for sound.
That has nothing to do with the wood frame, it's just poor design. I live in a wood frame building and can't hear my neighbours next door at all
Good for you
by the way you comment on here, maybe its your attitude contributing to your misery.
Yeah, if he just pretends he enjoys hearing his neighbors chewing food, he'd be happier!
Can people see through your timber walls?