late 1960's early 70s terraced house construction question

[matz]

can anyone shed some light on how the front and rear elevations of some of these houses are constructed?

They typically have UPVC windows the full width of the front and rear elevation with the tops of the bedroom windows sat right beneath the roof line.

Because the windows run full width, how are they supported? presumably there must either be a timber frame or lintel running full width. These terraces are showing brickwork running vertically between each terraced house like a gable but no sign of anymore bricks.

Estate agent has assured that these properties are traditional construction and that they always pass survey - theres no point in them saying otherwise for obvious reasons.

How are these houses holding together does anyone know?!

 

[RonnyRaygun]

That's crosswall construction.

Basically the party walls are loadbearing, taking the load from the floors and the roof.

The front and rear walls are usually just timber stud, and are usually braced to give stability to the party walls.

It's not a bad form of construction and you shouldn't have any trouble getting a mortgage on it.

The front and rear walls are often not very well insulated though, and might need upgrading.

 

[matz]

ouch I didnt want to hear that.

I looked at what an estate agent told me was a cross wall construction house a few months ago which had the same frent and rear wood frame elevations but he told me the first floor was concrete and I wrote it off. That agent assured me it was non traditional construction build.

This particular property has wooden first floor - I've seen the T&G boards in one of the bedrooms. The 2 different agents have told me a total of 4 times the house is traditional constuction. Its been niggling me hence this thread.

so these tyoe of houses had concrete or timber first floors - its non traditional construction then and therefore some lenders wont like it?

 

[Alastairreid]

Read this.

Firstly, houses built of this construction type will be cheaper than a seemingly identical house next door that is made of traditional build materials.

If you are looking at a house to buy that has this construction and you are doing it only because it is the cheapest house in your area and therefore you want it as it is the only house you can afford, then this is not likely to have a successful outcome for you.

Mortgage companies will either refuse to lend, or will want HUGE deposits; far in excess of deposits normally required.

People buying these houses have to know what they are taking on. People buying these houses will usually be either cash buyers who just want a cheap house, or developers with a huge cash pot to do the refurbishment/changes.

Houses of this type of construction rely heavily on the original structure remaining intact. Any alterations may weaken the structure (e.g. internal layouts, and any new windows/doors).

Many of this type of construction have high asbestos levels in them.
They often have very poor insulation.
You must not make any new holes in the exterior walls.
If the neighbour has made new openings/changed the internal layout, this might have an effect on the stability of your part too (assuming a semi)

This type of building is cheap, quick to construct and if used for its original purpose can serve the owner well. Many years down the line though, changes having taken place on an ad-hoc basis, indiscriminate care taken with ongoing maintenance, can render the whole building pretty worthless.

 

[RonnyRaygun]

Mortgage companies will either refuse to lend, or will want HUGE deposits; far in excess of deposits normally required

Don't know where you got that from Alastair, but most mortgage companies have no problem with lending on Crosswall construction properties.

An example here from the Leeds Building Society

http://www.leedsbuildingsociety.co.uk/introducers/pdf/valuers-guidance-notes.pdf

 

[RonnyRaygun]

That agent assured me it was non traditional construction build.

Well, it is non traditional, but it is also known as "Rat-Trad", for Rationalised Traditional, where the method of building is traditional (strip footings brick/blockwork, timber roof etc, but the process is somewhat simplified to increase speed of building.

so these tyoe of houses had concrete or timber first floors

No reason for them not to have either - both are acceptable.

 

[matz]

thanks for replies. I'd read both the Leeds overview also the article thats copied and pasted on here already. To be honest, the copy and pasted article is the only real negative I've read on this type of construction. Most are neutral in their opinions of cross wall construction.

I'm not that positive about it myself - another issue with these houses is the roofs are saggy. I can see why now if they are supported by a timber frame front and back.

where might the asbestos have been? within the studwork? or was that uninsulated??

 

[RonnyRaygun]

I'm not that positive about it myself - another issue with these houses is the roofs are saggy. I can see why now if they are supported by a timber frame front and back.

I'm not sure how the roofs are generally constructed on these houses, but I wouldn't expect the roof to be carried by the front and rear walls. I would have thought there would be maybe a couple of purlins or a ridge beam and purlins taking the load onto the party/gable walls. The front/rear walls are non load bearing so one way or another I would expect the load to get transferred to the party/gable walls.[/quote]

where might the asbestos have been? within the studwork? or was that uninsulated??

White asbestos sheet is generally not a concern unless disturbed by cutting or drilling.

 

[matz]

do you know how the timber elevations are constructed? I'm assuming its effectively studwork with windows fitted within. Theres those tile things on the outside which some people have replaced with UPVC slats - are these directly onto the timber frame?, what about the inside walls which from inside the house appear dry lined?

sorry for the questions

 

[stuart45]

I worked on quite a few of these houses year ago. There are thousands of them around, so you should get a mortgage on them.
The main idea of crosswall construction is that it allows a large area of glazing.It's used for hotels as well.
The timber walls above the ground floor windows are normally formed as trussed purlins in 4x2 timber. This is a kind of load bearing beam.
The roof rafters might sit on either an RSJ, a flitch beam, concrete beam, or timber beam.

 

[tony1851]

These houses are not 'non-traditional' in the accepted sense of the words.

'Non-traditional' generally refers to houses built of steel or concrete frames. These are usually patented building systems, and many have well-documented faults.

But as per the other posters, cross-wall construction is just a variation of traditional construction (ie with brick, timber and tile) but used in a more rational way. There's nothing inherently wrong with this method