6 storey wood frame?
 

Looks like these will be approved in certain areas as of Nov. I like the idea if will provide for cheaper units, as long as they're properly fire-proofed.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Permits/Building-permits/six-storey-wood-frame.aspx

Here's some info from the City and a video:

http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2014/10/six-storey-wood-structures-innovative.html

• Video Link

Can you currently skirt the rules by having some floors concrete, ie can you create a 6 story building where stories 1 and 2 are concrete and 3-6 are wood?

I've seen a proposal with 2 concrete above ground + 4 wood floors. Not sure if there's any built examples.

Another concern with wood frame would be noise, though I expect these to be higher quality than some of those 70's walk ups.

Vancouver developers have gotten around the six storey wood structure maximum, by building the first 2 floors as concrete construction. I know that there is a 10 storey building in Vancouver that is 4 concrete floors plus six wood framed construction above that.

I don't think we have any in Calgary as of yet. I would also be interested if Calgary DP's would allow for this.

Cheaper for the builder, and higher fees as the insurance is significantly more expensive for these large wood framed buildings. The gains here are not for the average consumer.

Which one is this?

I think it's a bad idea. See my posts in the construction thread.

I just know of it because our COO is from Vancouver and has talked about it at meetings, as our company has been tossing around this idea. I don't think anything will come of it though.

There's an example here in Calgary on 17th ave SE...Bella Casa Condos. I'm pretty sure the first two floors were concrete and then wood frame on top.

Edit: nm, it looks like that building is only 4 floors. I must be getting it mixed up with something else.

What types of price differences are we talking about when it comes to higher insurance?

Not a huge fan of this. Wood framed buildings at this height will require far denser stud spacing to support the extra load, this will mean poorer thermal and acoustic performance. The fire rating can be managed, but this is increased risk for massive fires, especially during construction.

Like this fire at a Seniors assisted-living building under construction in Vancouver recently?
(under construction - 80% complete before the fire)

http://d2x3wmakafwqf5.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/112/files/2014/10/van-fire1.jpg

Granville & 49th. Only 3 stories tall (4 if you count the roof) and wood construction with a concrete underground parkade.

Chatter at the time was that the fire was bad because "none of the fire prevention features were active yet".

Last I heard it will be a tear-down to the concrete parkade & rebuilt.

more:
http://www.cknw.com/2014/10/03/four-alarm-blaze-burns-up-seniors-home/

I would think you'd see more buildings built like the Attainable Homes project in Mt. Pleasant with the primary structure being steel with wood between, which may actual reduce the amount of wood in the walls (floors would be similar I would imagine) as they only have to support the drywall.

Bella Casa was first floor concrete, but yes only 4 floors.

I don't really have an issue with 6 storey wood frame buildings. My thoughts are that if they can do a 4 storey one, a 6 storey one isn't a big deal. The risks are the same, regardless of height. I wouldn't want to see any higher than 6 floors, but from the sounds of it, once you get up around 8 floors, concrete makes more sense anyhow.

The fire that we all remember was the Erlton one, but things have changed since then, and also that was a building that was under construction at the time. The neighbouring townhouses burnt down too, but it had nothing to do with height and more to do with having cedar shingles on the roofs.

I don't have a problem with wood frame being built at any size, I have a problem with them being sold as condos.

If an institutional landlord wants to tackle this and the city thinks the risk-reward-benefit equation works. Go for it, build a disposable building. At the end of it's useful life a vacant lot for redevelopment is an acceptable outcome for that corporate entity. A condo corporation governed by people with mortgages on units in the building can't really say "tear it down", they just go into a death spiral of rising fees and further deterioration. There is no happy ending or even okay ending for the individual owners.

Penhorwood is an extreme example but the end-game for a condo corporation isn't fun:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1562152/owners...to-demolish-building-or-serve-jail-time/

Seems the city (Ft. Mac and here) needs to step up inspections on all buildings, this doesn't necessarily only happen on wood framed buildings.

I use Penhorwood only as an example of what comes at the end of the road for a condo corporation when a building is at the end of it's life. Whether that is one day or fifty years after construction. I think that is something individual homeowners should be sheltered from when the useful life of one type of building is likely to be significantly shorter than other similar alternatives.

If a landlord wants to built a cheap complex of buildings with the full knowledge that they may only last twenty years, that is a completely valid decision to make from a ROI perspective. By that time the land might be infinitely more valuable or it could be a ghost town. The end of the road scenario for a home owner in a condo situation is unavoidably ruinous.

Even the worst built steel and concrete tower, barring some sort of severe engineering failure or rustbelt level economic depression will always be a viable structure. It might need re-cladding, it might need new elevators, it might need new HVAC. But the concrete, steel and physical plant will always be worth millions. It might not represent the best use of any piece of land but it can be made to work.

During the "Leaky Condo Crisis" in Vancouver, I remember reading an article in a local magazine (Georgia Straight?) that tried to wake up people to the coming 'end of use' crisis that is already happening with condos built in the 50's and 60's (or apartment -to -condo conversions at the time). Some of these half-century old buildings were causing problems with the current owners who are stuck with major repairs to keep these old buildings functioning, usually caused by previous condo owners / strata councils doing the bare minimum maintenance possible that was still affordable to the owners at the time.

With the shoddy construction (and slap-dash repairs) of the "Leaky Condo Crisis" buildings, the article noted that some leaky condo owners will still be paying off their condo mortgages and the loans for the repairs around the same time that the major components of the building will need their 20 / 25 / 30 year service-life replacement, so strata boards need to be preparing today for the major building maintenance needed 2 or 3 decades down the road.

The article also pointed out that the oldest condos will need to be demolished & replaced after 50 or 60 years because of poor maintenance, but because the building is strata-owned, a small group of condo owners can refuse to sell and move - preventing the building demolition. There is nothing in the law (yet) that I've seen that outlines how a condo building can be vacated and demolished without current owners losing their lifetime investment in their condos.