The Steel vs. Wood Debate

With the recent changes to the Ontario Building code allowing combustible construction materials for buildings up to 6 storeys high, there is a lot of information out there speaking about the various benefits and disadvantages of materials like concrete, wood and steel.

The Multi-Housing News Online posted an article last week Why Cold Formed Steel is a Viable Alternative to Wood Frame Construction written by Charles Specht, CIC, CDA, Constructive Risk.

In this article Charles writes about some of the major fires that occurred in 2014 in the United States at various wood framed building projects. He uses these examples to discuss the impact of building material choices on things like the cost of Builders Risk Insurance.

Insurers have long been wise to these risks. “Wood” construction has a greater likelihood to burn or be damaged by fire and will be a total loss versus a partial one. Loss history for wood construction has been poor, and carriers are very restrictive of the amount of risk they will take. This drives up the cost to the builder, and actually weakens the pro-wood argument that it is less expensive than other materials. The recent major wood frame fires calls for a need to look at cost savings and particularly insurance more closely.

He says in the article that steel framing is a viable alternative to wood framed construction as it is inherently non combustible and can qualify for lower Builders Risk Insurance costs. He also talks about the other benefits of steel framing such as durability, moisture- and mold-resistance and recyclability.

Click here to read the whole article and visit the CSSBI website to download all the resources and information you need to design and build in cold formed steel framing.