I read that the 2015 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) is allowing major changes to how tall commercial structures can be built. The current code allows for wood structures to be up to a maximum height of 4 stories but the 2015 changes would allow up to 6 stories.

This caused an uproar and the Cement Association of Canada called a press conference in Ottawa to protest the changes.

The wood industry in Canada wants to build commercial buildings as tall as 20 stories out of wood. Mind you, they still require concrete and steel to make numerous connections but the buildings frame and walls would be mainly wood. The wood industry wants to tap into the commercial high-rise market share that steel and concrete currently dominate.

The wood industry has very good lobbyists

I believe in BC they are building these ridiculous high structures out of wood already

Imagine, someone manages to accidentally start a fire on the first floor of a 30 story wood structure...poof

Richmond, VA has been undergoing a multi-family rental construction boom for a few years now. But they build 5 story apartment buildings out of 2x6's. About 10 years ago, one burned down while under construction and damaged 19 other structures and a couple dozen vehicles. Until there is a tragic loss of life, they will not change the code. In this area, contractors/developers will always build to minimum code standards.

The one argument I read from the Canadian timber industry was that "mass timber" does not burn easily. The quote was, "Mass timber does not catch fire easily. Do you use 12-inch diameter logs to start a campfire? Not likely. Mass timber is very hard to light and once it is lit, it wants to put itself out."

Ironically, they quoted an engineer who is big on high-rise wood frame buildings but he cautioned the movement. Engineer Eric Karsh stated, "...I don't think that it is beneficial to promote the use of wood just for the sake of promoting the use of wood. Materials have to be used in appropriate ways and I think there is a danger in adopting wood-only policies." He was referring to British Columbia and the "Wood First Act" they adopted.

One thing is fore sure. Any of these high-rise wood frame structures require double the amount of fire suppression devices. I've seen the requirements and the sprinkler head coverage area is almost double that of a steel/concrete structure. They require heads in all closets and every few feet instead of the more sparse requirements for steel/concrete high-rises.

Posted By Chris Johnson on 17 Feb 2014 02:36 PM
The wood industry has very good lobbyists

I believe in BC they are building these ridiculous high structures out of wood already

Imagine, someone manages to accidentally start a fire on the first floor of a 30 story wood structure...poof

BC has the "Wood First Act" and the high-rise wood frame construction movement is alive and well in BC.

Certain products have their place, North America still continues to use inferior products for some reason, probably money. We do not think long term, only here and now.

I have no evidence, but just common sense, and common sense tells me the maintenance and long term care needed for a wood high rise structure will far exceed that of concrete. But the here and now is that the wood structure will be an initial cost savings today to be built. The on going maintenance I foresee needed as well as energy costs should be taken into account and see that wood is not the viable choice.

I like the quote for the sprinkler system having 2x the heads in a typical concrete structure. Common sense tells me the cost is not just going to be the heads, but also the pumps and manifolds to possibly run the additional heads if needed.

Something tells me if the insurance companies realized the wood vs concrete for life safety this may increase premiums.

BC is known for it's timber, it is a major part of their economy so I can see why they promote it. Like Bruce has said, it unfortunately is going to have to cost a few lives before change is made.