91ÊÓƵ

In the past 10 years, mass-timber construction has taken off, and Oregon, renowned for its abundance of lumber, has become something of a hotbed of timber innovation.

Projects range from Carbon12, a pioneer in tall timber building in the U.S., to Portland International Airport’s new 9-acre timber roof. The hype surrounding these structural systems is growing, with last week’s International Mass Timber Conference in Portland drawing more than 3,000 people – a record-breaking number for the event.

Mass timber, in some ways, has reinvigorated Oregon’s forests and urban design and engineering. But what does the future hold for this innovative building material?

Three industry leaders recently provided the 91ÊÓƵ their thoughts. They are Tyler Freres, Freres Engineered Wood vice president of sales; Chandra Robinson, LEVER Architecture principal; and Dean Lewis, Skanska USA director of mass timber and prefabrication.

All three interviews were done individually over the phone. Their answers have been edited and condensed for clarity.

91ÊÓƵ: What changes do you see for mass-timber construction in the next five years?

Tyler Freres: I see continual growth in the mass-timber markets, especially as additional space is developed and with more embodied carbon regulations. Mass-timber construction is one of the greatest ways to sequester carbon, especially in the buildings of the future. I think it is hands down going to be one of the most popular construction techniques we have in the future.

Chandra Robinson: I think what we’re looking at are big changes in terms of how you procure mass timber. So, looking at where it’s coming from. Here in Oregon, where the mass-timber conference has always been, we’re in timber country and so it’s always made so much sense here to find our wood sources locally. In other parts of the country that’s more difficult. But I think that in the next five years, we’ll see growing opportunities for more local, regional sourcing of wood that gets turned into different mass-timber products.

I also think that the shake table testing that NHERI (The Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure) has been doing over the last several years and that LEVER has been closely involved with … (is) going to get a lot of people really excited about what the possibilities are for resilient buildings.

The shake table is all about how a building can perform in a seismic event and then still be usable after. So, I think people are going to start to pursue that as well once the shake tests are done and they can kind of see how viable some of those systems are.

Dean Lewis: I think starting out from the last 10 years where it’s been growing and now where it’s going is just more overall adoption in the market. We’re seeing a lot more projects, not just on the West Coast, but also on the East Coast and you’re going to see a lot more projects.

About 10 years to a few years ago, there was kind of the firsts and then we saw more in the public realm with a lot of institutional projects and now you’re going to see more private developers getting into it.

I think it’s just an option that’s growing. Obviously the codes are now allowing us to do eight to 18 stories in mass timber. I think that’s going to be the next big market because it’s going to fill a need for a lot of zoning changes and a lot of jurisdictions and cities that are looking to add density, but they necessarily don’t want to do a tower. It’s a good middle-market option.

91ÊÓƵ: What would help the growth of mass-timber construction?

Tyler Freres: Well for us in the Northwest a lot of it is cost in that we really need to make the connection between beneficial forest management for the health of our forests and the production of these buildings made of wood.

Right now, there is such a reduced supply of timber available in the market that those costs are extremely high for us to buy the timber and then turn it into these innovative wood products. If we can reduce the cost of the input for timber, then we can become more competitive with concrete and steel, which would really open opportunities in the future.

Most of the cost of the material and providing these products is the timber itself. If we can increase forest management across the federal landscape, like quadrupling management to improve forest health and reduce forest fires like some of the green policies President Biden’s administration is doing – if that can be done, we can increase the volume of timber available. Then the cost of this type of material will go down considerably – it could be almost a one-to-one ratio. If the cost of the timber drops by 50 percent, then the cost of production of this material could drop by 50 percent, which would make it hands down the material to use for multistory construction.

Chandra Robinson: I think that there are certainly a lot of myths about wood construction, especially in some places where it’s an old city and they have had a lot of fires. People are still a little bit suspect about wood construction. We think that it feels like everyone is doing it right now, but they’re not.

There are lots of places in the country where you are not able to do that either because you’re not in timber country and one of the exports isn’t wood, but also just because of those fears it’s like we need to build everything with masonry and steel and concrete that doesn’t burn.

Dean Lewis: Overall, the supply chain is still in its infancy and so we need more suppliers, we need more fabricators. We need overall just education and people getting familiar with it because it’s still relatively new to the states. It’s only been 10 years where other countries have 20 or 30 years’ experience with it.

91ÊÓƵ: Why is mass timber not more widely used?

Tyler Freres: Well, I would say it is because it is a new market here in the United States. I know Europe’s been doing it for a long time, but these types of trends take a long time to take hold, and sometimes it does take government policy to make it happen, which is why I think the embodied carbon bills are a step in the right direction.

These manufacturing facilities are expensive and difficult to put in, especially when you do not know if the market will develop. It is the bleeding-edge people that are out there putting in the facilities and really trying to push on the market and make it happen.

I think contractors are starting to come on board as well as understanding the cost of construction. Every single step of the supply chain needs to get their hands on it and to gain some experience and to be able to put these buildings up and make them a real reality.

Chandra Robinson: I think it’s still seen as kind of a new technology, and I think people wait for sort of proof that those projects are viable. I think right now with many great examples people are starting to see successful mass-timber buildings. But I would say it’s just because again, those myths around timber construction and mass-timber construction that are kind of holding people back.

Dean Lewis: I think one, it’s new and with anything new, it takes time to vet. We see a lot of this with our clients. We see this a lot from past employers that I worked with is when people aren’t familiar with something, especially in construction, which is a very slow industry to adopt change, they need to see someone else do it first or they need to test it for themselves. So, it just takes time I think for building products, especially in construction if something’s new to get adopted, especially on a large scale when you start talking eight to 18-story buildings – those are big structures that weren’t per code at the last 50-plus years. So, it’s a large investment.

91ÊÓƵ: What are the obstacles to mass-timber construction in Oregon?

Tyler Freres: Well, there is still a little bit of fear of the unknown – that thing that people can’t anticipate in a new building type. But as these projects get completed, I feel like those are largely evaporating and people are becoming much more comfortable with the process themselves.

Right now, I still think that the future looks bright. However, we still need to make this connection between our natural resources and the use of these products in timber buildings.

Chandra Robinson: I think that in Oregon right now, it’s really because the market has seen so much fluctuation. There’s been so much escalation in cost that any one thing that seems like it might be a cost add … really deters people from using mass timber right now – even if in the long run the costs that it adds are actually balanced by the time that it saves with construction or the fewer materials that are required or smaller foundations that are required. But right now, I kind of see that as a barrier to lots of construction, but definitely mass-timber construction.

I think that connecting the timber to the place is really important and that it brings so much added value to the project. If there’s a narrative, if there’s a story about where the wood came from and the communities that it touched would really help people understand that it really is such a great choice if you’re in a place that already has timber, or if you’re close enough that you can get it transported.

I think mass timber in the U.S. has a lot of growing to do; in Europe it is well established. I think there are so many more opportunities for sourcing from the U.S. and it is really figuring out what parts of the process aren’t available like if there is no place that can do grading of the lumber – that’s a barrier. It’s really about building systems and kind of filling in all the holes — filling in the blanks for people to make it much easier for them to get timber.

Dean Lewis: I think it’s still code adoption. There are some latest code provisions that are being adopted early in certain jurisdictions that are favorable to timber like Seattle and Portland and whatnot. Then, I also think the insurance industry has been a challenge. Builder’s risk insurance has been a specific challenge because it’s three new classes of construction (that) are specific to mass timber and again it goes back to my point where it’s something that’s new. It hasn’t been quantified, hasn’t been benchmarked for very long and so therefore the insurance industry is putting premiums on it, which are quite costly in comparison to traditional steel or concrete buildings.