Picture a downtown site at dawn, where contractors gently swing a 50-foot-long, 2 feet wide and feet deep timber bream into place. Not for building, but a parking structure.

That’s the reality of what's happening in the world of mass timber right now. And to unpack it, we spoke with the Systems Wizard himself, Corey Hokanson, the Design Manager at SmartLam North America.

‍

An Industry Scales Up: From Mass to Mega Timber  

Columns and beams once considered “big” are now growing so large that onlookers knock on them to check if they’re hollow. That’s exactly what happened when SmartLam North America showcased its new 24-inch by 42-inch glulam at a recent conference. They drew immediate curiosity about how glulam could possibly reach such dimensions - and be produced economically. Until recently, achieving a beam two feet wide by up to four feet deep often meant a time-consuming, custom hand-layup process. Now, SmartLam presses in Dothan can turn out these jumbo glulam members seamlessly.

‍

Driving this transformation is a practical desire to manage higher loads and longer spans with fewer pieces, all while addressing fire and sustainability requirements. In Hokanson’s view, “There’s a lot of things that change when you start getting into pieces that big and that heavy.”

‍

One direct technical gain is the potential to reduce overall piece counts—doing away with multiple smaller beams in favor of a single member. Fewer members means fewer connections and labor hours, but it also demands bigger handling equipment and more careful planning. Because single pieces can top 12,000 pounds, oversights in design, sequencing or installation can erode those hoped-for benefits. The industrial leap from “mass” to “mega” marks a moment where “everything has changed in the last couple years,” adding fresh options that simply did not exist at this scale before.

‍

‍

3-Hour Fire Rating: A Bold New Frontier  

Not long ago, few imagined that exposed timber could endure three hours of direct fire exposure. Yet Hokanson describes new furnace tests showing mass timber assemblies charring for three hours with “no coatings, no intumescent paint, no drywall wrapping.” During these tests, the timber effectively formed a thick char layer on the surface, protecting an undamaged structural core. He notes, “They put it in a furnace and basically blast it with a blowtorch for three hours… it’s like you threw it in a bonfire.”

From a design perspective, this changes the conversation around heavy timber in spaces that demand ultra-safe, code-driven solutions. It also means teams have a legitimate alternative to expensive encapsulation or the  steel and/or concrete typical for high fire-rating assemblies. In tangible terms, using these 3-hour rated timber assemblies frees projects from adding extensive gypsum board or intumescent coatings. The cause-and-effect is straightforward: by allowing enough mass for extended charring, the material retains a stable core, preserves structural performance, and satisfies the code. Hokanson points out the real advantage of timber’s char characteristic: “You figure three hours… that’s a long time… you can get a lot of people, everybody out of a building in three hours.” It’s an endorsement that large wood members are stepping decisively into applications once reserved for concrete or steel.

‍

Podiums and Parking Decks: Challenging Concrete’s Turf  

Now, timber can claim spaces long dominated by concrete—like podium levels and parking decks. SmartLam is already fielding designs that swap out concrete beams, slabs, and rebar with 7+ layer CLT and heavy glulam. Hokanson captures the schedule benefit in practical terms:

“I can come drop in these four pieces of timber off the semi-truck in two hours. Or we can sit there and form this all up for the concrete and then put all the rebar in… then we can pour the concrete. Then we can sit around and wait for it to cure….”

That contrast grapples with weeks of site labor, specialized forming and bracing, and the wait time that inevitably follows a wet pour.

Replacing a conventional podium system (concrete beams plus a concrete deck) with large glulam beams spanned by nine-ply CLT does come with its own unique set of consideration, though. Hokanson describes a project employing 12.5-inch-thick CLT panels: “That piece weighs 12,000 lbs.… we better make sure it’s in the right order on the truck,” emphasizing the need for careful sequencing and onsite logistics.

‍

Mastering the Logistics Puzzle

Enormous structural members offer clear benefits, but only if carefully choreographed from manufacturing to final install. It starts the moment a 12,000-pound panel is pressed and ends with that panel being correctly sequenced on-site. Hokanson warns, “If you get partway through putting it together and you’re like, ‘Oh, I should have put that one in first,’ now I got to go pull three pieces out… you’re losing all that time schedule savings.”

A concrete deck might allow continuous pour after pour without worrying about piece-by-piece staging. Timber, however, arrives “basically a puzzle piece,” so just-in-time sequencing is crucial.

The upside? Mastering that puzzle yields an impressively streamlined crew—“on a mass timber install, you might have five or six people,” Hokanson notes. With fewer trades on-site, the risk of coordination clashes drops. But to keep that advantage, each piece must arrive when needed and in the exact orientation for rigging and lifting into position. For those tackling a podium job or large commercial floorplate, the short yet precise staging can be a major edge—provided the entire supply chain works in lockstep, from the press operator in Dothan to the crane operator on the job site.

‍

‍

The Four-Foot Screw: New Realities for Field Install  

Hardly anyone expects to drive a four-foot screw into solid wood, but the new wave of massive beams demands equally massive fasteners. “You’re not going to find a lot of 16-inch screws at your local hardware store,” Hokanson observes. That leads to specialized torque drivers, batteries that can handle heavy loads, and yes, an awareness that if the tool overheats or the screw seizes, installation will be disrupted. “You have to drive it in one go all the way in,” he explains, because if mid-thread cooling occurs, the screw can bind and snap.

The consequences of using the wrong method can be devastating. “Worst case scenario, you’re taking all those screws back out and replacing them all because you voided the warranty… or you broke the screws off,” Hokanson says. In the absolute worst case, snapping a critical fastener inside a beam can require full beam replacement—a cost nobody wants. This scenario flips a standard wood framing approach (laborers with practice at sinking three- or four-inch screws) into a new territory where site managers must plan for specialty equipment, factor in slow-driving drivers, and equip extra drills to cycle in when batteries begin overheating. In short, ignoring the fastener hardware dimension might jeopardize the very speed advantage that large mass timber promises.

‍

Automated Presses Meet Sky-High Loads

No one doubted that big glulam members could be made by hand. But producing them at scale—“a press load of beams every fifteen minutes,” as Hokanson puts it? Utilizing a uniform, factory-tight layup with presses sized for these larger members makes it possible. And more reliable.

Fasteners and connections can fail if there are gaps in the lamellas, something mitigated with a consistently dense beam. Hokanson explains, “Simpson Strong Tie has an actual study and a formula for how much you have to reduce the capacity if there’s gaps between boards,” referencing the risk with hand layup members of this size. The new automated llines mitigate that capacity drop. The result is more reliable performance, higher design loads, and a confidence that timber can compete head-to-head with steel or concrete in major structural roles. As Hokanson says of the new system, “We can make anything in between this and this,” meaning wide, deep, or a combination of both, all without the manual constraints of older methods.

‍

Pushing Off-Site Construction Principles Further

Massive beams magnify a core principle of mass timber: “You really don’t want to have to do that” on site, Hokanson quips when describing the labor of drilling a hole through 42 inches of solid wood. A routine task might become an hour-long ordeal, requiring two people, multiple drill bits, and a shop vacuum to clear sawdust along the way.

‍

The obvious takeaway: incorporate all cuts, holes, and service runs into the CNC stage. “If that shows up in the wrong order and you have to move that somewhere… how do you move that?” quickly transforms from a rhetorical question to a budget-busting predicament.

‍

In a world where beams can approach 4 feet in depth, that coordination starts early and runs deep. Whether it’s a parking deck or an office building with hidden conduit, everything from the largest structural connection to the smallest wire chase needs to be pinned down before the press and the CNC do their work.

Future of Mega Mass Timber

“Don’t assume that we can’t do something,” Hokanson says, stressing that many long-discussed but previously unfeasible mass timber ideas deserve revisiting.

The giant beams are here—and they are more than a novelty. “Everything has changed in the last couple years… we’ve got bigger screws, bigger fasteners, bigger brackets… let’s just do more of it.” Then, with that, he closes the door on doubt and opens it to a new scale of timber.

‍

Most mass timber failures don’t happen in the field. They happen months earlier—when teams gloss over fire ratings, undervalue acoustic control, or punt connection design down the line. By the time those gaps surface in coordination, it’s too late. Costs climb, schedules slip, and the supposed schedule savings with mass timber starts looking like a liability.

Few know this better than structural engineer Julian Lineham, PE, F.SEI, F.ASCE, CEng, FICE , a founding principal at Studio NYL with more than 20 mass timber projects under his belt. Over three decades, he’s shown that mass timber only delivers on schedule, budget, and design intent when detailing is resolved from the start.

💡Studio NYL put together a resource on what to consider when planning a mass timber building — fire, acoustics, spans, hybrids, and more. Join our newsletter to get the resource.

Bespoke Detailing: London’s High-Tech Era

Julian Lineham came of age in London’s late-1980s “high-tech” design scene demanded structural engineers draw every bolt, splice, and rebar layout. That culture of bespoke detailing shaped his entire career. “We literally designed and drew every connection,” he recalls — a discipline that still drives how he approaches mass timber today.

When he moved to the U.S., Lineham was struck by how often structural packages carried less detail than he was used to. Instead of adjusting downward, he doubled down on the UK mindset: every connection documented and  resolved . That rigor pays off in mass timber. Clear connection drawings reduce RFIs, shrink field rework, and preserve the architect’s vision — especially if you want the warmth of exposed timber without unnecessary steel dominating the aesthetic.

‍

Connection Design in House: The Fast-Track Ticket  

When time is money, outsourcing connection design can derail schedules and compromise aesthetics. Julian Lineham traces this conviction back to his London training: “We literally designed and drew every connection,” he says. That rigor matters even more with mass timber, where nearly every connection remains visible in the finished architecture.

“I like to keep the connection design in-house,” Lineham explains. Delegating to a 3rd party is possible, but, as he puts it, “you lose a bit of time and you lose a bit of the vision.” By managing bearing conditions, plate details, and fastener layouts from concept through construction, Studio NYL avoids the back-and-forth that typically comes with delegated design reviews.

Fire & Acoustics: Resolve Them Early or Pay Later

Exposed timber ceilings bring warmth and character, but they also bring two of the biggest considerations in mass timber: fire ratings and acoustics. Julian doesn’t mince words: “The type of construction and the fire rating is very critical. And then the second thing that’s critical very early on is to look at acoustics.”

Leave those unresolved and you’ll pay for it later. Fire and acoustic requirements set minimum sizes and floor build-ups; miss them early and the fixes show up as deeper members, thicker toppings, or fire protection add-ons at connections—all of which add cost, erode schedule, and threaten the clean timber aesthetic the client expects.

At the North End Community Center, Lineham’s team specified a five-ply CLT panel with an acoustic mat and a 2½-inch  topping. That assembly was intentional; it was designed up front to achieve the sound rating without inflating the member depth.

On the fire side, he points out that choosing a slightly wider timber member to provide natural wood cover is often cheaper and faster than trying to fire-wrap steel later. Otherwise, you’re “messing around trying to intumescent paint” steel connectors and columns — a sequencing headache that slows down the job

‍

Bonnet Springs Park: Speed, Scale, and the Power of Repetition  

“Speed was essential” at Bonnet Springs Park — a 250-acre reclamation project in Lakeland, Florida, with fifteen new buildings rising on a former railyard. For Studio NYL, it was their first foray into mass timber, and the key was repetition. “There was a very large event center with an 80-foot span,” Lineham recalls, “and we ended up doing that with glulam beams and a CLT roof.”

The structural strategy was simple but deliberate:

• Double glulam beams side by side to reduce roof depth.
• Keep panel sizes repetitive for faster fabrication and erection.
• Use hybrids at the perimeter: CLT panels spanning between slender HSS steel beams and columns, bearing on a bottom plate for a clean colonnade.

Florida’s minimal snow loads made the long span feasible, but the real payoff came in the field: “All the panels were erected in three days… it was a very, very fast project.”

With contractors moving simultaneously across fifteen buildings, the ability to repeat details and standardize panels made the difference between weeks of work and days of assembly.

‍

North End Community Center: Where Hybrid Solves Hard Realities

In St. Paul, Minnesota, Studio NYL teamed up with Snow Kreilich Architects on what would be the firm’s first mass timber project. The program called for a gymnasium with broad spans but columns slender enough to fit a tight urban footprint. “They were interested in exploring [mass timber] with us,” Lineham recalls.

The gym roof spanned 55–60 feet using double glulam beams with five-ply CLT panels above, spaced to match the panels’ capacity. But carrying the entire complex in timber would have meant massive columns that the site couldn’t accommodate. The hybrid solution combined round steel HSS columns, exposed steel brace frames, a perimeter glulam beam, and an interior CMU elevator shaft — each material placed where it made structural and financial sense.

The design allowed the gymnasium to retain the warmth of an exposed timber roof while keeping vertical supports light and efficient. For the client, the choice went beyond performance: “They wanted a mass timber building…to rebuild the community,” Lineham says. Surrounded by timber, occupants gain a welcoming environment that research shows lowers stress and blood pressure.

The project wasn’t without trade-offs — mass timber carried an upfront premium — but as an institutional investment and a civic anchor, the long-term value was clear. Here, hybrid construction solved the realities of site and budget while preserving the architectural vision.

‍

Museum of Nebraska Art: Historic Meets Forward-Thinking Timber  

Julian Lineham’s passion for blending new and old is on full display at the Museum of Nebraska Art (MONA) in Kearney. The existing museum occupied a 1911 post office building, and the plan called for both a historic renovation and a new two-story mass timber wing over a basement. “The architect conceived it as a full mass timber building — CLT roof floors, glulam beams and columns,” Lineham explains.

Cantilevers up to 12 feet required glulams nearly 56 inches deep, which conveniently allowed MEP systems to be distributed within the beam depth, leaving the exposed underside clean and gallery-ready. But executing that vision meant balancing code and constructability. Some steel brace frames and integrated steel columns required fire protection, which in turn demanded careful sequencing of intumescent paint so the timber finish wasn’t marred.

Construction during a Nebraska winter added another challenge: snow and moisture management. Crews had to keep CLT panels protected to avoid saturation. Despite the hurdles, the finished project delivers a striking contrast of heritage brick and expansive timber galleries. At the grand opening just months ago, the client was not only impressed by the aesthetics but also thrilled with the expanded capacity to display its collection.

‍

The Next Frontier: Stadiums, Kinetics, and Radical Ambition  

Julian Lineham doesn’t see mass timber as limited to community centers or mid-size cultural projects. “I would absolutely love to do a mass timber stadium of any kind of size…that would really excite me,” he says, pointing to examples of entire sports venues built from wood for their natural aesthetics and carbon advantages.

And his imagination doesn’t stop there. A past client once proposed a rotating museum floor that would track the sun. Many might dismiss the idea, but Lineham sees it as a glimpse of where mass timber is headed: a fusion of engineering, kinetics, and mass timber’s surprising adaptability.

That appetite for innovation is what excites him most. New connection strategies, novel panel systems, and unconventional geometries are constantly being tested. Europe has taken the early lead, but in North America, best practices are emerging in real time — fueled by open exchange at conferences and a willingness to prototype in practice. As Lineham put it: “It’s an industry that really wants to iterate and innovate as well.”

💡Studio NYL put together a resource on what to consider when planning a mass timber building — fire, acoustics, spans, hybrids, and more. Join our newsletter to get the resource.

‍

‍

A cost-saving material that also demands precision? For many East Coast architects, developers, and builders, mass timber promises off-site efficiencies and schedule gains—yet one wrong move can unravel a project. Fees balloon. Inspectors panic. And entire teams ask, “Is it worth the hassle?”

That question looms larger where century-old codes and entrenched bureaucracies clash with nimble design teams. On the West Coast, small firms leap into mass timber, enjoying fewer fire-department hoops and a shorter permitting queue. Meanwhile on the East Coast, as one consultant puts it, “Well, what can we do just outside of the city…who might be more open?”

Why the detour? Because the highest stakes—cost, schedule, and brand reputation—hang on who adapts first and how soon these timber towers can finally rise.

For years, the idea of constructing mid- and high-rise residential and civic buildings out of wood seemed unthinkable—especially in America’s congested coastal cities. Yet mass timber has steadily drawn the interest of architects, forward-looking developers, and policy leaders seeking faster, more sustainable solutions. Real progress is visible, but so are the regional differences shaping how these structures actually get built. If you work in architecture, engineering, or construction and want to secure major timber projects, understanding the cultural and regulatory context across the country can determine whether your plans advance or stall.

‍

A Cross-Country Culture Clash: Where Timber Takes Root

Local mindsets can overshadow even the best design or cost advantage, especially when introducing an unconventional material in new territory. On the West Coast, mass timber has frequently been championed by small firms that make decisions quickly. “It was really in a very grassroots way,” recalls consultant and architect-developer Kristin Slavin with Conifer Advising, who worked at a tight-knit Portland office. Early success stories like Oregon’s Carbon12 came from teams wearing multiple hats—developer, architect, and GC—exploiting their agility to build some of the nation’s first mid-rise mass timber projects.

‍

Across the East Coast, however, older cities and deeper bureaucracies create additional friction.

“New York City in particular is huge and old and there’s a lot of bureaucracy,” Slavin says.

Strict code enforcement and conservative building cultures can mean lengthy negotiations with fire departments and approval boards, slowing down novel material applications. But local colleges and research organizations are turning heads with pilot initiatives, prodding private players to consider timber’s potential savings and marketing appeal. If you plan to build with wood in places like Boston or New York, Slavin advises starting on the urban periphery, where smaller authorities may be “more open to attracting a different type of development…that aligns maybe more with the state or international building codes rather than, you know, New York City-specific concerns.”

Bridging these local attitudes is only the first challenge—navigating city-specific codes can be just as formidable.

‍

The Code Conundrum: Cracking Big-City Fire Regulations

In dense cities, the chance to build tall with wood can dramatically cut schedules—but only if you overcome a labyrinth of code requirements and wary fire officials. While model codes now allow taller mass timber, each municipality applies them differently. “The biggest hurdle right now that we’re seeing in New York City is really with the building code and in particular with the fire department,” Slavin explains. Complex layers of authority demand extra design reviews, fire testing data, and demonstrated safety credentials.

Mastering this bureaucratic maze is essential for keeping high-profile projects on budget and on schedule. Most East Coast approvals hinge on early engagement with local fire marshals, thorough material testing, and proven case studies. West Coast agencies, more familiar with wood, have historically been more open to alternate paths of compliance. As more successful projects pass inspection in big cities, local skepticism begins to ease.

“As soon as there are some projects that have been successfully built…we’ll start to see that change here more rapidly,” Slavin notes.

These regulatory victories pave the way for more ambitious uses of timber, especially in the booming residential sector.

Housing on the Horizon: Why Residential Towers Are Next

As housing shortages intensify, mid- and high-rise multifamily developments are emerging as prime candidates for faster, leaner construction methods. With residential demand surging on both coasts, delivering units quickly becomes critical for developers juggling high land costs and fluctuating interest rates. “A lot of housing…is really well aligned for that” repeatable, modular approach, Slavin says.

Speed drives the appeal: hitting occupancy sooner means earlier revenue, which can make or break a deal in uncertain markets. Mass timber towers typically range from six to 18 stories, a sweet spot that aligns with current structural and fire code parameters. Although going taller is possible in jurisdictions that adopt progressive codes. Even if some central urban areas balk, sites just over city or county lines might offer smoother approval.

But to truly capitalize on that speed, manufacturers and builders are elevating off-site strategies that drive consistency and predictability.

‍

Meeting tight deadlines means shifting more work to controlled factory settings, a trend driving new forms of off-site construction. Mass timber is no longer limited to panelized kits; some teams now deliver partially finished volumetric modules.

“I was surprised by the amount of volumetric modular…I was seeing,” Slavin says, citing examples of European firms shipping nearly complete room pods. While North American projects are adopting similar ideas, wide geographic distances complicate logistics in ways Europe doesn’t face.

Flat-pack panelization currently offers enough standardization without locking architects into a strict box shape. At the same time, volumetric solutions can boost speed and reduce onsite labor for highly repetitive floorplans. Either approach shifts risk away from unpredictable jobsite conditions and reduces rework—an especially valuable prospect in cramped or congested metro areas.

Yet even the most advanced prefab strategy falls apart without early, unified planning among all stakeholders.

• For teams starting to explore prefab, understanding how design workflows shift is essential. Kristin Slavin ’s Prefab Design Process Guide breaks down what changes for architects, owners, GCs, and manufacturers — helping you avoid costly missteps before fabrication begins.

💡 Join our newsletter and get the Prefab Design Process Guide to see how prefab changes roles and responsibilities across the project team‍

Collaboration Over Competition: Uniting GCs, Designers, and Owners Early

Securing a smooth mass timber build demands a single shared approach, where every discipline aligns on geometry, MEP, and risk management from the early phases. Because panels arrive pre-engineered, last-minute on-site adjustments can void warranties and trigger design re-approvals. “Everybody needs to come to the table and be open…how do we get there?” Slavin says, stressing that coordinated decision-making unlocks real cost savings and schedule certainty.

Bringing the GC into initial schematics eliminates site conflicts. Designers who consult fabricators can detail connections to match real-world tolerances. Owners who engage early clarify financing, insurance, and program expectations, reducing the dreaded midstream pivot back to concrete or steel. One or two days of intense collaboration can avert weeks of rework.

That approach is more critical than ever as new fabrication centers, especially in the Rust Belt, reshape supply lines.

The guide outlines exactly how to align architects, owners, GCs, and manufacturers before design freeze — join our newsletter & download it here.

‍

Rust Belt Revival: The Great Lakes’ New Role in Mass Timber Fabrication

AEC professionals are increasingly looking to the Great Lakes region, where underused factories and skilled labor create opportunities for high-value mass timber components. While Northwest and Southeast states boast vast softwood resources, Rust Belt manufacturers see a niche in specialized cut shops and partial assembly. Slavin points to a recent symposium where Midwestern firms showcased how they could import large CLT “blanks” and refine them with advanced machinery.

This model delivers shorter lead times, reduces shipping costs, and energizes local economies. “They have a massive manufacturing base and…all of this infrastructure for manufacturing,” Slavin notes. The idea is to transform raw panels into precisely finished elements that can ship quickly to Midwest and East Coast grids—especially valuable for sites that can’t afford long waits or logistical hiccups.

As these industrial hubs expand capacity, developers face a pivotal choice—remain with traditional materials or lean into the rising potential of timber.

‍

The Developer’s Dilemma: Risk, Reward, and the Race for Differentiation

For owners eyeing green credentials and compressed project schedules, mass timber offers a clear edge—yet it requires confronting uncertainties around codes, insurance, and supply chains. “What’s the risk of not trying something new?” Slavin asks. Faster builds can dodge interest-rate spikes and attract tenants hungry for environmentally conscious design. Meanwhile, climate mandates and ESG targets push wood structures to the foreground. Still, cost premiums, unfamiliar insurance provisions, and uneven supply can deter the unprepared.

That’s why many developers now hire mass timber consultants early to map out regulatory approvals, fabrication timelines, and ROI scenarios. Comprehensive coordination—owner, structural engineer, GC, code specialists—keeps the project on track and avoids scrapping months of design. Once built, these landmark timber projects become case studies, lowering barriers for future ventures.

These regional differences—from the West Coast’s flexible culture to the East Coast’s complex entanglements—highlight an inescapable truth: mass timber is no fleeting novelty but a strategic pivot for modern urban growth. For architecture, engineering, and construction teams, the time to master its intricacies is now, before the window of early adoption closes. The measure of success won’t hinge on empty slogans but on how well we align design intelligence, code compliance, and supply chain innovation. Those who achieve that alignment will define the next era of American building.

💡 Download the Prefab Design Process Guide by joining our newsletter — a practical framework for architects, developers, and builders ready to make prefab work.‍

‍

Most conversations about mass timber go sideways when it’s framed as product vs. product: timber vs. steel, timber vs. concrete. That’s not how real projects work.

Recently, I sat down with Scott Charney of Quality Buildings LLC on the Mass Timber Group podcast to dig into what really makes mass timber pencil. Scott has led projects from Baltimore to Princeton to the Pennsylvania State Police Academy — and in this interview he shared the field-tested lessons his crews have proven on real sites.

This article pulls out some of those lessons and pairs them with a field-tested checklist from Quality Buildings — a tool architects, engineers, and GCs can use to anticipate where mass timber adds value beyond just carbon.

‍

📥 Want the full checklist? Join our newsletter and get the Mass Timber Architect Checklist and Comparative Metrics Guide.

‍

Enjoy!

Brady Potts

‍

1. Foundation & Weight Savings

• Checklist Item: “Have you reviewed how timber’s lighter load impacts foundation design?”

On the Baltimore 40Ten project (built on a restored brownfield), multiple developers walked away because they assumed the soils would require a heavy (and expensive) foundation. One developer saw a different path: by building three stories of mass timber over a concrete podium, they cut foundation requirements, picked up the site at 75¢ on the dollar, and delivered a building that has since won five design awards.

Why it matters:

• Comparative metric: Mass timber foundations are considered the baseline cost. Steel typically adds +10–15%, and concrete adds +25–30%
• Developer insight: Lighter structures open doors for otherwise “unbuildable” sites, unlocking higher density on overbuilds, and reducing foundation costs.

‍

‍

2. Crew Size & Labor Efficiency

• Checklist Item: “What are the site logistics and labor requirements?”

On the Princeton project, architects stood on site and watched four Quality Buildings installers swing CLT panels into place. In the same timeframe, a 30-person stick-framing crew couldn’t have matched the output. Smaller crews don’t just save payroll either, they radically improve communication, reduce coordination errors, and lower jobsite risk.

Why it matters:

• Comparative metric: Typical mass timber install = 8–10 workers per floor vs. 15–18 for concrete
• Safety lens: Fewer people on site = fewer vehicles, fewer OSHA exposures, and fewer chances for an accident. As Scott likes to say, “Nobody wants to call OSHA.”
• PM Insight: A tight, specialized crew communicates like a high speed small Navy SEAL team, not a big platoon with 30 people. That means smoother morning meetings and clearer handoffs.

‍

3. Speed & Sequencing (The “Big Butt” Problem)

• Checklist Item: “Have you identified critical coordination points between trades?”

On the Pennsylvania State Police Academy project, Quality Buildings’ crew was installing CLT so quickly that the GC called to say, “You’re going too fast — our steel can’t catch up.” That’s the “big butt” problem: mass timber can accelerate schedules, but only if the rest of the trades are ready to move just as fast.

To avoid idle crews, cranes and bottlenecks, Quality Buildings now issues process sheets and sequencing playbooks up front so every stakeholder knows what happens when - and no crew gets left behind.

Why it matters:

• Comparative metric: Mass timber = 5–7 days per 10,000 sq ft floor vs. 8–12 days for concrete
• GC Insight: Mass timber’s speed only pays off if sequencing is coordinated. Without tight planning, rapid installs can leave cranes idle, crews waiting, and schedules slipping.

‍

‍

4. Noise, Disruption & Neighbor Relations

• Checklist Item: “How will site logistics and environmental impact affect stakeholders?”

On Quality Buildings’ projects, one of the most consistent surprises for developers has been how little disruption mass timber creates compared to traditional methods. Instead of 30 trades crowding the site with trucks, a lean timber crew can lift entire floors with just a few vehicles on site and the quiet buzz of screw guns. Less noise, less dust, and fewer deliveries mean neighbors and stakeholders experience a shorter, cleaner construction window.

Why it matters:

• Comparative metric: Mass timber sites average 70–80 dB vs. 85–95 for steel and 90–100 for concrete…. That’s the difference between a dull hum and a disruptive racket.
• Community insight: On hospitals, schools, or urban infill sites, reduced noise and traffic = fewer complaints, faster approvals, and stronger goodwill.
• Developer insight: A quieter, faster install minimizes tenant disruption, accelerates revenue, and helps preserve long-term relationships with the surrounding community.

‍

‍

5. Clean Sites & Fewer Trades

• Checklist Item: “Which trades can be reduced or eliminated through prefabrication?”

On multiple Quality Buildings projects, GCs noted the only waste generated was the plastic wrap protecting the panels and beams. Compared to concrete pours or steel work, which generate formwork, cutoffs, and significant debris, mass timber sites stay remarkably clean. On the rework side, Scott recalls elevator shafts landing within 1/32 of an inch, virtually eliminating costly adjustments.

Why it matters:

• Comparative metric: Mass timber produces 5–10% waste vs. 15–20% for concrete and steel.
• GC Insight: Clean sites aren’t just safer — they save on dumpsters, hauling, and cleanup labor. And precision installs reduce rework orders, keeping budgets tight and schedules predictable.

‍

Have You Considered…

When you walk into your next developer or GC conversation about mass timber, don’t frame it solely in material prices. Instead, start with questions like:

• What would a lighter structure unlock for your site or foundation budget?
• How does a smaller crew change your risk, safety, and coordination profile?
• What if your project could be delivered faster and with less disruption to neighbors?
• Could tenants stay in place during construction instead of being forced to relocate?

‍

Mass timber isn’t a just another material. It’s a system-level strategy that Quality Buildings has proven across office, education, civic projects and more. Asking the right checklist questions up front is the difference between mass timber looking like a premium and mass timber becoming the smartest move.

‍

📥 Want the full checklist guide? Join our newsletter and get the Mass Timber Architect Checklist and Comparative Metrics Guide.

‍

‍