As cities confront housing shortages and aggressive decarbonization goals, mass timber is often positioned as a climate-forward solution. Across use groups, however, for affordable housing developers, universities, private, or public agencies, the central question remains: does mass timber represent a viable financial and carbon investment?
Rather than advocating for timber as a universal solution, the session presents a comparative investment framework that weighs first cost, embodied carbon, schedule, contractor familiarity, financing constraints, insurance considerations, and long-term operational impact. Presenters will share life-cycle assessment (LCA) comparisons, structural system trade-offs, and cost modeling insights that informed material decisions, particularly in contexts where timber was ultimately revised, hybridized, or replaced.
The discussion emphasizes how early carbon accounting, procurement alignment, and policy positioning can determine feasibility outcomes. By examining both successes and failures, less constrained and constrained applications, the session offers a realistic toolkit for evaluating when and how mass timber can advance affordability and decarbonization simultaneously.
This session examines a robust trajectory of experiences in evaluating mass timber across affordable housing, student housing, parking structures, institutions, and corporations with deep dives into The Kelsey Affordable Housing Project where mass timber failed, Microsoft Silicon Valley Campus and Princeton's Frist Health Center where mass timber was hybridized, and Cabrillo College Student Housing where mass timber succeeded within limit.
