Fire Safety Clearances for Fireplaces: Fundamentals, Calculations, and Best Practices

Building design
A structural detail of the building related to the topic of chimney fire safety clearance
Four fire extinguishers in front of a green wall—a subtle reminder of fire safety in everyday life. Photo: jandira_sonnendeck

A chimney is no ordinary structural element. It carries combustion gases at temperatures of several hundred degrees through the building envelope, passing through ceilings, roof trusses, and wall structures, and exits above the ridge. Anyone who underestimates the required fire safety clearance for a chimney risks not only fines and the loss of insurance coverage, but in the worst case, a building fire that originates from an inconspicuous point of contact between a hot flue pipe and a combustible building component. The distances prescribed by standards and state building codes are not arbitrary bureaucratic measures, but rather the result of decades of experience with the causes of fires and the physics of heat transfer.

  • What a chimney fire safety clearance means and why it is physically necessary
  • Which standards, state building codes, and regulations mandatorily specify these clearances
  • How safety clearances are calculated and measured in practice
  • What role the type of chimney, fuel, and operating temperature play
  • How clearance rules apply to connectors, flue pipes, and freestanding chimneys
  • Which structural situations require special attention: roof trusses, ceiling beams, and wood paneling
  • What to consider during retrofitting, renovation, and conversion
  • What common mistakes occur in practice and how they can be avoided

Chimney Fire Safety Clearance: Definition and Physical Principles

The term “chimney fire safety clearance” refers to the minimum distance that a chimney, connector, or flue must maintain from combustible building components to prevent ignition through heat conduction, radiant heat, or smoldering. For the purposes of this requirement, combustible building components are all materials that are not classified as non-combustible according to building material classification: wooden beams, rafters, plank floors, thermal insulation made of organic fibers, plastic insulation boards, wood paneling, and similar structural elements. The distance is not a fixed value but rather a variable that depends on several factors, including operating temperature, chimney design, wall construction, and the type of adjacent building components.

The physical cause lies in heat transfer. A chimney releases heat in three ways: through thermal conduction via direct contact between the chimney wall and an adjacent building component, through thermal radiation—that is, the emission of electromagnetic energy without contact—and through convection, which involves the movement of heated air. Wood and other organic building materials begin to pyrolyze when continuously exposed to temperatures above approximately 100 degrees Celsius; that is, they undergo chemical decomposition under the influence of heat without the need for open flames. This process, known in fire safety as a smoldering fire, can build up over months before leading to open ignition. This is precisely why simply touching a wooden beam next to the chimney once and finding that it is not hot is not sufficient proof of safety: the danger lies in continuous operation over the course of years.

Chimneys are classified into different categories based on their design and intended use. The European standard EN 1443 establishes a classification system that includes, among other things, the temperature class (T080 to T600, where the number indicates the maximum operating temperature in degrees Celsius), the pressure class, resistance to condensation, and resistance to soot fires. For wood-burning systems and wood-burning stoves, chimneys in temperature classes T400 or T600 are generally required. This classification is directly relevant to determining the fire safety clearance, because the higher the temperature class, the greater the potential heat transfer to the surrounding area.

Normative Basis: Which Regulations Mandate the Distance

In Germany, the chimney fire safety distance is determined by the interplay of several sets of regulations. The Model Building Code (MBO) provides the overarching framework, which is specified in more detail by the respective state building codes. This building code framework is supplemented by the state combustion regulations (FeuVO), which contain detailed technical requirements for fireplaces, connectors, and chimneys. In addition, there are product-specific requirements, in particular the aforementioned EN 1443 as well as EN 15287 for the design, construction, and acceptance of chimneys.

The state combustion regulations differ on specific points but follow a common basic principle: Chimneys must maintain a minimum distance from combustible building components, which is generally between 50 and 200 millimeters, depending on the chimney design and wall temperature. System chimneys—that is, factory-manufactured chimneys consisting of a single unit comprising an inner pipe, an insulation layer, and an outer casing—may in many cases require smaller clearances than masonry chimneys because their outer wall temperature is significantly lower due to the integrated insulation. The manufacturer of a prefabricated chimney is required to specify the permissible clearances from combustible building components in the installation instructions; these manufacturer specifications are binding and, in case of doubt, take precedence over general regulations, provided they were determined based on a type test in accordance with EN 1443.

Separate clearance rules apply to connecting pieces, i.e., the flue pipes between the fireplace and the chimney. Steel connecting pieces reach significantly higher outer wall temperatures during operation than insulated system chimneys because they are generally uninsulated or only lightly insulated. Firing regulations typically require clearances of at least 200 millimeters from combustible building components, provided no shielding is in place. If a shield made of non-combustible material with a sufficient air gap is installed, this clearance may be reduced within certain limits. The exact reduction factors are specified in the respective state regulations.

Calculation and Design: How the Distance Is Determined

Determining the fire safety clearance for a chimney begins with identifying the chimney type and operating temperature. For a prefabricated chimney system, the designer or the chimney sweep performing the installation obtains the permissible clearances from the manufacturer’s test certificate and installation instructions. These specifications generally distinguish between the distance to combustible building components without an air gap (i.e., when the chimney is in direct contact with the structure) and the distance when rear ventilation is present. Typical values for modern prefabricated chimneys are 50 millimeters from combustible building components, but these may vary depending on the product and temperature class.

For masonry chimneys made of fireclay or lightweight concrete precast sections with an outer masonry shell, the calculation is more complex. In this case, the outer wall temperature of the chimney under operating conditions must be estimated or determined by calculation. It is crucial that the temperature at the surface of the chimney or the connecting piece never rises so high under any operating conditions that nearby combustible building materials are permanently heated above the critical pyrolysis threshold. As a rule of thumb in practice, the surface temperature of a chimney at the point where it comes into contact with combustible building materials should remain below 85 degrees Celsius at all times; many regulations set this limit even more conservatively.

For chimneys passing through wooden beam ceilings or wooden roof trusses, fire safety regulations generally require a minimum clearance of 50 millimeters between the chimney wall and the nearest combustible component, measured from the outer surface of the chimney. This cavity must be filled with non-combustible, heat-insulating material or at least constructed in such a way that no air circulation occurs that could transfer heat to combustible parts. In practice, mineral wool inserts, vermiculite fillers, or factory-made stainless steel spacers are used for this purpose.

Special Case: Roof Truss—Where Most Errors Occur

The area where chimneys penetrate the roof truss is, in practice, the most common source of errors. Wooden rafters, collar beams, and purlins are often positioned close to the chimney because space is limited, and carpenters historically viewed the chimney as a fixed obstacle around which the wooden structure was built as tightly as possible. In older buildings where a new wood-burning stove or pellet heating system is being retrofitted, the existing masonry chimney is often not designed for the new operating temperatures, and the clearances to the wooden structural members no longer meet current requirements. In such cases, the authorized district chimney sweep is required to inspect the system and identify any defects; his approval is a prerequisite for operation.

The situation is particularly critical when chimneys pass through cavities in the roof truss where heat can accumulate. An uninsulated attic with a hot chimney running through the center can cause such extensive pre-damage to the surrounding wooden structural elements over decades that their ignition temperature drops significantly. This effect of thermal pre-damage is well documented in fire cause research and explains why building fires caused by chimney defects often do not occur until many years after the system has been in operation.

Connecting Pieces and Flue Pipes: Underestimated Risk Areas

While the chimney itself is often carefully planned, the connectors between the fireplace and the chimney are frequently overlooked. Yet it is precisely these flue pipes that reach the highest exterior wall temperatures during operation, because the flue gases have not yet been cooled by the chimney wall at this point and because the pipes themselves are usually thin-walled and uninsulated. A single-walled steel pipe with a diameter of 150 millimeters can reach outer wall temperatures of 300 degrees Celsius or higher when a wood-burning stove is in operation.

The required fire safety clearance for connectors is therefore generally greater than for the chimney itself. Fire safety regulations require a minimum clearance of 200 millimeters from combustible building materials, provided no shielding is in place. A shield made of non-combustible material, installed with an air gap of at least 30 millimeters in front of the connector, can reduce the required clearance to 100 millimeters. However, this reduction is only permitted if the shielding is complete and seamless, and if the air gap is actually present and not blocked by insulation or cladding.

In practice, problems often arise when connectors are routed through wall openings or when they run near wood paneling, built-in cabinets, or suspended ceilings. Wood paneling on walls or ceilings, which is used as a design element in living spaces, is considered a combustible building material under fire safety regulations, even if it has a high-quality appearance. The distance between the connector and the wood paneling must be maintained just as strictly as the distance to load-bearing wooden structural elements.

Retrofit Installation and Renovation: Special Requirements

Retrofitting a wood-burning stove or converting a heating system to a different fuel is the most common situation in which maintaining the required fire safety clearance becomes a practical challenge. Existing chimneys are often designed for different operating conditions: A chimney originally built for an oil-fired heating system with low flue gas temperatures may not be suitable for use with a wood-burning stove, either in terms of temperature class or required clearances. In such cases, the conversion requires either renovating the chimney—for example, by lining it with a stainless steel pipe—or installing a new prefabricated chimney system.

When inserting a stainless steel pipe into an existing masonry chimney, the annular gap between the stainless steel pipe and the chimney wall must be filled with non-combustible insulation material. This step is important not only for thermal insulation but also for fire safety: An uninsulated annular gap can act as a chimney draft and, in the event of a fire, draw flames and hot gases into the chimney flue. The filling of the annular gap is regulated by the relevant standards and manufacturer’s specifications and must be inspected and approved by a chimney sweep.

When planning renovation measures, it is advisable to consult with the responsible district chimney sweep at an early stage. The chimney sweep is familiar with the locally applicable combustion regulations, can assess the existing conditions, and provide guidance on necessary measures before costs are incurred for non-compliant solutions. In many federal states, approval by the chimney sweep is required by law before a new or modified fireplace is put into operation.

Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

One of the most common mistakes is assuming that a system chimney with a small clearance to combustible building materials also applies to a retrofitted connector. This is incorrect: The manufacturer’s specifications for the system chimney apply to the chimney itself, not to the connector. The general requirements of the Fire Safety Ordinance apply to the connector, which typically stipulate a 200-millimeter clearance without shielding.

Another common mistake is installing wood paneling or built-in furniture in the immediate vicinity of the wood-burning stove or the connecting piece without checking the clearances. Especially in living rooms where the wood-burning stove serves as a focal point of the design, interior designers and contractors tend to place wood paneling, shelves, or seating platforms very close to the stove. In such cases, the planner must keep fire safety clearances in mind not only for the chimney but also for the fireplace itself, since the fireplace also emits heat and has its own minimum clearances from combustible building materials, as specified by the manufacturer.

Finally, the importance of documentation is often underestimated. Anyone installing a wood-burning stove should carefully retain the chimney installation instructions, the manufacturer’s specifications for the stove, the chimney sweep’s inspection reports, and all documentation regarding the materials used. In the event of damage—or even when selling the building—these documents serve as proof that the system was installed in compliance with regulations. If they are missing, insurance coverage may be called into question in the event of a fire.

Fire Safety Distance for Fireplaces as an Integral Part of Building Design

The fire safety clearance for a fireplace is not an isolated detail that is quickly checked off at the end of the planning process. It is an integral part of building design that must be considered from the initial floor plan concept through to final inspection by the chimney sweep. The location of the chimney in the floor plan determines which ceilings and roof truss areas it passes through, which building components are located near it, and how the connecting pieces can be routed. Those who wait to plan the chimney until all other building components have already been finalized often create situations in which compliance with fire safety clearances is only possible with considerable additional effort.

For architects and planners, this means that collaboration with the chimney sweep should not begin only at the time of final inspection, but rather during the design phase. The chimney sweep is familiar with local regulations, has experience with typical problem scenarios, and can point out potential conflicts early on. This early involvement saves costs and avoids rework that, in the worst case, could affect a roof truss that has already been completed or a plastered wall.

Ultimately, the fire safety clearance for a chimney embodies the principle that fire safety is not achieved through individual measures, but through the interplay of planning, execution, material selection, and operation. A correctly calculated and maintained clearance between the chimney and combustible building components is the basic prerequisite for a wood-burning stove to be what it is meant to be: a safe, comfortable, and long-lasting source of heat in the building.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Digital neighborhood analyses at district level

Building design
aerial-view-of-a-town-with-many-houses-sC6IvRuqx-g

An impressive aerial view of a city with numerous houses, taken by Berke Can.

Neighbourhoods in the digital mirror: with modern neighborhood analyses at district level, the city is beginning to understand itself – and often reinvent itself. Between real-time data, citizens’ interests and algorithmic forecasts, planners are facing the biggest challenge since the introduction of the land use plan. Those who fail to recognize the opportunities offered by digital tools are left at an analog dead end.

  • Definition and development of digital neighborhood analyses and their integration into urban planning processes.
  • Technical basics: From geodata to AI – which tools and data types are used?
  • Use and impact: How do digital analyses change neighborhood development, participation and governance?
  • Practical examples from Germany, Austria and Switzerland – successes, stumbling blocks and lessons learned.
  • Opportunities for climate resilience, social mix, mobility transition and sustainable land use.
  • Risks: Data protection, algorithmic distortions and the risk of alienating urban societies.
  • Legal, technical and cultural hurdles in German-speaking planning practice.
  • Strategic recommendations for cities, planners and developers venturing into digital neighborhood analyses.

Digitalization of the neighbourhood: from classic social space analysis to real-time neighbourhoods

Anyone who still thinks of neighborhood analyses in terms of transit traffic counts with clipboards and timesheets has overslept the last few years. In the meantime, digital neighborhood analysis has become a highly dynamic field that does not do away with traditional methods, but takes them to a new level. What used to be painstakingly determined through surveys and observations is now created from a fine mesh of real-time data, algorithmic evaluation and participatory feedback. But what is really behind it all?

At its core, digital neighborhood analysis describes the systematic collection, linking and evaluation of a wide range of data on the condition, use and development of a neighborhood. Unlike a rough social area analysis, today it is no longer just demographic and infrastructural key figures that are collected. Instead, mobility flows, residence times, climatic parameters, energy consumption, noise levels, green space quality and even the residents’ subjective perception of safety are digitized, collated and analysed. Thanks to sensor technology, geoinformation systems and artificial intelligence, a living, multidimensional image of the neighborhood is being created.

This development is not an end in itself. It is the answer to the increasing complexity of urban spaces, where traditional static analyses quickly reach their limits. Neighborhoods today are highly dynamic systems with diverse interactions. A new café, a building site or a heavy rainfall event can change the fabric within hours. Digital neighborhood analysis creates the conditions for reacting flexibly to such changes – or even anticipating them.

What is particularly exciting is that digital analyses can not only capture the purely spatial aspects of a neighborhood, but also the social aspects. By evaluating anonymized mobile phone data, social media feeds or online participation platforms, patterns of use, wishes and problems of residents can be made visible. This creates a holistic picture that goes far beyond the traditional planning perspective.

The digitalization of neighbourhood analysis is therefore not a technical gimmick, but a new form of urban intelligence. It enables planning that is no longer based solely on experience and gut feeling, but on reliable, up-to-date and multi-linked data. And it opens up the opportunity not just to manage the city, but to actively shape it.

Technical foundations: data, sensors and AI – the digital nervous system of the neighborhood

The basis of every digital neighborhood analysis is a data-driven ecosystem, the complexity of which is often underestimated. At its heart is geodata, which is fed from a wide variety of sources. Traditional cadastral data and official statistics only form the foundation. The real magic comes from the integration of real-time data from sensors, mobility providers, energy suppliers, weather stations, public WLANs, sharing services and even smart home systems. This transforms the neighborhood into an “Internet of Neighborhood Things” – a dense network that regularly provides up-to-date information.

Sensor technology is no longer limited to traffic counts or environmental measurements. Modern LoRaWAN sensors record particulate matter, temperature, humidity, noise, light intensity and movement profiles – and do so comprehensively, cost-effectively and with low maintenance. There are also crowd data approaches: Residents themselves provide valuable information via apps, social networks and digital participation platforms, for example on problem areas, quality of stay or conflicts of use.

What happens to this data is decided by the next layer of analysis: powerful algorithms and artificial intelligence. They recognize patterns, calculate forecasts and simulate scenarios. For example, it is possible to model how a new traffic routing will affect noise distribution, how the microclimate will change with additional greenery or how social infrastructure will have to adapt to the development of the neighborhood. The demands are high: it’s about more than just pretty visualization – it’s about well-founded decision support in real time.

Open interfaces, so-called Open Urban Platforms, play a decisive role here. They ensure that data from different systems can communicate with each other – without proprietary isolated solutions or data monopolies. This is the only way to create a holistic, interoperable picture of the neighborhood that can be used and further developed by various stakeholders.

The requirements for data protection, data sovereignty and cybersecurity should not be underestimated. The more granular and up-to-date the data, the greater the responsibility in handling it. The development of legally compliant, transparent and comprehensible analysis processes is therefore one of the key tasks for planners, technology service providers and local authorities alike.

New planning reality: how digital neighborhood analyses are changing districts

The establishment of digital neighborhood analyses is fundamentally changing the rules of the game in neighborhood development. Planning is becoming more dynamic, more interactive and – in the best case – more inclusive. Suddenly, planners can not only document current conditions, but also simulate future developments and weigh up different scenarios against each other. A new residential district? The effects on traffic, infrastructure, microclimate and social mix are no longer a guessing game, but can be estimated based on data.

An illustrative example: In Zurich, all movement data in public spaces was evaluated anonymously as part of a Smart City project. The analysis showed that certain places were avoided despite their attractive design – because they were perceived as unsafe. Only the combination of quantitative movement data and qualitative feedback from a digital participation platform revealed the causes: lack of lighting, poor sightlines, lack of social control. The city was able to make targeted adjustments – and visibly improve the quality of life.

Digital neighborhood analyses are also a key to climate-resilient neighborhoods. In Vienna, for example, particulate matter and temperature data is evaluated in real time in order to identify heat islands and to green them in a targeted manner. In Hamburg, mobility data is used to assess the effectiveness of traffic calming measures and to optimize neighbourhood mobility. These examples show: The possibilities extend far beyond the classic survey of existing traffic.

The influence on governance in the neighborhood is particularly significant. Digital analyses make connections visible that previously remained hidden in the fog of subjective perception. They promote the transparency of planning processes and enable a more precise, fact-based discussion between administration, politicians and residents. Participation thus becomes not only more digital, but also more substantial – as long as the data is open and comprehensibly accessible.

Of course, not all that glitters digitally is gold. The use of digital tools can also lead to alienation if the technology becomes a black box and citizens feel excluded. This is where planners and local authorities are called upon to establish digital neighborhood analyses as an instrument of understanding – not as a substitute for dialogue, but as its catalyst.

Practice and perspective: opportunities, risks and the German-speaking reality

In practice, the picture is quite mixed. While international pioneers such as Helsinki and Singapore have long been using digital city models as a basis for neighborhood decisions, German-speaking countries are often even more cautious. Cities such as Hamburg, Munich and Zurich have set up initial pilot projects, but the big leap towards the widespread use of digital neighborhood analyses has yet to be made in many places. There are many reasons for this: technical hurdles, a lack of standards, uncertainty about data protection and governance and, last but not least, cultural reservations about algorithmic planning.

Nevertheless, successful examples show the potential that can be tapped. In Vienna, for example, digital neighborhood analyses are being systematically integrated into urban development planning. Neighborhood profiles are created there that map climate resilience, social mix, mobility options and energy consumption in real time. The results flow directly into competitions, development plans and investment decisions. In Zurich, the Smart City Lab demonstrates how the combination of real-time data, visualization and citizen participation can not only accelerate planning processes, but also increase the acceptance of new projects.

Risks exist in particular in the danger of algorithmic distortions. If data sources are unrepresentative or algorithms make non-transparent decisions, social imbalances can be exacerbated instead of remedied. The risk of excessive commercialization is also real: if large technology companies gain data sovereignty over neighbourhoods, urban development threatens to become the plaything of private interests.

The legal framework in German-speaking countries continues to be a stumbling block. Data protection laws, the separation of responsibilities between the federal, state and local authorities and the lack of binding standards make it difficult to introduce the system across the board. Added to this is the often small-scale administrative structure, which slows down rather than promotes innovation. But here, too, the following applies: those who invest early on create a strategic advantage – and can help shape standards instead of being overrun by them.

What remains is the realization that digital neighborhood analyses are not a panacea, but a tool – one that offers enormous added value when used wisely, but also creates new responsibilities. The key to success lies in the combination of technical excellence, open governance and a culture of dialog that sees the city and neighbourhood as a living organism.

Strategies for the future: recommendations for planners, municipalities and developers

Any planner, local authority or developer who wants to venture into the world of digital neighborhood analyses faces an exciting but challenging task. The most important recommendation is: technology is never an end in itself. It is crucial to ask the right questions and choose the right tools. Start with a clear analysis of the objectives: Is it about traffic optimization, climate adaptation, social integration or all of the above? Each goal requires its own data, methods and participation formats.

Rely on open, interoperable platforms instead of isolated solutions. This is the only way to flexibly expand data sources and integrate different stakeholders. Invest in the data expertise of your own teams – and create interfaces to external experts from IT, social sciences and communication. Digital neighborhood analyses are teamwork, not an individual discipline.

Don’t forget the people in the neighborhood. Digital participation is not a one-way street, but thrives on transparency and feedback. Explain what data is collected and how it is used. Actively involve residents – for example via digital reporting platforms, participatory workshops or visualizations that even laypeople can understand. If you operate digital neighborhood analysis as a black box, you will lose trust and acceptance.

Establish clear rules for data use, data protection and governance. Define who has access to which information, how decisions are documented in a comprehensible manner and how errors or distortions are identified and corrected. Remember: with every new technology, the responsibility towards urban society and democracy also grows.

Finally: Have the courage to innovate. Digital neighborhood analysis is not a rigid recipe, but a dynamic learning process. Mistakes are unavoidable, but also valuable – as long as they are made transparent and used to improve. Those who close their minds to digital change are planning for the city of yesterday. Those who shape it will shape the neighborhoods of tomorrow.

Conclusion: Digital neighborhood analysis – a compass for the city of the future

Digital neighborhood analyses at district level mark a paradigm shift in urban and open space planning. They create the basis for forward-looking, resilient and participatory development of urban spaces – and are therefore far more than just another technical tool. They make the dynamics of the district visible, promote a new dialog between planning, politics and society and give the city a voice that comes not just from the drawing board, but from real life. They are not a sure-fire success, but require technical expertise, open governance and a good dose of courage to question old ways of thinking. But it’s worth the effort: if you use digital neighborhood analyses wisely, you can turn data into real quality of life – and set the course for the city of the future. With this in mind, welcome to the reality of tomorrow, which begins today.

Baumeister student competition

Building design

RWTH Aachen and TU Munich are the most successful universities in this year’s student competition organized by Baumeister and Nemetschek Allplan Systems.

RWTH Aachen and TU Munich are the most successful universities in this year’s student competition organized by Baumeister and Nemetschek Allplan Systems. A TU team won with its submission on the subject of “Three houses under one roof”, “Curia House on Roncalliplatz in Cologne” and “Diving Bunker”, the titles of the two winners from Aachen. The theme of the competition was additions to storeys, under the title “That’s the height!” 16 universities with a total of 33 entries responded to our call.

The jury could not (and did not want to) decide on an exact order this year. The projects in the final round simply excelled with too many different aspects. They agreed on three equal prizes in the categories “Housing”, “Public Building” and “Conversion”. Each prize-winning work received prize money of 1,500 euros. Three further projects were recognized and awarded prize money of 250 euros each.

All winning projects and recognitions will be published in Baumeister 7/2014 with the jury’s assessments. We would like to congratulate the winners and thank them for their fantastic entries!

The winners are:

Category “Living”

Barbara Trojer, Markus Munzig, Cosima Krubasik from the Technical University of Munich for their submission “Three houses under one roof”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Category “Public Building”

Patrick Knüppe from the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen for his submission “Kurienhaus am Roncalliplatz in Cologne”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Category “Conversion”:

Thomas Haber from the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen for his submission “Tauchbunker”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Recognition and prize money of 250 euros each:

Janna Lane and Jan Hendrik Lorenzen, Lübeck University of Applied Sciences

Felix Broer, Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts

Acar and Xi Li, Berlin University of Technology

The jury:

Dr. Matthias Castorph, Götz Castorph Architekten und Stadtplaner (jury chairman)

Philipp Auer, Auer+Weber+Assoziierte

Susanna Knopp, 4architekten

Lorenz Lachauer, Nemetschek Allplan Systems

Mauritz Lüps, Atelier Lüps

Sabine Schneider, Baumeister