Comment by sandworm101
17 hours ago
Wildfires are not the problem. They happen all the time without causing billion-dollar insurance claims. Insurance is always assets x risk. The issue is expensive flamable housing (assets) in a wildfire area (risk). We ask for trouble when we create million-dollar wooden houses surrounded by manicured gardens in desert enviroments. And build on a slope facing pervailing winds. The answer is concrete/brick houses with metal/ceramic rooves surrounded by sand/stone/concrete. Want a big green lawn? Move to the pacific northwest. Want to live near the beating heart of the movie industry, a town where it never rains? Get used to cactuses instead of rose gardens.
That doesn't align with the reality of these areas. To get insurance in these areas you have to demonstrate that you have created a defensible space around your house. This is enforced by local fire department inspections. I know this because I live near a fire prone area. Despite these things the area still burned. The problem isn't "lawns" or "wooden houses". In the case of the LA fires you would have had the burned out husks of concrete houses that would need to be demolished if everything was made of concrete. This was a black swan event that will require a thoughtful response.
From the recent events in California I have seen many photos of burnt houses with unburnt trees around. I think those houses were especially flammable more than some vegetation around it seems. After the fire nothing remained but the chimneys. I have never seen any house burn like that in Europe.
I live along the Mediterranean sea in France, many wood fires every summer, with wind above 100km/h; never seen so many houses burn like in California even when most of our houses are concrete but with wooden framework.
I'm pretty sure that if houses were built like here (concrete / concrete blocks with terracota tiles on wooden framwork) at lot less would have burnt. Maybe those near the wooded slopes but not in the middle of a neighborhood block.
> From the recent events in California I have seen many photos of burnt houses with unburnt trees around.
I think some of that can be attributed to the fact that buildings are stationary structures that have ample square-footage for embers to land and cause fires, where as trees have less stationary surface area for embers to land, remain and build into fires.
1 reply →
I have looked on some videos of how those good looking US houses have plastic drainage, plastic material roof cladding and plastic panels inside and outside. And the first thing that I was thinking - those burn in an event of house fire. But I see more ond more building materials that were used in US now offered and being standard in building here in Europe, so most probably some of the newer houses in an event of fire will burn down in similar fashion. I'm just wondering if the commenter that mentioned "black swan event"(a very popular theme in Russia and unrelated to wildfires) actually understands that USA has plastic houses everywhere and nothing will change - new mansions will be rebuilt in burned areas with the same materials, but because they are going to offer them as fireproof branded, they will cost more. That's all - these areas won't be abandoned, because location, location and location is the only thing that matters in property business and in your property value.
2 replies →
> along the Mediterranean sea in France, with wind above 100km/h
And what's the humidity?
The Santa Ana winds that affect LA are extremely dry and gusty with < 10% relative humidity. It is hard to compare them to anything else.
Yeah, but it's California, so I'm not sure concrete is great for the earthquakes.
The reality is the fires didn't make it far into the city grid sections of LA proper. This is because these areas have less flammable material, and are more defensible.
> Despite these things the area still burned.
I suspect the rules for making a defensible house were wrong. For example, I read an article recently that posited that most of the fire was spread by burning embers on the wind, and not by intense heat from nearby flames.
The idea is to look at where embers accumulate and eliminate or fireproof those areas. For example, a low masonry wall a few feet from the house can stop a lot of heavier burning embers from piling up against the house. If you've got a swimming pool, add a pump to it that feeds sprinklers in the yard and on the rooftop.
There are a lot of homes that did not burn - look at them and figure out why they didn't burn.
For a related example, every airplane crash is looked at, and we always discover overlooked vulnerabilities. The tsunami that devastated Japan a few years ago also provided a lot of information about what worked and didn't work.
We're a long way from needing to give up. There's a lot of low hanging fruit.
Sure, but that's how it already works. The airplane example is how building codes generally work. London didn't rebuild in wood after the Great Fire, to give an ancient, and large-scale, example.
From what I've read, the houses in LA that did survive were modern or heavily remodeled houses incorporating recent code changes to prevent embers from entering the eaves and suchlike.
It really doesn't help that most of LA was built up in the early to mid 20th century; requiring code updates during remodels can only help so much, because if the cost/change is too much/invasive the homeowners either don't remodel at all or do it without permits, bypassing the more costly safety improvements.
>This was a black swan event that will require a thoughtful response.
Taleb would have a field day with this one. Broadly, I think a big part of the argument is driven by the assumption that the area will be rebuilt, despite being a known fire risk.
Because of the Santa Ana winds (with this apparently being more than usual), you'll continually have very dry conditions with high winds and the danger of a fire getting out of control. I don't see it as a black swan either. This is a repeatable scenario, every few years they'll probably have conditions like this. The climate is changing, maybe this will spread or move to areas nearby.
I live in an area that had a special warning last summer, we had a very very dry summer and there was a period with low humidity and high winds for a few days, it was considered an unusual scenario with extreme fire risk - but nothing happened this time. Now that I'm writing this I'm wondering what I'll do if it feels like an annual occurrence. Another parallel, the power company warned us they might shut off the power to reduce risk but I guess it didn't get that bad.
3 replies →
Those protections are all about keeping a structure from catching fire. That is different than designing a structure not to burn. A wooden house surrounded by fire protection is OK under current rules. But it is still wood and will, eventually, burn when faced by a wild fire on all sides. A house built out of rock/brick/concrete/sand will not. We need to go beyond flamability and start reducing the actual number of calories availible to be burned.
Why is the answer not Japan's approach. My understanding is that because of high incidents of natural disaster they see/build homes as transient and utilitarian rather than as long-lasting investments.
Partially because that story about Japan is incorrect.
In reality, it is Japanese condos that get gutted periodically or when sold, and it's driven by their real estate tax code.
Japan takes enormous effort to prevent and mitigate natural disasters.
There may have been some truth to it 200 years ago, with the idea that wood was the only economical way to build a house that could last.
A forward looking (part of a) solution for Malibu would be the county acquiring and maintaining beach paths every few houses. Prescribed 10' wide fire breaks.
This solves the fire problem AND the limited access to a public resource that is common in Malibu.
Ideally a permeable surface without any growth, cleared at least 2x a year.
Legal Eagle claims that embers can travel up to 2 miles:
https://youtu.be/5h1H36rdprs?t=1m51s
That would easily jump a 10' fire break.
houses however, survived with much smaller fire breaks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yZe-TlYxm9g&pp=ygUkaG91c2VzIHR...
especially for this fire, jumping doesnt mean that everything 2 miles down wind also burned down. buildings that far had the opportunity to burn, and if they dud, had the opportunity to burn their neighbors, and another 2 miles down.
i imagine ember density is more interesting than distance?
That would only account for the small amount of homes right on the beach itself - the majority of Malibu is in the hills above
I would prefer no bailouts.
If insurance wants firebreaks for insurance, that is their choice.
If the city wants buy RE for access, that is between tax payers and the land owners. Cash talks
> the county acquiring and maintaining beach paths every few houses. Prescribed 10' wide fire breaks
Ooh, and make a bailout conditional on homeowners (or counties) agreeing to eminent domain.
That would not have solved the problem in this fire since wind speed was so high. The videos showed embers traveling far and fast. Having a 10 foot fire break would not have prevented the spread. One thing to look into is how the fire started and if the electrical equipment can be made safer, like being underground in some places.
The break would need a low masonry wall to stop embers from being pushed along the ground.