I suppose there will be plenty of new home building happening in LA in the near future. To what extent will these new homes be designed specifically with fire resistance? How resistant can they realistically be made? What measures would likely be taken?
here’s a photo of a house which survived completely, while all the neighbors were burnt to the ground.
it uses a technology called Passive House construction. This is apparently designed mostly with the purpose of conserving heat in the building, so that the building is made of almost airtight insulation. This somehow not only keeps the heat it, it keeps external heat out, and so it is also fireproof…
in the comments below the pic there is a link:
oops!..that should be “keeps the heat IN” .
“I suppose there will be plenty of new home building happening in LA in the near future.”
I’m not so sure this is a given. From what little I know about the Cali housing market and pretty much throughout most of the nation is that there’s a clear lack of new homes coming on the market and I highly doubt getting “tough” on immigration will help matters. I’m sure there will be some new homes coming on the market but in proportion to the demand we’re not making progress and appear to be going in the other direction, less opportunity.
I assume Saffer was talking about the rebuilding of some or all of the thousands of homes lost to fire after insurance settlements are made. So, no - not necessarily new homes on the market, but many homes being built all the same.
Yes I agreed there will be some amount of building but in proportion to demand we appear to be moving backwards. Lots of demand not enough supply and the loss of these homes just exasperates an existing problem, especially if and when immigration is significantly curtailed
I think it may all come down to insurance. I’ve read that it’s often better to let the home burn to the ground in a wildfire and take the insurance money than it is to move back into a fire-damaged, perhaps moldy, water-damaged home that you now need to spend $200,000 to repair. Problem is, California fire-insurance companies seem to be pulling out en masse.
I commented in the other thread that most homes being built now in CA may already be fire resistant to some degree, with stucco exterior and tile roofing being fairly standard. But a firestorm of burning hot embers blown at 80 MPH will challenge that. More fortification againt fire means higher costs. I am sure some actuary has already figured out the likelihood and frequency of the type of wind storm we had here versus the cost of rebuilding homes with the methods shared above, for the thousands of lost properties, is going to be gargantuan and not practical. So, I expect the replacement homes will be the standard stucco and tile roof model.
Another factor I’ve been thinking about is here in CA, wooden fences are ubiquitous, as is lush landscaping in residential areas. Perhaps there may be changes in thought on those facets as they rebuild (different fence material, ordinances against certain types of landscaping).
I would look to Paradise, CA as an example of what happens - the Camp Fire leveled the town in 2018, and it’s been very slow to rebuild for a wide variety of reasons. Just the environmental cleanup took almost a year, but insurance settlements and the PG&E settlement also took some time.
On top of that, people are just reluctant to return, not just because of the fire risk, but because it’s expensive as hell. And that’s even with the PG&E payments.
Town of Paradise continues rebuilding process six years after Camp Fire | News | actionnewsnow.com
As of two months ago, about a third of the buildings had been rebuilt.
I mean brick is fire-proof, but not practical because the area also gets earthquakes.
Not sure a steel house is viable…
Brian
Light steel framing with stucco over cement board is certainly very doable and not super expensive. Add in tempered windows, no soffit vents, and appropriate vegetation and you’d have a very flame-resistant house. But as mentioned above, you’d like to have the whole neighborhood built that way so you’re not the only structure left standing (with smoke damage).
It is practical to build fire-defensible homes. Very few people want to live in such homes, however. They have no landscaping, are surrounded by a vast concrete apron, have concrete walls and concrete roofs, and are partially underground. Think: bunker.
That isn’t going to be the problem in rebuilding Los Angeles. The problem is going to be insurance.
I admire your optimism even though I don’t share it. A few insurance companies have already said that paying out on fire insurance claims, and unless a policy explicitly includes wildfire as a covered cause of damage, they my attempt to invoke a force majeure argument. Combined with this the likely culpability of Southern California Electric and its contractors and claims that fire service wasn’t adequately prepared or provided with water pressure and you have the makings of a massive, multi-pronged legal case that may take years to untangle.
Having worked on a fire-resistant, rammed earth, passively heated and cooled house I can say that there is a happy medium between ‘concrete bunker’ and ‘stick-wood fire trap’. Some fire resistant homes are quite beautiful and livable, and be surrounded with landscaping that isn’t just tinder for a wildfire. But they are considerably more expensive than stick-frame tract homes; rammed earth or stucco-covered cob (to pick two examples) are labor-intensive even though the materials are cheaper (arguable in the case of rammed earth with the forms and whether soil on site is actually suitable) start at 60% more than a stick frame for the same floor space and go upwards from there.
Plus, even if your house doesn’t burn, you are left living in an apocalyptic scene with toxic dust and ongoing construction for years (if you are in s neighborhood that is rebuilding), and many municipal building codes actually have restrictions on many fire-resistant construction, mostly for aesthetic reasons or because officials don’t understand alternative construction methods.
Stranger
Little things can mean a lot. Here’s what about four grand got this SoCal homeowner:
It’s the Daily Mail, but this article describes a beachside Malibu home owned by David Steiner that survived. The article also mentions that James Woods’ home survived.
Describing the Malibu home
The property was designed to withstand earthquakes and features ultra-sturdy construction, including stucco and stone walls, a fireproof roof, and pilings driven 50 feet into bedrock to withstand the pounding surf below.
Two separate questions:
- I didn’t see that anywhere. Can you point to those public statements that they may invoke force majeure?’
- Can you point to prior instances w/California wildfires where that was invoked?
Thanks.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/insurance/does-home-insurance-cover-wildfire-damage.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/los-angeles-fires-insurance-california-00197196
I haven’t seen an instance yet where an insurance company made a force majeure argument against wildfire claims but it certainly happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and with a growing legal consensus on climate change as a contributor to wildfires it is a logical step for an insurer who is otherwise facing insolvency over claims.
The other issue with rebuilding in these neighborhoods is that it is almost guaranteed that underwriters will not approve the issuance of new policies, and no bank is going to issue a mortgage (event just for part of the build) for an uninsurable home.
Stranger
An individual brick will not burn. A brick house will, as there is also plenty of wood in the construction of a brick house, especially in the very vulnerable roof and supporting timbers.
Fire resistant is, I think, the best that they hope for.
I don’t have all the details yet because obviously the situation is still going on but I have friends that own a home deep in the fire zone just west of Topanga Canyon. Their house is still standing because they built with fire in mind, having bought the property after the last fire in that area some years ago. It’s a concrete structure, notably with a flat roof, one that I believe can have the drains closed such that it will hold a couple inches of water in place.
Controversially, the husband stayed in place* and is still there. He has pumps tapping his pool although I don’t know the full extent of what that system looks like. Maybe sprinklers, maybe active moving hoses around to suppress spot fires.
Their property burnt to bare dirt but their plan for a fire resistant home seems to have worked.
*his wife was out of town visiting friends so his voice of reason was absent.
Maybe I’m not reading closely enough, but where would I find in those links that