I know they put a fire-resistant metal roof on it, but weren’t there some other precautions they could have taken?
It doesn’t seem like a log cabin in that area would ever be a good idea. Of course, no residence is totally fireproof, but you can only mitigate so much.
And I don’t know anything about the builders’ risk insurance mentioned in the article.
I live in an area prone to wildfires, but people keep building houses further and further into the forest. Since they own the land, you can’t stop them from building their house there. They should maintain a safe perimeter around their home, usually 50-75 feet, with no trees, but if it’s windy enough, it doesn’t matter, and if they pay enough, they can get fire insurance.
To me, it’s no different than the people who build their homes next to a river. We all know that sooner or later, something terrible is going to happen, but they are willing to take that chance, and as long as I don’t have to pay for them to rebuild their house over and over again, they should be able to do whatever they want. IMHO,
He learned how to do electrical wiring from watching YouTube videos? Gee whiz, what could go wrong with THAT?
I realize that there are no guarantees in this world, disaster-wise, but I suspect this couple was lacking in judgment in other areas too, despite being well-educated.
One of the reasons why wildfires have gotten more destructive in recent years is because more people are living in their path.
In 2018, the Colorado State Forest Service said about half of all Coloradans live in areas at risk for wildfires, and 2.9 million live in WUI areas, a number that continues to rise.
In the case of Montana, to build a housing development in the WUI*, you need approval from the local fire department and EMS service. I lived in one such development for ten years, and we had a helipad for medical evacuation, water storage tanks, and a pumping station to support fire suppression efforts for homeowners.
Still, if there had been a large wildfire, we would have been screwed, so we cleared a 75’ perimeter around our house, utilized fire-resistant materials to buy us time to get out, and had fire insurance. As people move away from densely-populated cities, there is increasing pressure on the WUI. There’s not much government can do about it, and people around here who choose to live in the woods are okay with that.
*The Wildland-Urban Interface is a zone of transition between wilderness and land developed by human activity – an area where a built environment meets or intermingles with a natural environment. Human settlements in the WUI are at a greater risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Going back to part of the OP’s original question: What safeguards?" I knew someone who built a “fortress home” in Southeast Michigan with wind damage in mind. Concrete. Lots and lots of concrete.
I don’t know how much can be done against a major fire other than to build one of those homes partially underground with the roof covered with earth. Then have a large source of water, not necessarily potable, with an automatic sprinkler system. I’d still expect to have to evacuate in the event of a fire (see some of the horrific stories from WWII about civilians in bomb shelters during firestorms and sweep conflagrations**), but would expect something to come back to after the event.
**The Night Hamburg Died and A Torch to the Enemy by Martin Caidin.
I’ve seen a number of stories over the years of people who successfully kept their house from burning down. Build it out of brick with a metal roof. Put in a pool as a source of emergency water. Install a generator that can operate a pump. bury the fuel source for the generator away from the house. Put a sprinkler system on the roof. Keep trees away from the house.
Basically you turn the generator and sprinkler system on and leave.
And what about flood-prone areas, and hurricane-prone areas, and tsunami-prone areas, and earthquake-prone areas, and tornado-prone areas? I’m not sure how much of the surface of the Earth that leaves you…
All of those places have specialized construction methods used to lessen the risks. People in locations susceptible to wildfires should build wildfire-resistant homes. Building codes should require it.
The government doesn’t always provide firefighters - many areas are served by volunteer firefighters, and many areas are served by fire departments to which you have to pay to be covered.
Even if the firefighters ARE government employees, they sure as hell should not be forced to risk their lives for people who have made such dangerous decisions.
And why should the government subsidize people who choose to live in dangerous areas that are likely to be hit again? There was a fair bit of discussion on that topic when some areas in the Midwest were hit by floods several times in a few years.
Honestly, as long as there are not subsidized programs to provide affordable insurance for high-risk areas, people who choose to live in them, the insurance marketplace will be a strong deterrent.
Back to the original topic: fire-resistant roof, yes, but how about fire resistant WALLS? Stone, cinderblock, concrete construction are all less resistant to burning than something with any amount of wood. Large water storage systems, with pumps that are not dependent on external electric power (though if powered by generators, the fuel for the generator would be a risk as well). (on reading, I see @Magiver had the same suggestions)
If you own acreage in a rural area out West, it’s not feasible (nor desirable) for the government to tell you on which quarter or half acre out of hundreds or thousands of your land you can build your house.