The main problem is that the houses are made from wood and cardbord, and are placed in and/or surrounded by dry-as-a-fart forests and brushwork. Which is a stupid idea in an area that is known to regularly hve forest and brushwork fires. More now with global warming, which makes the plants even dryer.
LA has some some of the most pain in the ass building codes and inspectors. A permit is needed for just about damn everything specifically because of fire risks. Set backs and spacing are strongly enforced as well as the use of fire resistant materials. So even if the house were made of ‘cardboard’ they are wrapped in concrete siding or stucco.
The winds were 60-80 Miles per hour, blown in from the desert. This is a fire in the center of the city, not some remote urban wild interface.
Nonetheless, all the houses I have seen burning in the news were surrounded by dry trees and shrubs. And those houses burned as well as any other American cardboard houses. Somehow, I see no difference between them and houses with not as strict building codes. So either they only show homes that have been grandfathered in, or those building codes make no serious difference.
This is one of those situations where negatives can’t be proved. You are arguing since even code made homes have the possibility of still burning codes don’t make a difference. The loss of property has been great, but some of those homes were battered by wind driven ashes for quite a time before igniting. The loss of life while tragic is low given the extent of the fires.
As you noted there are no regulations in LA city proper about landscaping . That is likely to change in the future.
I saw more LA houses in the news, and again all what was left was the chimney. To me, it looks like houses there are just part of the fuel. But one cannot tell whether those houses were the ones that were grandfathered in. And if the new regulation is in power for just a few years, just keep in mind how many new houses with new standards have been built since then.
Unlike houses here in Europe, which are usually made of stone, bricks, or concrete. Our house has a reinforced concrete basement and floors, foam concrete insulating walls, and concrete tiles on the roof. While it would definitively see damages if placed into the middle of such a firestorm, it would resist way longer, and would not contribute to the fire. I’d say before our house would get damaged beyond the need to just clean and repaint it, everything combustible (vegetation, sheds, fences) around would be long gone.
My understanding of the situation is the fires are currently burning the historic districts and grandfathered homes. The newer buildings have not been touched yet.
The main problem is that the houses are made from wood and cardbord, and are placed in and/or surrounded by dry-as-a-fart forests and brushwork. Which is a stupid idea in an area that is known to regularly hve forest and brushwork fires. More now with global warming, which makes the plants even dryer.
LA has some some of the most pain in the ass building codes and inspectors. A permit is needed for just about damn everything specifically because of fire risks. Set backs and spacing are strongly enforced as well as the use of fire resistant materials. So even if the house were made of ‘cardboard’ they are wrapped in concrete siding or stucco.
The winds were 60-80 Miles per hour, blown in from the desert. This is a fire in the center of the city, not some remote urban wild interface.
Nonetheless, all the houses I have seen burning in the news were surrounded by dry trees and shrubs. And those houses burned as well as any other American cardboard houses. Somehow, I see no difference between them and houses with not as strict building codes. So either they only show homes that have been grandfathered in, or those building codes make no serious difference.
This is one of those situations where negatives can’t be proved. You are arguing since even code made homes have the possibility of still burning codes don’t make a difference. The loss of property has been great, but some of those homes were battered by wind driven ashes for quite a time before igniting. The loss of life while tragic is low given the extent of the fires.
As you noted there are no regulations in LA city proper about landscaping . That is likely to change in the future.
I saw more LA houses in the news, and again all what was left was the chimney. To me, it looks like houses there are just part of the fuel. But one cannot tell whether those houses were the ones that were grandfathered in. And if the new regulation is in power for just a few years, just keep in mind how many new houses with new standards have been built since then.
Unlike houses here in Europe, which are usually made of stone, bricks, or concrete. Our house has a reinforced concrete basement and floors, foam concrete insulating walls, and concrete tiles on the roof. While it would definitively see damages if placed into the middle of such a firestorm, it would resist way longer, and would not contribute to the fire. I’d say before our house would get damaged beyond the need to just clean and repaint it, everything combustible (vegetation, sheds, fences) around would be long gone.
My understanding of the situation is the fires are currently burning the historic districts and grandfathered homes. The newer buildings have not been touched yet.
That is not true for the Palisades region and Malibu. Most of the homes there would have been newer and they had significant losses.