Crazy fires in Los Angeles

If money isn’t an issue though, would you want to rebuild in the same place, knowing that it could happen again? If I were loaded due to fame/business I’d be relocating to someplace less risky.

I expect they will build it with some fire protection in place. Expect higher boundary walls, basement fire proof room for valuables etc. I also expect some kind of sprinkler system onto the house to come onto the market soon.
 
I expect they will build it with some fire protection in place. Expect higher boundary walls, basement fire proof room for valuables etc. I also expect some kind of sprinkler system onto the house to come onto the market soon.
That, and their construction techniques are different which hasn't helped, so switching to brick etc would help. In some footage you can see some of the surrounding trees are barely touched yet the houses are gone. Wind blows the hot cinders which then has ignited the dry wood of the houses nearby, where as the trees have a higher water content.
 
Last edited:
That, and their construction techniques are different which hasn't helped, so switching to brick etc would help. In some footage you can see some of the surrounding trees are barely touched yet the houses are gone. Wind blows the hot cinders which then has ignited the dry wood of the houses nearby, where as the trees have a higher water content.

No no, the geniuses earlier in the thread have insisted timber construction hasn't played any part!
 
That, and their construction techniques are different which hasn't helped, so switching to brick etc would help. In some footage you can see some of the surrounding trees are barely touched yet the houses are gone. Wind blows the hot cinders which then has ignited the dry wood of the houses nearby, where as the trees have a higher water content.

Brick isn't going to do much good. Like English house....the roof is timber and its only about 2 inches away from intense heat, windows are wooden frame, the doors are almost always wood. The heat will be so intense that the windows will melt and then the plasterboard on the window frame will just burst into flames.

Plus, a lot of these houses I've seen are concrete anyway.

Japan....earthquake central....earthquake which often lead to fires when electric lines gets tripped or gas pipe exposed....they build a lot of their buildings out of wood. If natural disasters are so frequent that they just embrace it will happen eventually and make it easier to rebuild.
 
Last edited:
Brick isn't going to do much good. Like English house....the roof is timber and its only about 2 inches away from intense heat, windows are wooden frame, the doors are almost always wood. The heat will be so intense that the windows will melt and then the plasterboard on the window frame will just burst into flames.

Plus, a lot of these houses I've seen are concrete anyway.

Japan....earthquake central....earthquake which often lead to fires when electric lines gets tripped or gas pipe exposed....they build a lot of their buildings out of wood. If natural disasters are so frequent that they just embrace it will happen eventually and make it easier to rebuild.

We generally use tile and slate rooves. The US commonly uses 'shingles'. They're basically paper thin backers of felt or even paper with a layer of bitumen over the top. A single hot ash/ember can set that away. A small amount of ash or embers is going to do very little to a tile or slate roof, it takes much more prolonged exposure for them to go. Brick isnt going to go up, timber cladding certainly will!
 
Rich people might be able to do it (I wouldn't, I wouldn't go back) but normal everyday people will probably just have to build the same sheds again.
Common sense would say level it all and rebuild somewhere safer, but that won't happen.
 
Last edited:
Brick isn't going to do much good. Like English house....the roof is timber and its only about 2 inches away from intense heat, windows are wooden frame, the doors are almost always wood. The heat will be so intense that the windows will melt and then the plasterboard on the window frame will just burst into flames.

Plus, a lot of these houses I've seen are concrete anyway.

Japan....earthquake central....earthquake which often lead to fires when electric lines gets tripped or gas pipe exposed....they build a lot of their buildings out of wood. If natural disasters are so frequent that they just embrace it will happen eventually and make it easier to rebuild.

It'd help minimise the risk. In some areas the houses are completely gone so those can't be concrete. It's not always a case of flames moving house to house, it's the burnt out remains of houses, glowing red hot, being blown about in the wind (which has died down now I think), then setting fire (using as fuel) the wood construction of nearby houses. So you can have a house 100 metres from any house where no flames have reached suddenly catch on fire as cinders, glowing red hot, blow in the wind and then land on another house (walls/roof etc). This way of ignition would be minimised with a different construction

I'd guess the number of destroyed concrete houses much lower than the wood built ones.

Of course, some kind of fire retardant coatings/other fireproofing could likely be used too.

Anyway, pretty sad scenes.
 
Last edited:
I expect they will build it with some fire protection in place. Expect higher boundary walls, basement fire proof room for valuables etc. I also expect some kind of sprinkler system onto the house to come onto the market soon.

Yup, no doubt some design consideraitons w.r.t roof materials, fireproof rooms at least etc.. But also no doubt lobbying re: fire prevention measures like controlled burns, reducing forest density and including fire breaks.

Brick isn't going to do much good. Like English house....the roof is timber and its only about 2 inches away from intense heat, windows are wooden frame, the doors are almost always wood. The heat will be so intense that the windows will melt and then the plasterboard on the window frame will just burst into flames.

As per your mention of Japan, I think earthquakes are also a reason to avoid brick in California.

I'm not sure intense heat is necessarily an issue w.r.t some of these large detached houses catching fire so much as just lots of embers - looking at the evacuation footage of people who left it till the last minute there's some hellish footage but they're able to walk outside and get into their car and drive along while the adjacent buildings are burning, but there's just loads of embers flying around in the air and many of those landing onto the roof or hitting the walls of these houses + some heat -> fire.

That new-ish house in the tweet a few posts up is still standing and didn't have melted windows form intense heat etc.. maybe design/maybe luck but I guess the embers didn't manage to cause it to catch. Sadly 10 people have died so far but I presume they're mostly people who were caught inside, even if som
 
It'd help minimise the risk. In some areas the houses are completely gone so those can't be concrete. It's not always a case of flames moving house to house, it's the burnt out remains of houses, glowing red hot, being blown about in the wind (which has died down now I think), then setting fire (using as fuel) the wood construction of nearby houses. So you can have a house 100 metres from any house where no flames have reached suddenly catch on fire as cinders, glowing red hot, blow in the wind and then land on another house (walls/roof etc). This way of ignition would be minimised with a different construction

I'd guess the number of destroyed concrete houses much lower than the wood built ones.

Each region builds their houses to fit into their environment, for better or for worse, depending on many factors like local materials, the time scale required, purpose etc.

Uk builds out houses out of slates/tiles because we have those materials, and it is for our climate. We didn't build it because the UK are one giant fire ball every 20 years and bricks have been a proven fireproof building method. So to think they should build it like we do don't really have much real world reference. The fact that Japan builds houses with wood suggests to me that using wood isn't really a problem.

Yes, shingles is thinner but there are many things out in the open like bushes and trees or grass that are so dry which catches fire so easily when it has been dried out. I mean there are loads of cars burnt to ash, a car doesn't catch fire that easily either, it is the intense heat from the surrounding that eventually got through it's metal skin, making the interior to catch fire.

Sure, you can lower the risk, but unless you don't have windows, build it like a bunker...any regular designs with big windows, a door with plasterboard that goes right to the windows frame/door frame is going to catch fire when everything around you is ablaze.
 
Last edited:
Each region builds their houses to fit into their environment, for better or for worse, depending on many factors like local materials, the time scale required, purpose etc.

Uk builds out houses out of slates/tiles because we have those materials, and it is for our climate. We didn't build it because the UK are one giant fire ball every 20 years and bricks have been a proven fireproof building method. So to think they should build it like we do don't really have much real world reference. The fact that Japan builds houses with wood suggests to me that using wood isn't really a problem.

Yes, shingles is thinner but there are many things out in the open like bushes and trees or grass that are so dry which catches fire so easily when it has been dried out. I mean there are loads of cars burnt to ash, a car doesn't catch fire that easily either, it is the intense heat from the surrounding that eventually got through it's metal skin, making the interior to catch fire.

Sure, you can lower the risk, but unless you don't have windows, build it like a bunker...any regular designs with big windows, a door with plasterboard that goes right to the windows frame/door frame is going to catch fire when everything around you is ablaze.

Honestly, look up the change in British urban and building design following the great fire of London.
 
The stone and concrete skeletons of all these structures still standing is more than enough proof that the American fixation on using wood is purely aesthetic.
 
Last edited:
0yaWEny.png


*was listed :(
 
the problem of evolving/cheaper construction is also present in the UK ... ok we probably want houses with flood 'proofing' (closable air bricks / door seals)
but I consciously steer away from houses with wooden cladding/framing more maintenance than pointing a brick.

so, even the rich in california apparently can't afford brick/concrete houses ! ... but if you read earlier link if you have a class A roof, and no timber on the sides/decking you should be good to avoid wild fire blown embers.
 
You dared to cast shade at a DEI hire and triggered one of them.

Apparently if "most people" couldn't do a job well then it's totally understandable if the person paid 400k a year to do the job is completely mediocre and out of shape.

edit - while we're at it let's get some train drivers poor eyesight, some air traffic controllers who are very anxious/prone to stress and some pilots with poor coordination skills.

I mean heaven forbid anyone might think it useful that a firefighter be a strong bloke capable of at least lifting a decent portion of people.
 
Last edited:
The stone and concrete skeletons of all these structures still standing is more than enough proof that the American fixation on using wood is purely aesthetic.

Aye stone and concrete is great against fire. Not so good when the ground below you starts moving about though. Timber however, flexes a bit better.

 
if you read about the noxious fumes they're likely to be inhaling in California, like their Grenfell kindred, not sure it's a career option you'd choose
 
Back
Top Bottom