Many of the California home ARE built with concrete tile roofs and stucco walls, but they still burn up!
The tragedies from the Bel Air Fire, Oakland to the current fires has confirm what I know is the major reason why it happens or how it can be prevented.
It is obvious to everyone that cement/tile roofs and stucco / masonry walls are the way to go in high fire prone areas. What is missing is how to fireproof WINDOWS! When adjacent houses or hills are on fire, the radiation goes right thru the glass and ignite curtains and widow coverings. I think a reflective coating on glass will prevent some of the radiant heat from igniting the interior. If homeowners could cover all the windows with cement board or stacking concrete block before fleeing the scene the home will be a lot safer.
Other things to consider is landscaping, eave and facia construction, hillside location, brush clearance, roof sprinklers, masonry propertyline walls and zoning regulations.
The next topic will be HILLSIDE FLOODING and MUDFLOW, that will come next.
Replies
Most hillside homes have a special Code which provides in part:
Fireproof materials over sheathing. It is a lot like drywall but built for exterior use. It goes under the stucco.
Fireproof shingles.
No brush within 50 feet.
But I have some better ideas--How about not building in these areas? People are so stupid. I read today about a couple that were burned out in 1990's, rebuilt, and are burned out again. Criminey, what does it take?
Or how about a car tax that compensates the cities for more fireman and policemen? Oh yeah, we already did that, and are repealling it.
Boris
"Sir, I may be drunk, but you're crazy, and I'll be sober tomorrow" -- WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934
But I have some better ideas--How about not building in these areas? People are so stupid. I read today about a couple that were burned out in 1990's, rebuilt, and are burned out again. Criminey, what does it take?
Can I assume you also believe that people outside of CA that have had homes destroyed by hurricanes, tornados and floods are stupid to rebuild in the same place?
Yes. I used to live in Iowa.
It would amaze me that people put mobilehomes on known flood plains get wiped out, want our sympathy, want government money, we actually pay it, they rebuild, then get flooded out again. Stop this stupid cycle.
Some places are not appropriate for human residency at government or insurance expense.
Regards,
Boris
"Sir, I may be drunk, but you're crazy, and I'll be sober tomorrow" -- WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934
Some places are not appropriate for human residency at government or insurance expense.
You mean like the entire midwest (tornados) and Florida, the gulf coast and the eastern seaboard (hurricanes)?
You left out Calif and the Washington coast (earthquakes), Seattle-Tacoma (likely volcanic eruption), North Dakota (lack of jobs and opportunities), and, and some of my Berkeley friends from that area would say, the entire mid-west (danger from extreme boredom...)
I originally stuck this over in the "home sprinkler" thread, but since some of you may have given up on the flames over there, I will repeat it here:
A somewhat interesting article in the N.Y. times on a fire resistant house (registration is required to access the NY Times, but they have never sent me any spam):
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/garden/30FIRE.html
And a slightly less interesting opinion piece in the LA Times (no registration but be prepared for a number of "popup adds"):
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-pyne30oct30,1,307019.story?coll=la-headlines-oped-manual
While boredom is dangerous here in the midwest, we do have the danger of winter snow storms that can and do kill.
I'll put my 60 below windchill up against a tropical storm like a hurricane anyday!
You forgot Hawai with its volcanoes,and Alaska with its earthquakes n' oilspills.
Hurricanes are random, so are tornadoes.
But when idiots build in flood plains and in the wilderness, they ought not complaint about floods, fire, and bears.
So no, I leave out the entire midwest and eastern seaboard.
Insurers ought not insure homes on hillsides where fire is prevalent, or should be allowed to set whatever rates compensate them for their risk. If it prices homeowners out of the market, so be it.Regards,
Boris
"Sir, I may be drunk, but you're crazy, and I'll be sober tomorrow" -- WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934
Hurricanes are random, so are tornadoes.
How are wildfires any less random? All three are the result of combinations of weather and topography. A wildfire like those that CA is experiencing right now is every bit as random as a tornado or a hurricane.
Insurers ought not insure homes on hillsides where fire is prevalent, or should be allowed to set whatever rates compensate them for their risk. If it prices homeowners out of the market, so be it.
If you had talked about insurance from the beginning I never would have chimed in. Regarding insurance I agree with you completely. And, for your information, that is the case in fire prone areas of CA. Either the rates are very high or the coverage is not available.
But you originally said that people were stupid for living in these areas and that they should not be allowed to build in them, a far different argument than insuring those who do live there. Casey and I merely pointed out the logical consequences of your statement, the logic which I don't think you have been able to refute.
No, I take issue with the statement that all persons can live wherever they want to, regardless of the consequences. Many municipalities simply don't issue building permits for residential housing in flood plains. I feel the same about hillsides and wilderness areas. Perhaps no permits for residential structures should be issued for high risk fire areas. Does your community allow residences in flood plains? Ours doesn't.
The key word in your post was "topography" which is my point. Hurricanes and Tornadoes are random. Even Los Angeles had a tornado in 1987 in downtown. Fires and Floods are not random. They only happen where "topography" (your word) enables them to exist. There are no flood in high ground. There are no mass wildfires in cities.
Fires out here won't occur deep in a housing development surrounded by green belts. They will occur in heavily wooded areas outside the development, and in canyons, which is what is happening.
Floods won't occur in areas 20-30 feet above the flood plain. They will occur in a flood plain.
While fire and floods occur without little notice, they are not random. If people build in appropriate areas, they will not fall victim to floods and fires.
I think people need to think about where they live. Really someplaces are simply inappropriate for human habitation. And if people are too stupid to realize that, then the government has to step in and protect them against themselves, and refuse to issue building permits at these high risk locations.
Regards,
Boris
"Sir, I may be drunk, but you're crazy, and I'll be sober tomorrow" -- WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934
Boris, it's nice to have a civil discussion even when there is major disagreement.
There are no mass wildfires in cities. Fires out here won't occur deep in a housing development surrounded by green belts. They will occur in heavily wooded areas outside the development, and in canyons, which is what is happening.
Here is where you betray a misunderstanding of the situation in Southern California. There are mass wildfires in CA cities. In 1961 a wildfire burned through the very suburban Bel-Air part of the city of LA and destroyed hundreds of homes. In 1993 a fire burned through the city of Laguna Beach and destroyed hundreds of homes. This year the fires burned through several very suburban areas of the city of San Diego. These were not fringe developments of wacko Californians trying to build in inherently dangerous places where "sensible" (meaning anyone outside of California who thinks they know what the situation is all about inside CA) people wouldn't and shouldn't think of building. These were large suburban developments with all of the trappings of any city in the US.
I think people need to think about where they live. Really someplaces are simply inappropriate for human habitation.
What is more predictable than tornados in the midwest or hurricanes in the southeast? They happen by the dozens each and every year. And every year more people are killed by them than by all of the wildfires in the history of CA. Every year hundreds of millions of dollars of property are destroyed by them. Yet no one ever asks (often with self righteous overtones that imply they got what they deserved) why in the heck they live there. Yet, just as predictably, a few fires light up the sky in CA and people who live outside of the state begin their judgemental ruminations about stupid people living where they shouldn't. Why is it business as usual to live where there are tornados and hurricanes but stupid and innappropriate to live where there may be wildfires? You haven't made a case for a valid distinction.
Read the LA Times today.
Big Article on the fact that in San Diego, it was a tragic mistake to allow residential areas in wildfire areas. The victims's families and the City agrees that there are certain places that one simply shouldn't build on. Victims families will sue City for issuing building permits in areas that shouldn't have been built on.
Timing is everything.
Game, Set, Match.
Regards,
Boris
"Sir, I may be drunk, but you're crazy, and I'll be sober tomorrow" -- WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934
I read the Times every day, I read the article you are referring to. It commented on a few of the thousands of homes that have burned, hardly a blanket condemnation that you seem to think it is.
...in San Diego, it was a tragic mistake to allow residential areas in wildfire areas.
Boris, here's where the crux of the disagreement lies. I've tried several times to explain it with the tornado and hurricane comparison to no avail. You blithely toss out phrases like "wildfire area" without comprehending what that means out here. Because of our climate and topography, much of California is a "wildfire area", just like much of the midwest is a tornado area and much of the southeast is a hurricane area. All three have millions of people who have made a conscious choice to live in that area, even though the hazards of living there may some day be devastating.
I've lived here my whole life, both in the hills and in the flatlands. I've been evacuated once and have watched fires creep down the hills toward my house several times. None of those houses was built in rugged, inaccessible ravines or hilltops. None of them were the result of some foolish Californian's disregard for the inevitable. All were in middle class neighborhoods near but not in the foothills, no different than the neighborhoods I see on the news every year that are destroyed in tornados or hurricanes.
Edited 10/31/2003 4:00:02 PM ET by AK373
I'm going to debate the specifics of what a fire area is or not or what a flood plain is or is not--that is for City zoning to define. I just know that people that live in high risk areas are stupid and are at risk and put their families at risk, and waste valuable health and saftey resources saving their a s s e s. They shouldn't be there, and if they are, tough noogies, let it burn or flood. You can't fix stupid and I don't feel sorry for them at all. Some of these idiots are on the second burned out home. I mean get clue, guys!
And I agree with the article in the LA times today quotes families and city officials that states that there are many areas in the State that people shouldn't be allowed to live.
It seems you have a different opinion. So lets just leave it there.
Regards,
Boris
"Sir, I may be drunk, but you're crazy, and I'll be sober tomorrow" -- WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934
The fires you cite are all low density upscale bedroom communities in the hills. Down here in the high density flatlands, we haven't had a case of fire spreading from building to building to building. Even the Torrance termite fumigation explosion didn't spread fire beyond the buildings damaged by the initial blast.
I think it's mostly a matter of rapid detection and response. My neighborhood is full of 80 year old two story wood frame buildings 10 - 12 feet apart, with big dry trees spreading over the streets. Perhaps if a fire here were given half a day's head start, it could get pretty big. That might happen if a really big earthquake disables or overwhelms the fire department, as happened in San Francisco in 1906. Consider also Dresden and Tokyo in WWII.....
-- J.S.
The fires you cite are all low density upscale bedroom communities in the hills.
Sure, but they are also parts of cities, established cities, not fringes of civilization that should never have been built on. I didn't mention the Oakland fire, also an established city, not the wild, wild west.
Were SOME houses built in unsafe areas? Absolutely. Were all of them or even a majority of them in unsafe areas? I will grant you that argument only if you agree that the majority of houses in tornado and hurricane areas are also built in unsafe areas, and agree that the victims of those natural disasters should also go it alone without our sympathy or our tax dollars.
........ that the victims of those natural disasters should also go it alone without our sympathy or our tax dollars.
Then perhaps the rules for flood insurance should be followed for all types of catastrophies?
When a home in a flood plain is destroyed by flood, and it has flood coverage (only available from the government), the payout is made only on the stipulation that the owner rebuild outside of the flood plain.
As for my opinion.....I believe that living in a flood plain is extremely risky. I also believe that people should live in areas where the necessary resources (primarily water) can sustain them.
Southern California originally became popular due to its lack of rain (and other good-weather aspects). It became so popular that it needed to get its water from elsewhere. That, in my opinion, is just as risky as living in a flood plain. Whatcha gonna do when Colorado becomes so populous that it must keep the water for itself?
Vast projects should not be founded on half vast ideas.
"Either the rates are very high or the coverage is not available."
We have a friend who has a house in the Lake Arrowhead area and here is waht se just wrotew to us:
"The Grand Prix (Fontana), Old (Waterman Canyon), and Playground (Hang Gliderarea on Hwy. 18) fires were arson. Witnesses have come forward and there is acomposite sketch plus a description of the driver of the 2000 or 2001 gray Dodgeor Chevrolet van has been placed on the air. There are a lot of us who wouldlike to show him what fires can do. We have over a million dead trees fromdrought and pine bark beetle in our forest because the "environmental wacko's"won't let the forestry department cut down any of the trees. As far as I'mconcerned, the Sierra Club and Green Peace suck. Then fires were set in Venturacounty. The Santa Ana's were blowing them south and west. The Fontana fire hadgotten to Alta Loma when more fires were set in Devore, somewhere in LA countyand somewhere in Ventura county. Then they all met and formed a 40 mile longline of fires. Now the marine onshore winds are blowing them back north andeast. This morning there was 60 miles of fire line burning.We are cautiously optimistic that our home won't burn but aren't worried if itdoes. Farmers insurance decided not to insure homes in the mountains and weupdated our policy to reflect the current appraisal and contents value in Julywith Allstate. San Bernardino has also been declared a major disaster area byPresident Bush so we have access to federal and FEMA funds if our home burnsdown in addition to the insurance. I just read in the newspaper that if ourhome burns down we will also be able to claim it as an amendment to our 2002 IRStax forms and can get anywhere from $1000 to $10,000 back form income taxmonies.I decided some time ago that although we have a lot of nice things we haveaccumulated over the years along with our memories that I refuse to be"possessed by my possessions." I have started over again so many times in mylife that it just doesn't matter to me to have to start all over again one moretime."
At this point, they are sure if their house is still standing or not.
Thought some one might like to read the perspective from from a "potential victim"
Some weeks back there was a discussion of how well concrete holds up in a fire. Prospero's search function won't find that thread for me, so I will stick this information here - concrete seems to do much worse than I thought it would:
At high temperatures, the modulus of elasticity of concrete diminishes substantially. At 400 degrees F, the value is about 70% of the room value, at 800 F, it is slightly less than 50%, and at 1200 F, only 30%. This means that the stiffness of concrete structural members diminishes at high temperatures and plastic hinges are cable of large rotational capacities.
... the modulus of elasticity of steel diminishest to about 90% at 600 degrees F, 85% at 800 F, and 72% at about 1000 F.
https://www.pci.org/store/getfile.html?product_id=258&file=MNL_124_89.pdf
I think it isn't so much the construction -- current codes are good and are enforced. The problem is getting the people up there to do the fuel removal that's needed. Brush clearance isn't enforced well enough. Higher up, they need to thin out the trees. Failure to do that weakened the trees and let the bark beetles get out of control, so now they have dense forests in which more than half the trees are dead and dried out. There are protests when the FD wants to do controlled burns, so nothing gets done. Then finally the balance of nature re-establishes itself with a massive fire, and the protesters get burned out.
-- J.S.
Haven't there been several series on the news about HO's cutting back the the brush. Removing trees. Cutting fire breaks and what ever was nessasary to protect their properties just to get into serious trouble for for their efforts....
Who ever invented work didn't know how to fish....
Haven't seen that, but I'm often too busy or tired to watch the news. I hope to be dried in by next week, so I'll have more time....
-- J.S.
Don't know that there's a simple easy answer. Where people go, there go fammables. You can build concrete dormitories, but they are filled with clothing, bedding, carpets, paper, petroleum distillates . . . get any of those hot enough, and they'll burn.
It's hard to fireproof against a 3000° wildfire. Even with refractory brick, you will get some convection and radiant heating. Not sure that sprinklers (inside or out) would have helped in near drought conditions, either (and begets another thorny resource conservation question).
I'm not comfortable with letting anybody dictate where another lives--and the question of why the fires spread the way they did (do) may have more to do with "management" of the wild areas by the "government," rather than the construction materials/techniques.
We could require that these people bury their homes in the hill sides, and eschew any sort of view--but they still would have had to have been evacuated.
Just seems to me that when you move millions of people into an area that gets almost no rain, you're askin for trouble. And when it does rain, the ground is just unstable enough that they get mudslides. And if the fires or mudslides don't get 'em, maybe an earthquake will.
Who knows.....maybe one of these days Colorado is just gonna start keeping all the water anyway. (I hope I'm long gone by then -- I couldn't stand havin all those liberals moving back east.)
Vast projects should not be founded on half vast ideas.
you move millions of people into an area that gets almost no rain
Depends, as long as the people moving in know what they are doing, and what risks they are accepting. The libertarian in me just bristles at giving any sort of governmental entity authority over where a person can be allowed to live. At the same time, I'm not real keen to see them set up some sort of federal wildfire insurance on the flood insurance model.
It's a hard question with hard answers. Now, if it were me, I'd bury a pretty sizable rainwater collection tank on my property, if only for irrigation. It is one answer to the crazy way that it rains in those regions (either none at all, or enough for mudslides).
At the same time, those wildfires are way beyond a regular house fire. A windblown wildfire has temperatures around 3,000° F. A firestorm can be worse, the fire creates 60 & 70 mph gusts--as if smelter and forge furnace temperatures wwere not bad enough alone. So, perhaps the best aprocah is to deal with these sorts of conditions as natural disasters. It would be hard to hurricane-proof all of Florida, too.
Besides, the Coloradans are already in a bunch from the excess of Calis moving there <grin> . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Is it that evident / obvious??
Who ever invented work didn't know how to fish....
Is it that evident / obvious??
Probably not to the Calis afflicting CO . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Yup. The government should neither forbid people from doing something stupid, nor subsidise them for doing something stupid. ;-)
-- J.S.
neither forbid people from doing something stupid, nor subsidise them for doing something stupid.
Elegantly stated.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Re: "Yup. The government should neither forbid people from doing something stupid, nor subsidise them for doing something stupid. ;-)"
I tend to agree. I don't think this should be absolute or to seem hard hearted but should the public be spending money to defend these homes? Sure The previous policy of fighting all fires was stupid but building a house with wood shakes and having a dozen half dead trees within 10' of your cedar shingled roof is dumb also.
Santana winds are not new. Fires in the area are not new. They are a yearly event. Everyone who cared to ask knew the condition of the forest and the fuel loads before they decided to move into the forest.
These are not destitute migrant farm workers force by a lack of another place to go that live in the woods. These are relatively, some very, well off people who chose to build there. When people make stupid choices does the general public, in light of the many who suffer for lack of much smaller amounts, have the responsibility to make heroic efforts to rescue them? Their homes?
My first instinct is to send in the busses to collect the inhabitants and then let what will burn burn. You want to stick and fight for your house? Are you wiling to go down in a literal blaze of glory? More power to you. Good luck.
On the other end these are people with money, power and influence. These people, IMHO far more than the poor, minorities and dependant, feel entitled. Should the elected choose not to cover the rich folks collective rears heads would roll. So to cover their own back sides, the elected officials, will spend the general publics money defending the well-to-dos right to be stupid but live in scenic beauty.
woundn't it be rather simple to require High flow sprinklers on all roofs in areas prone to wildfires? That and plants with high retained water content (iceplants/catus for eaxmple) as a fire boundery?
Granted the isolated home would probably not be able to be saved but several homes together could form a mini fire break..
Only if hey have their own tank. When the Fire Department hooks up the pumper, it leaves you no water pressure.
It depends doesn't it? If the pumper hooks up to your feeder line then pressure is sure to drop dramatically, however...
What if there are no fire trucks in the area as is sometimes the case, or what if the fire truck is on another feeder line?
Considering the number of swimming pools in southern Calif. it's possible that the home might be able to do enough to save itself.. by draining the pool.
I'll grant you that if a firetruck is standing there and fighting the fire you have a better chance than no truck and if it can't save the home then no rooftop sprinkler will be enough, in combination it might be enough, it certainly couldn't hurt..
There was a FH cover story after the Oakland fire about one particular house that was still standing intact.
Very interesting and informative article.