This came up on Facebook and there are questions whether it's real or Photoshop. Thoughts?
ARTquitectos
A home in Los Angeles miraculously survived a devastating fire that ripped through the neighborhood thanks to its design and construction under the Passive House standard. This approach incorporates several fire protection features, such as: - Simple structure to reduce the accumulation of sparks and embers - Reinforced windows with triple glazing to withstand high temperatures - Flammable materials that slow the spread of fire - Ceilings and structures sealed to prevent embers and smoke from entering - Controlled ventilation to maintain indoor air quality Thanks to these features, the home proved to be fire-resistant, while other homes in the area were destroyed.
Not surprised at all. We know how to prevent houses from catching fire due to airborne embers. Home owners are probably unaware or don't take it seriously.
lack of a ventilated attic, no eaves, landscape and material choices are what I am reading about in the similarly survived buildings that aren't passivhaus. The photos showing communities after the fire passed through are devastating and unreal.
Curious - what cause/effect do the ventilated attics and eaves have for higher chance of burning?
Jan 13, 25 4:05 pm ·
·
graphemic
I don't think they'll make tougher rules... if anything they'll relax them to get things rebuilt faster.
Jan 13, 25 4:24 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
Bench - others can likely answer better than I can, but there is the possibility of burning embers getting sucked up into the overhang/ roof and ignite something in the attic. If you are all sealed off, you don't have that concern but maybe others. I've heard that there are ventilation strips for soffits that close when a certain temperature (or ?) is reached, so in theory the embers don't make it inside. I'm not sure I buy that but I also haven't used them.
A builder friend in SLO posted a news video about it as well so along with your help I'm confident that it's legit. I'm sure the Passive House aspect helped a bit, but to give PH full credit is silly--there are many non-PH things that are also responsible for keeping it from burning.
TBH I dont think anyone is wondering why wooden buildings are burning, in the sense that they are pondering why fire exists.
They may wonder why building codes don't protect wood structures and if there is truly no way to have the cake and eat it too.
My home in Toronto is made out of brick so its pretty good in a fire, overhangs or not. But its a victorian home and cold AF and weird in a lot of ways that dont make sense today.
My home in Japan is all wood, but Tokyo has burned down so many times that it is not legally possible today to expose wood in any city in Japan with any kind of density (there are huge areas of Tokyo built before those rules though, prolly same as LA).
The way things are built matter eventually. In this case the scale of the problem is what feels so wrong, I think. It's the same story every time. We always plan for the last disaster and then get caught flat footed when the next one is bigger and worse. It's not an LA problem, it's just the way we work. The real problem is that our planning often pretends the opposite. That is probably worth questioning...
Whatever it is, I wouldn't want to live in that scene. There are cases in this fire where some structures miraculously survived. They are lucky. Fire-resistant construction is nothing new. The center of Palisades is a ghostland charred to the ground. Right now the media is relentlessly broadcasting miracles to give people some moral about the higher power whatever it might be. Also, there is a ferocious rush to monetize everything.
Start with rents and availability, insurance companies refusing or increasing fees, medical backup and medication availability, and various construction services and their availability. The list goes on. Remote people will slowly learn about these and much more in the coming days and weeks. Ok?
The reality is that a large amount of the buildings within the areas burned were within government defined wildland urban interface (WUI) areas which have a lot of requirements for how structures are built to help reduce wildfire danger. However, WUI has only been around since like the late 80s, and only implemented as a code requirement since mid 2000s I believe. So many of the buildings within these areas are not designed to the current minimums for even basic wildfire safety despite being in known high hazard areas. To that extent, even these codes change very quickly, and something designed 10 years ago likely wouldn’t meet the standards of current code on this topic. And these are still just minimums, they are probably not going to protect your building in the middle of a bonfire, it's mostly about firebrand safety.
I’m not that familiar with the residential code on this in particular, but I am under the impression it’s similar to commercial code… for which most local jurisdictions have their own specific modifications to code on this topic. For example, vent requirements are much stricter in LA than the broader CBC, or exterior coverings which is much stricter in local areas like Beverly Hills and LA than the broader CBC.
As such, what seems likely to me that these codes will be analyzed and modified, but I’m not sure in what way. The reality is that most of what burned is not up to current standards though, so I wonder how much it will change. There isn’t that much on broader design techniques in that part of the code, but it’s also harder to implement those sorts of changes than it is to say you can only build x part of a building out of materials that meet y requirements, and their isn’t that much room to squeeze on that for most areas. So it will be interesting. I do think their will be a rise in demand for better than code construction on this matter for the small group of people who can afford that.
I do wonder if they will shift the WUI areas as well though… I think a fair amount of the area impacted in Alta Dena is outside of current zones.
This is really a conversation about retrofitting. What responsibility does the state have to *force* homeowners to fix non-compliant structures. We just went through a round of very successful seismic retrofitting for about 12,000 apartments. I doubt the power of the single family homeowner will allow similar legislation, even though it's clearly necessary. Every person who lost a home should have known the risks.
Jan 13, 25 4:28 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
It's a complex issue. People not choosing to not comply with wildfire standards put other people's homes at risk. On a related note; I think the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) is adopted as the baseline in the IBC and IRC.
I know a lot of areas in Colorado use it.
Jan 13, 25 5:39 pm ·
·
natematt
For reference, in Cali chapter 7a covers WUI, and was originally based on the IWUIC I believe.
Jan 13, 25 11:53 pm ·
·
natematt
I agree it’s a topic about retrofitting. I can’t imagine how the state would even enforce that given the cost implications and demographic of people impacted for this though. Unlike the seismic retrofitting, It’s different than giving a multi-billion dollar company -1-4- 31 years to upgrade or just repurpose their buildings.
Jan 14, 25 12:02 am ·
·
t a z
But what was the most recent seismic retrofitting effort? Was that not soft story resi buildings? Granted maybe not SFH but some were pretty small multi-unit buildings.
The City of Los Angeles recently passed Ordinance 183893, which requires the retrofit of pre-1978 wood-frame soft-story buildings and non-ductile concrete buildings. The goal of the mandatory retrofit programs, under the ordinance, is to reduce these structural deficiencies and improve the performance of these buildings during earthquakes. Without proper strengthening, these vulnerable buildings may be subjected to structural failure during and/or after an earthquake
Jan 14, 25 10:19 am ·
·
t a z
.
Jan 14, 25 10:22 am ·
·
natematt
There is actually a website that partly tracks which buildings have and have not been retrofitted for that actually.
Jan 17, 25 3:22 pm ·
·
natematt
I'm actually referring to Senate Bill 1953, which became a law in 1994 after the Northridge earthquake... it applies to specific kinds of hospital buildings and required upgrade or replacement over a fairly long period of time that got extended to a very long period of time.
Jan 17, 25 3:28 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Real or fake?
This came up on Facebook and there are questions whether it's real or Photoshop. Thoughts?
ARTquitectos
A home in Los Angeles miraculously survived a devastating fire that ripped through the neighborhood thanks to its design and construction under the Passive House standard. This approach incorporates several fire protection features, such as: - Simple structure to reduce the accumulation of sparks and embers - Reinforced windows with triple glazing to withstand high temperatures - Flammable materials that slow the spread of fire - Ceilings and structures sealed to prevent embers and smoke from entering - Controlled ventilation to maintain indoor air quality Thanks to these features, the home proved to be fire-resistant, while other homes in the area were destroyed.
Passive House plants too?
It's real - Mike Eliason was interviewed for a few articles about it today.
Seems legit (maybe not the passive house claims) - this link has news footage of the house:
How Passive House Design Could Protect Homes Amid Devastating Fires - Mansion Global
750 Iliff St
Web link context photo with the house located (I think?):
Ah, it's on the edge of the fully-destroyed zone; that explains the trees in the background.
Not surprised at all. We know how to prevent houses from catching fire due to airborne embers. Home owners are probably unaware or don't take it seriously.
All the chimneys are intact, we should go back to building houses out of load bearing masonry.
This is completely unnecessary.
I saw this house on a news report yesterday morning, the reporter was walking down the devastated street and that one house stood. It’s legit.
Looks like the metal roof saved it.
lack of a ventilated attic, no eaves, landscape and material choices are what I am reading about in the similarly survived buildings that aren't passivhaus. The photos showing communities after the fire passed through are devastating and unreal.
There are clearly new rules in store for LA.
My money is on lack of overhangs against prop line + landscaping choices.
Curious - what cause/effect do the ventilated attics and eaves have for higher chance of burning?
I don't think they'll make tougher rules... if anything they'll relax them to get things rebuilt faster.
Bench - others can likely answer better than I can, but there is the possibility of burning embers getting sucked up into the overhang/ roof and ignite something in the attic. If you are all sealed off, you don't have that concern but maybe others. I've heard that there are ventilation strips for soffits that close when a certain temperature (or ?) is reached, so in theory the embers don't make it inside. I'm not sure I buy that but I also haven't used them.
A builder friend in SLO posted a news video about it as well so along with your help I'm confident that it's legit. I'm sure the Passive House aspect helped a bit, but to give PH full credit is silly--there are many non-PH things that are also responsible for keeping it from burning.
It's amazing that the public wonders why a building that is constructed out of forest products burns when there is a fire in a wooded area ...
TBH I dont think anyone is wondering why wooden buildings are burning, in the sense that they are pondering why fire exists.
They may wonder why building codes don't protect wood structures and if there is truly no way to have the cake and eat it too.
My home in Toronto is made out of brick so its pretty good in a fire, overhangs or not. But its a victorian home and cold AF and weird in a lot of ways that dont make sense today.
My home in Japan is all wood, but Tokyo has burned down so many times that it is not legally possible today to expose wood in any city in Japan with any kind of density (there are huge areas of Tokyo built before those rules though, prolly same as LA).
The way things are built matter eventually. In this case the scale of the problem is what feels so wrong, I think. It's the same story every time. We always plan for the last disaster and then get caught flat footed when the next one is bigger and worse. It's not an LA problem, it's just the way we work. The real problem is that our planning often pretends the opposite. That is probably worth questioning...
Whatever it is, I wouldn't want to live in that scene. There are cases in this fire where some structures miraculously survived. They are lucky. Fire-resistant construction is nothing new. The center of Palisades is a ghostland charred to the ground. Right now the media is relentlessly broadcasting miracles to give people some moral about the higher power whatever it might be.
Also, there is a ferocious rush to monetize everything.
I don't see a ferocious rush to monetize anything - where is this coming from? ...
Start with rents and availability, insurance companies refusing or increasing fees, medical backup and medication availability, and various construction services and their availability. The list goes on. Remote people will slowly learn about these and much more in the coming days and weeks. Ok?
Oh yes, and I just read about FEMA denying claims to people who have GoFundMe's with the word "rebuild" in it. wtf?
The reality is that a large amount of the buildings within the areas burned were within government defined wildland urban interface (WUI) areas which have a lot of requirements for how structures are built to help reduce wildfire danger. However, WUI has only been around since like the late 80s, and only implemented as a code requirement since mid 2000s I believe. So many of the buildings within these areas are not designed to the current minimums for even basic wildfire safety despite being in known high hazard areas. To that extent, even these codes change very quickly, and something designed 10 years ago likely wouldn’t meet the standards of current code on this topic. And these are still just minimums, they are probably not going to protect your building in the middle of a bonfire, it's mostly about firebrand safety.
I’m not that familiar with the residential code on this in particular, but I am under the impression it’s similar to commercial code… for which most local jurisdictions have their own specific modifications to code on this topic. For example, vent requirements are much stricter in LA than the broader CBC, or exterior coverings which is much stricter in local areas like Beverly Hills and LA than the broader CBC.
As such, what seems likely to me that these codes will be analyzed and modified, but I’m not sure in what way. The reality is that most of what burned is not up to current standards though, so I wonder how much it will change. There isn’t that much on broader design techniques in that part of the code, but it’s also harder to implement those sorts of changes than it is to say you can only build x part of a building out of materials that meet y requirements, and their isn’t that much room to squeeze on that for most areas. So it will be interesting. I do think their will be a rise in demand for better than code construction on this matter for the small group of people who can afford that.
I do wonder if they will shift the WUI areas as well though… I think a fair amount of the area impacted in Alta Dena is outside of current zones.
This is really a conversation about retrofitting. What responsibility does the state have to *force* homeowners to fix non-compliant structures. We just went through a round of very successful seismic retrofitting for about 12,000 apartments. I doubt the power of the single family homeowner will allow similar legislation, even though it's clearly necessary. Every person who lost a home should have known the risks.
It's a complex issue. People not choosing to not comply with wildfire standards put other people's homes at risk. On a related note; I think the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) is adopted as the baseline in the IBC and IRC.
I know a lot of areas in Colorado use it.
For reference, in Cali chapter 7a covers WUI, and was originally based on the IWUIC I believe.
I agree it’s a topic about retrofitting. I can’t imagine how the state would even enforce that given the cost implications and demographic of people impacted for this though. Unlike the seismic retrofitting, It’s different than giving a multi-billion dollar company -1-4- 31 years to upgrade or just repurpose their buildings.
But what was the most recent seismic retrofitting effort? Was that not soft story resi buildings? Granted maybe not SFH but some were pretty small multi-unit buildings.
This program:
Mandatory Retrofit Programs | LADBS
The City of Los Angeles recently passed Ordinance 183893, which requires the retrofit of pre-1978 wood-frame soft-story buildings and non-ductile concrete buildings. The goal of the mandatory retrofit programs, under the ordinance, is to reduce these structural deficiencies and improve the performance of these buildings during earthquakes. Without proper strengthening, these vulnerable buildings may be subjected to structural failure during and/or after an earthquake
.
There is actually a website that partly tracks which buildings have and have not been retrofitted for that actually.
I'm actually referring to Senate Bill 1953, which became a law in 1994 after the Northridge earthquake... it applies to specific kinds of hospital buildings and required upgrade or replacement over a fairly long period of time that got extended to a very long period of time.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.