Mayor Karen Bass has released a detailed plan for the rebuilding of key commercial and residential structures destroyed in last week’s devastating fires in Los Angeles County.
The plan, which follows an earlier executive order signed by Governor Gavin Newsom that eliminated CEQA reviews and other building requirements for future developments in those areas, essentially establishes a "one-stop shop" to rapidly issue building permits and allow for "like-for-like" rebuilding by waiving the discretionary review processes.
The city’s Department of Building and Safety will also be directed to expedite approvals for 1,400 units of housing pro forma in order to accommodate the tens of thousands of Angelenos who are estimated to have lost their homes due to the catastrophe. The important debris removal process will also be streamlined.
Bass says its aim is to "organize around urgency, common sense and compassion." Some other key lines included as bullet points in the order as they apply to architecture are:
Self Certification: The Department of Building and Safety shall report back within 15 days on what permit review(s) could potentially be undertaken as a self-certification procedure by a licensed project architect, for Eligible Projects that are limited to the reconstruction of a single-family residential structure.
Expediting Temporary Certificates of Occupancy for Multi-family Residential Projects Near Completion: Form an interdepartmental task force to help multi-family residential projects nearing completion obtain their Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) expeditiously so as to create more available units in the market.
Allowance For Recreational Vehicles, Tiny Homes, Modular Structures, and Mobile Homes on Affected Properties During Rebuild: On a site with a structure, improvement, or facility substantially damaged or destroyed by the Wildfires, the use of Recreational Vehicles, Tiny Homes, Modular Structures, and Mobile Homes on the site during rebuilding to house displaced resident(s) shall be permitted for up to three years, or while an active building permit is applicable to said property, whichever is longer.
Historic Resources Inventory: The Department of Building and Safety, in coordination with the Department of City Planning, within 10 days of safe access being available to the impacted areas, shall identify and inspect all properties that have a local, state, or federal historic designation.
All-Electric Building Code Provisions: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the LAMC, all requirements related to Ordinance No. 187,714 shall be waived for Eligible Projects. Although not required, Eligible Projects may choose to opt in to the provisions of Ordinance No. 187,714.
Under the order, all "Eligible Projects" are defined as any that "repair, restore, demolish, or replace a structure or facility substantially damaged or destroyed" and must meet the following criteria:
The structure or facility to be repaired, restored, demolished, or replaced is in substantially the same location as it existed immediately prior to the fires.
The structure or facility to be repaired, restored, demolished, or replaced does not exceed 110% of the floor area, height, and bulk of the structures or facility existing immediately prior to.
The project shall be for the same use as the last use of the structure or facility prior to the Wildfires. Without limitation, the project cannot result in a change of use from residential to commercial, a less intensive use to a more intensive use, or an increase in density or units (including accessory dwelling units), including but not limited to a change from a single-family use to a multi-family use.
The Project obtains building permits for repair or reconstruction in seven years from issuance of this Order; and the work is completed within three years of obtaining building permits; subject to extension by a subsequent Order or Council resolution.
Finally, the order states that demolition permits will "not be required provided the applicant has submitted a timely notification prior to demolition to the Department of Building and Safety through an online portal or other electronic means."
Similar articles on Archinect that may interest you...
This is great news and an obvious approach to take. Now... How about we just extend that and make it easier for everyone to build. If regulations can be suspended after an emergency without cause for concern, why can't they be eliminated completely?
Not everyone agrees with you, myself included. Regulations are there for a reason, just look at the impact of the earthquakes in Turkey a few years ago.
Less time should be spent on seeking to eliminate regulation and more spent on easing ones ability to comply and obtain approvals. A lot of what is wrong has to do with regulators not seeking to harmonize regulations with each other or with how folks actually work.
I understand your perspective, graphemic. But if we're to believe that regulations which challenge the process of homebuilding are necessary, we should believe that they're always necessary. I believe that too many of them are there for reasons that benefit only a few and don't serve the larger interests or needs of a society/community. If removing the red tape can be done temporarily, why can't it be done permanently?
Jan 16, 25 5:38 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Why don't we do this, get rid of regulations, hand over authority to the working class in the community, let the working class take the instruments providing the capital to rebuild; let the working people own, and collectively manage the resources surrounding their neighborhoods.
Jan 17, 25 10:47 am ·
·
graphemic
John, I think you misunderstand. I don't think red tape should be removed temporarily. So, the premise of "if not now, why not always" doesn't apply. HOWEVER, even in the context of this post, you're misunderstanding why restrictions are being relaxed. The idea is that if people build back what was already there, regulations that are intended to analyze the impact of *new* development can be ignored. They're effectively dismissing the idea that these people's homes should be built any better than how they were built originally. Which is why I and many other professionals think getting rid of "red tape" even temporarily is foolish. Why have standards if they aren't good? You and I agree on that point. You are simply getting confused by the poor judgement of city and industry leaders. They often do not enforce or prioritize the larger interests of the society/community, as you put it.
I do agree that many regulations "benefit a few" and should be revised to actually promote public health, safety, and well-being. I agree that it takes way too long and is way too expensive. The solution to these problems is not getting rid of all of it and doing nothing instead. And the motivation behind these executive actions is not to solve these problems.
Instead of thumbs downing, Noah, why don't you offer a take, coward.
Jan 16, 25 1:05 pm ·
·
Archinect
It's your comment that seems like it needs more context. Angelinos aren't in the mood for hot takes like that right now, and they don't deserve to be called cowards for not engaging.
Wait, so building SFH, rushing in to build is the correct response? Vulture Capitalists are trying to take advantage of a community in distress, and everyone is rushing in to create the same exact problem? Ollie Wainwright seems to be getting it right. Is he telling Angelinos the wrong thing? My comment makes sense in the context of Wainwright, and my position on the other news of this horrifying and avoidable disaster. The news here is knee-jerk at best, and criminal at worst. Who is going to build and get insurance? Who, VC that's who. At least I'm asking reasonable questions, and not creating another disaster which the architecture community seems altogether to ready to assist in making.
Oh, and the person thumbing down my comment,.and thumbing up the other, seems like you're into deregulation, or do I have that wrong too?
Jan 16, 25 2:00 pm ·
·
graphemic
Archinect: the post is entirely focused on "Eligible Projects" being defined as similar structures to those that were destroyed. B3's comment makes sense, though quippy. Whether the destroyed structures were garbage in the first place is really the debate. I don't think we should
be burdened with a certain threshold of nuance on a chat board. And right now, Angelinos like myself are pissed.
As an Angelino you have the right to be pissed. The city is fresh in mourning. So many people have lost everything, including countless architects, urban planners, creatives... There is a lot to figure out while people begin to rebuild their lives, including this issue brought up here, which requires debate and hard decisions.
Yes, Instagram is awash with colonizer type realtors offering their takes on the "heritage of Altadena" ie wanting to quickly rebuild without questioning what can be done to avoid what happened. It seems like Bass is enabling that kind of culture, without tasking Building and Safety to finally get to work and create fresh/amended guidelines.
"The project shall be for the same use as the last use of the structure or facility prior to the Wildfires. Without limitation, the project cannot result in a change of use from residential to commercial, a less intensive use to a more intensive use, or an increase in density or units (including accessory dwelling units), including but not limited to a change from a single-family use to a multi-family use." -
This is precisely the debate that needs to happen. Instead of redeveloping the highly risky homes by the canyon and foothills, why could some of the other plots not be redensified? But not sure one can expect career bureaucrats at LADBS of County to actually engage in smart dialog.
Yes. And the most important people to engage in these debates is the community members directly affected, including the thousands of African Americans who moved to Altadena when it became one the first communities in LA that allowed black families to purchase and own their own homes. Many of these families were still living in these same homes until the fire took them out.
Why not allow the houses that were destroyed to either be rebuilt to the code in effect at time it was built. Otherwise, if rebuilt to UBC era for pre-code. Now, once you rebuild new, the question might be do we rebuild to current code or do we have an emergency option to rebuild to any code edition from 1985 to present but not to any code edition before the home or building was originally built. The codes still exist in some digital form so they can go to it and review it but ONLY for homes effected by the fire event. Not new homes on sites not effected by the fire. If someone wants to retroactively go back up to 50 years (1975), okay. So the process of rebuilding in accordance with the approved plans at the time or otherwise in accordance and not exceeding original footprint by 110% or buildable area and not exceeding height rules or height of original structure. So that is can be substantially rebuilt as it was.
As far as new construction aside from basically reconstructing what was lost... in other locations, we need regulations. However, improvement in permit process is probably a need for more plan reviewers and code officials and inspectors to handle the demand. The thing is, American dream of the 50s was financed by the GI Bill in a sense. It drove that. However, less percentage of Americans serve in military than during and the immediate years after WW II. That is how many people were able to buy homes they otherwise would not have been able to buy without working for 20 years and then maybe they might have been able to buy a home in the 70s instead of the 50s. You have to serve in the military, though. This GI Bill benefits didn't continue and expand to all Americans. Simple: Taxes won't be able to support it. We don't pull in enough revenue for it and keep the other things. Taxes would need to increase especially for billionaires where they have to pay 25% of their annual income and a max cap on deductions to no more than 5% of their taxable income over $1 Million and no more than $250K in tax exemption per taxable year. Businesses with taxable income over $100M should not be allowed to take any more additional tax deduction to any taxable income over $100M which can be capped to no more than 10% of taxable income over $10 Million and no more than 50% of taxable income can be deducted for amounts less than $10M and more than $1M a year. So all taxable revenue over $100M should be taxed at the full tax rate. This would be with regards to for-profit businesses. States can then also tax as they see fit. The bottom line is we need more taxes coming in from the big businesses and ultra rich. This would then be able to increase the tax pool. Additionally, America should get out of the warmongering business. Thus, they can increase its defensive role... the role that is in the very title of DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and Secretary of DEFENSE. Defend means protect the nation. It does not mean, pick fights and send people off to die fighting the wars the dickheads in the Oval Office or Congress starts. Cut war spending. Improve defensive spending and stop arming foreign nations. We need to let other nations take lead and UN do its fucking job. We don't need soldiers to end the Russian threat. Just vaporize Putin and his cohorts with that orbital laser platform we have had up there for the past 30+ years. We got drones. Use them instead of soldiers if we have to even go into combat. Now, we do need to make and bring our attention on our own people instead of neglecting our own citizens which our politicians do with its lopsided spending on foreign matters instead of domestic issues. This POTUS we are about to have is the exact opposite of the kind of leader in that office that this country needs and deserves.
Jan 16, 25 6:03 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
There's already a Google doc circulating for architects to sign up and contribute their services. Some prominent names are associated, many from LA and CA. Many are not. It's not supposed to be an opportunity to market, but how cannot it not be that? Why is there this level of paternalism, when Katrina hit, and the recent hurricanes hit the Carolinas? With Katrina, the drive and motivation seemed to be on reinforcement and correction for the future, homes were constructed to withstand future events. Frank and Brad rushed to rescue!! All sorts of patting of backs occurred, articles published. Now is not the time to rush in and make the same mistakes. Wainwright even notes in his article about how it was I'll advised to build in this area. These Black families have a right to be angry, they need all of us to be held accountable. But building back ain't better. It's another disaster.
If you rebuild without solving the problem why the previous building burned, then all we get is the same shit we been doing in tornado alley and hurricanes building buildings that will be gone the next time such passes through again. We need to solve problems not just rebuild the problem.
Let's avoid rebuilding "like for like" as that leads to brand new stick built homes that will burn the next chance they get. Allow auto-approval for rebuild of the same size and density and use structures with the requirement the building envelope have four hour firewalls and meet the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home Plus standard. Protection from embers with safer vents are readily available for crawl spaces and attics. Today we even have fire protective automatic roll-down shutters available to keep windows and doors from breaching and letting the fire in. All the taxpayers in the state deserve to see architects, designers, and builders taking the steps to stop the cycle of Build-Burn-Build-Burn.
Building designers in California would love the exemption to be amended so not to be limited to stick built construction because of the way the law is written. In Oregon, I'm not limited to the construction type. There's a need for building designers to assist in this recovery. There are ways to build without using conventional wood frame construction that there are plenty of guidance in code for prescriptive construction using non-combustible construction. Otherwise, it would be cladding the walls with brick or other non-combustible cladding material over the wood frame construction.
If I were going to do any such project there, I would be have to envelope the wood frame construction with noncombustible material and such fire resistance covering.
Ideally, I would use non-combustible exterior and maybe I might use wood further in the interior but I also address things beyond the building envelope. We need a zone of ground area between the brushland and the areas developed so it burns out some distance from the neighborhood. A barrier to fire progression even if you have those gusty winds.
Can any comparison/contrast be made with reconstruction after the Chicago fire, 1871? Any lessons learned? What needs to be done, avoided? (This is out of my range.)
I don't think the Chicago fire will be an apple to apple comparison. That fire was urban and spread and would echo more similarly to the Astoria fire of 1922 which was probably similar to Chicago fire. This in L.A., being an arson triggered brushfire that spread into these neighborhoods which were already riding up against the brush land areas. This wasn't the urban part of L.A. (downtown). Out there, wind can drive these fires to spread across dry grass, brush, and buildings. These fires become in scale more like those wildfires in eastern Oregon and Washington just years ago. So you need some 5-15 mile or so buffer between the development and the brush land of non-combustible covering so the fire doesn't have lateral spread. capacity. In addition, houses and buildings within the next 5 miles be non-combustible exterior (basically constructed so sparks and ember doesn't have something as fuel to sustain combustion and consume). This distance of 10 to 20 miles is necessary given how far embers to go in those Santa Ana winds and low dipping jet streams driving embers far from its source. The way Astoria rebuilt downtown had rules requiring exterior walls of non-combustible construction like Concrete and the sidewalks/streets rebuilt in reinforced concrete so as the fire would not spread like it did, from one block to the next. Astoria, prior to 1922had streets and sidewalks of wood construction on piers. Many of the buildings of wood construction like a classic western town. These buildings burned and the fire would spread under the sidewalks and streets across the piers given the winds flowed under these dock like roads/streets. After 1922 fire, the rebuild effort was to remove all such combustible roads and sidewalks and replace with non-combustible sidewalks and roads. Buildings were non-combustible exterior walls but may be made of post & beam and wood construction on the interior so if a fire occurred, it would mostly be contained to that building and if somehow the fire spread to neighboring buildings, it would be contained to the block and not spread block to block. Some of that lesson can be used but not alone when it comes to a fire like a brushfire or wildfire that starts in the brushlands or woodlands and already become miles wide wall of fire. Once you have that situation, this requires additional measures. Fires like this drives its own microclimate and wind forces that can send embers miles in front of the fire or miles in any direction the wind flows far from the origin of the embers. You now have embers that can be raining and blowing through the winds miles before the source fire the embers came from which the embers can start ignition of fires to buildings, trees, and brush miles away. This is why such fires can spread so rapidly even skipping and hopping over buildings and such and then spread even across the grass. The grass is a manner in how the fires spread laterally especially if the grass is dry but even if it was lush green, it can still burn but granted harder to ignite but not impossible especially in brushfires and wildfires. I say brushfires and wildfires even if it is arson triggered or nature triggered. It doesn't matter how it is triggered, rebuild that solves the issues needs to address these realities whether or not the fire was started by an asshole or by lightning.
Now, I could use bricks and stone blocks as secured cladding to an otherwise overbuilt conventional wood frame wall to armor the walls from combustion and such and might be able to design to answer or build resilience to such fire conditions and still meet the exemptions in California. Use conventional concrete foundations and slab work. So if there is a need for designers and architects to help rebuild, I'm willing to help even from up here in Astoria. The codes have their differences but that's fine. How may we help?
Jan 17, 25 10:37 am ·
·
archanonymous
Nothing surprising. Respect the WUI. Build with better materials. Use codes to encourage fire-protective design. Use less petroleum based materials. Build less SFR, concentrate density in defensible urban areas. Do I think there will be a similar building code revolution as after the Chicago fire? Hell no.
^This. I keep saying it, but what burned was mostly way behind what would have been required in current code for WUI. This wouldn't have been nearly as bad if everything was per current standards. That said, I am hoping the orders don't allow building per old code, or we are not making progress. I'm not sure I read it that way though.
There were some things demolished in the fire that were consisting of noncombustible material but they do have failure under the conditions of the fire. So it is important to look at that and learn from this fire to mitigate the risks better and apply a holistic approach at mitigating the fire risks and that is going to be on multiple levels not just our design of buildings.
Some of the buildings, although the exterior walls may have survived the fire. The problem is if you have a heat source like brush and trees close enough, that is burning, to get hot enough that the glass in the windows shatter or break and embers get inside. When you have such firestorm that is sustained, the embers keep making its way inside and then the combustible interior is consumed. The key is the entire envelope has to survive the flames for as long as the fire lasts and embers can fly in by the winds. This includes the windows and doors. We must either find a way to prevent the fire spreading or we have to design the buildings to last through like 30 DAYS if hell's inferno 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... INCLUDING the exterior doors and windows. without failure. That is like NORAD level construction. What do we do then? Even Type I reinforced concrete construction can fail over time where sustain heat reaching north of 1000 degrees and in cases north of 2000 degrees where sustain heat between 500 and 1200 degrees in irregular cycles just causing the concrete to thermal fracturing and failing. Temperature swings between 80 degrees to 1200+ degrees can cause some serious problems. Even a conventional Type I building could fail under such firestorm. Commercial buildings were often Type III and sometimes Type II in this wildfire. While Type I would last the longest, but if the fire lasts long enough and its under continuous inferno long enough, it will fail and collapse. This is my observation from this: https://ktla.com/news/california/wildfires/palisades-eaton-wildfire-damage-maps/ and I use Google map and its street view to look at what it was that was there and use that combination of information.... it says something. While the street view and google maps might not show something super recent that wasn't yet built at the date of the street view and aerial photography. On the other hand, it would be relatively 95% accurate to basically what was there. Throwing 5% for potential changes that would give error. It's probably closer to 98+% in the area.
Without adequate regulations, there will be another fire that once again devastates the area.
This is a time to learn from the tragedy and create new building standards.
I was part of the team that, after the First Interstate Tower fire, (later referred to as the AON building), which damaged 60 floors either due to fire, smoke of water, developed new regulations that have become standard around the country. It was a team effort with the building department, the fire department, architects and contractors coming together and creating new requirements. The rules included having fire rated lobby elevator doors which close automatically and elevators descend to the ground floor if an alarm is sounded. This would have prevented the one death that occurred due to the fire at FIT.
As architects, we must take responsibility in our roles to ensure that the devastating fires that occurred will never again destroy lives.
Why are we not talking about fire resistant construction?
Architects, building officials, and the insurance industry need to come together and develop new fire codes and recommendations for replacement houses. Houses can withstand fires.
It would involve a solution that is more than just using non-combustible construction. There is a more holistic solution to the issue that needs to be addressed.
Jan 23, 25 2:16 am ·
·
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Sign up to the new Archinect Daily newsletter
There's a lot of content posted on Archinect each day. Sign up to the Daily to make sure you're not missing the most important articles. Each day includes 1-3 features and news stories.
Want a bigger weekly update instead? Sign up to theArchinect Weeklytoo! We also have a daily Job Alerts newseletter listing each day's featured opportunities.
34 Comments
This is great news and an obvious approach to take. Now... How about we just extend that and make it easier for everyone to build. If regulations can be suspended after an emergency without cause for concern, why can't they be eliminated completely?
Not everyone agrees with you, myself included. Regulations are there for a reason, just look at the impact of the earthquakes in Turkey a few years ago.
Less time should be spent on seeking to eliminate regulation and more spent on easing ones ability to comply and obtain approvals. A lot of what is wrong has to do with regulators not seeking to harmonize regulations with each other or with how folks actually work.
I understand your perspective, graphemic. But if we're to believe that regulations which challenge the process of homebuilding are necessary, we should believe that they're always necessary. I believe that too many of them are there for reasons that benefit only a few and don't serve the larger interests or needs of a society/community. If removing the red tape can be done temporarily, why can't it be done permanently?
Why don't we do this, get rid of regulations, hand over authority to the working class in the community, let the working class take the instruments providing the capital to rebuild; let the working people own, and collectively manage the resources surrounding their neighborhoods.
John, I think you misunderstand. I don't think red tape should be removed temporarily. So, the premise of "if not now, why not always" doesn't apply. HOWEVER, even in the context of this post, you're misunderstanding why restrictions are being relaxed. The idea is that if people build back what was already there, regulations that are intended to analyze the impact of *new* development can be ignored. They're effectively dismissing the idea that these people's homes should be built any better than how they were built originally. Which is why I and many other professionals think getting rid of "red tape" even temporarily is foolish. Why have standards if they aren't good? You and I agree on that point. You are simply getting confused by the poor judgement of city and industry leaders. They often do not enforce or prioritize the larger interests of the society/community, as you put it.
I do agree that many regulations "benefit a few" and should be revised to actually promote public health, safety, and well-being. I agree that it takes way too long and is way too expensive. The solution to these problems is not getting rid of all of it and doing nothing instead. And the motivation behind these executive actions is not to solve these problems.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Instead of thumbs downing, Noah, why don't you offer a take, coward.
It's your comment that seems like it needs more context. Angelinos aren't in the mood for hot takes like that right now, and they don't deserve to be called cowards for not engaging.
Wait, so building SFH, rushing in to build is the correct response? Vulture Capitalists are trying to take advantage of a community in distress, and everyone is rushing in to create the same exact problem? Ollie Wainwright seems to be getting it right. Is he telling Angelinos the wrong thing? My comment makes sense in the context of Wainwright, and my position on the other news of this horrifying and avoidable disaster. The news here is knee-jerk at best, and criminal at worst. Who is going to build and get insurance? Who, VC that's who. At least I'm asking reasonable questions, and not creating another disaster which the architecture community seems altogether to ready to assist in making.
Oh, and the person thumbing down my comment,.and thumbing up the other, seems like you're into deregulation, or do I have that wrong too?
Archinect: the post is entirely focused on "Eligible Projects" being defined as similar structures to those that were destroyed. B3's comment makes sense, though quippy. Whether the destroyed structures were garbage in the first place is really the debate. I don't think we should be burdened with a certain threshold of nuance on a chat board. And right now, Angelinos like myself are pissed.
As an Angelino you have the right to be pissed. The city is fresh in mourning. So many people have lost everything, including countless architects, urban planners, creatives... There is a lot to figure out while people begin to rebuild their lives, including this issue brought up here, which requires debate and hard decisions.
Yes, Instagram is awash with colonizer type realtors offering their takes on the "heritage of Altadena" ie wanting to quickly rebuild without questioning what can be done to avoid what happened. It seems like Bass is enabling that kind of culture, without tasking Building and Safety to finally get to work and create fresh/amended guidelines.
"The project shall be for the same use as the last use of the structure or facility prior to the Wildfires. Without limitation, the project cannot result in a change of use from residential to commercial, a less intensive use to a more intensive use, or an increase in density or units (including accessory dwelling units), including but not limited to a change from a single-family use to a multi-family use." -
This is precisely the debate that needs to happen. Instead of redeveloping the highly risky homes by the canyon and foothills, why could some of the other plots not be redensified? But not sure one can expect career bureaucrats at LADBS of County to actually engage in smart dialog.
Yes. And the most important people to engage in these debates is the community members directly affected, including the thousands of African Americans who moved to Altadena when it became one the first communities in LA that allowed black families to purchase and own their own homes. Many of these families were still living in these same homes until the fire took them out.
Why not allow the houses that were destroyed to either be rebuilt to the code in effect at time it was built. Otherwise, if rebuilt to UBC era for pre-code. Now, once you rebuild new, the question might be do we rebuild to current code or do we have an emergency option to rebuild to any code edition from 1985 to present but not to any code edition before the home or building was originally built. The codes still exist in some digital form so they can go to it and review it but ONLY for homes effected by the fire event. Not new homes on sites not effected by the fire. If someone wants to retroactively go back up to 50 years (1975), okay. So the process of rebuilding in accordance with the approved plans at the time or otherwise in accordance and not exceeding original footprint by 110% or buildable area and not exceeding height rules or height of original structure. So that is can be substantially rebuilt as it was.
As far as new construction aside from basically reconstructing what was lost... in other locations, we need regulations. However, improvement in permit process is probably a need for more plan reviewers and code officials and inspectors to handle the demand. The thing is, American dream of the 50s was financed by the GI Bill in a sense. It drove that. However, less percentage of Americans serve in military than during and the immediate years after WW II. That is how many people were able to buy homes they otherwise would not have been able to buy without working for 20 years and then maybe they might have been able to buy a home in the 70s instead of the 50s. You have to serve in the military, though. This GI Bill benefits didn't continue and expand to all Americans. Simple: Taxes won't be able to support it. We don't pull in enough revenue for it and keep the other things. Taxes would need to increase especially for billionaires where they have to pay 25% of their annual income and a max cap on deductions to no more than 5% of their taxable income over $1 Million and no more than $250K in tax exemption per taxable year. Businesses with taxable income over $100M should not be allowed to take any more additional tax deduction to any taxable income over $100M which can be capped to no more than 10% of taxable income over $10 Million and no more than 50% of taxable income can be deducted for amounts less than $10M and more than $1M a year. So all taxable revenue over $100M should be taxed at the full tax rate. This would be with regards to for-profit businesses. States can then also tax as they see fit. The bottom line is we need more taxes coming in from the big businesses and ultra rich. This would then be able to increase the tax pool. Additionally, America should get out of the warmongering business. Thus, they can increase its defensive role... the role that is in the very title of DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and Secretary of DEFENSE. Defend means protect the nation. It does not mean, pick fights and send people off to die fighting the wars the dickheads in the Oval Office or Congress starts. Cut war spending. Improve defensive spending and stop arming foreign nations. We need to let other nations take lead and UN do its fucking job. We don't need soldiers to end the Russian threat. Just vaporize Putin and his cohorts with that orbital laser platform we have had up there for the past 30+ years. We got drones. Use them instead of soldiers if we have to even go into combat. Now, we do need to make and bring our attention on our own people instead of neglecting our own citizens which our politicians do with its lopsided spending on foreign matters instead of domestic issues. This POTUS we are about to have is the exact opposite of the kind of leader in that office that this country needs and deserves.
There's already a Google doc circulating for architects to sign up and contribute their services. Some prominent names are associated, many from LA and CA. Many are not. It's not supposed to be an opportunity to market, but how cannot it not be that? Why is there this level of paternalism, when Katrina hit, and the recent hurricanes hit the Carolinas? With Katrina, the drive and motivation seemed to be on reinforcement and correction for the future, homes were constructed to withstand future events. Frank and Brad rushed to rescue!! All sorts of patting of backs occurred, articles published. Now is not the time to rush in and make the same mistakes. Wainwright even notes in his article about how it was I'll advised to build in this area. These Black families have a right to be angry, they need all of us to be held accountable. But building back ain't better. It's another disaster.
Good point!
If you rebuild without solving the problem why the previous building burned, then all we get is the same shit we been doing in tornado alley and hurricanes building buildings that will be gone the next time such passes through again. We need to solve problems not just rebuild the problem.
Let's avoid rebuilding "like for like" as that leads to brand new stick built homes that will burn the next chance they get. Allow auto-approval for rebuild of the same size and density and use structures with the requirement the building envelope have four hour firewalls and meet the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home Plus standard. Protection from embers with safer vents are readily available for crawl spaces and attics. Today we even have fire protective automatic roll-down shutters available to keep windows and doors from breaching and letting the fire in. All the taxpayers in the state deserve to see architects, designers, and builders taking the steps to stop the cycle of Build-Burn-Build-Burn.
Building designers in California would love the exemption to be amended so not to be limited to stick built construction because of the way the law is written. In Oregon, I'm not limited to the construction type. There's a need for building designers to assist in this recovery. There are ways to build without using conventional wood frame construction that there are plenty of guidance in code for prescriptive construction using non-combustible construction. Otherwise, it would be cladding the walls with brick or other non-combustible cladding material over the wood frame construction.
If I were going to do any such project there, I would be have to envelope the wood frame construction with noncombustible material and such fire resistance covering.
Ideally, I would use non-combustible exterior and maybe I might use wood further in the interior but I also address things beyond the building envelope. We need a zone of ground area between the brushland and the areas developed so it burns out some distance from the neighborhood. A barrier to fire progression even if you have those gusty winds.
Can any comparison/contrast be made with reconstruction after the Chicago fire, 1871? Any lessons learned? What needs to be done, avoided? (This is out of my range.)
I don't think the Chicago fire will be an apple to apple comparison. That fire was urban and spread and would echo more similarly to the Astoria fire of 1922 which was probably similar to Chicago fire. This in L.A., being an arson triggered brushfire that spread into these neighborhoods which were already riding up against the brush land areas. This wasn't the urban part of L.A. (downtown). Out there, wind can drive these fires to spread across dry grass, brush, and buildings. These fires become in scale more like those wildfires in eastern Oregon and Washington just years ago. So you need some 5-15 mile or so buffer between the development and the brush land of non-combustible covering so the fire doesn't have lateral spread. capacity. In addition, houses and buildings within the next 5 miles be non-combustible exterior (basically constructed so sparks and ember doesn't have something as fuel to sustain combustion and consume). This distance of 10 to 20 miles is necessary given how far embers to go in those Santa Ana winds and low dipping jet streams driving embers far from its source. The way Astoria rebuilt downtown had rules requiring exterior walls of non-combustible construction like Concrete and the sidewalks/streets rebuilt in reinforced concrete so as the fire would not spread like it did, from one block to the next. Astoria, prior to 1922had streets and sidewalks of wood construction on piers. Many of the buildings of wood construction like a classic western town. These buildings burned and the fire would spread under the sidewalks and streets across the piers given the winds flowed under these dock like roads/streets. After 1922 fire, the rebuild effort was to remove all such combustible roads and sidewalks and replace with non-combustible sidewalks and roads. Buildings were non-combustible exterior walls but may be made of post & beam and wood construction on the interior so if a fire occurred, it would mostly be contained to that building and if somehow the fire spread to neighboring buildings, it would be contained to the block and not spread block to block. Some of that lesson can be used but not alone when it comes to a fire like a brushfire or wildfire that starts in the brushlands or woodlands and already become miles wide wall of fire. Once you have that situation, this requires additional measures. Fires like this drives its own microclimate and wind forces that can send embers miles in front of the fire or miles in any direction the wind flows far from the origin of the embers. You now have embers that can be raining and blowing through the winds miles before the source fire the embers came from which the embers can start ignition of fires to buildings, trees, and brush miles away. This is why such fires can spread so rapidly even skipping and hopping over buildings and such and then spread even across the grass. The grass is a manner in how the fires spread laterally especially if the grass is dry but even if it was lush green, it can still burn but granted harder to ignite but not impossible especially in brushfires and wildfires. I say brushfires and wildfires even if it is arson triggered or nature triggered. It doesn't matter how it is triggered, rebuild that solves the issues needs to address these realities whether or not the fire was started by an asshole or by lightning.
Now, I could use bricks and stone blocks as secured cladding to an otherwise overbuilt conventional wood frame wall to armor the walls from combustion and such and might be able to design to answer or build resilience to such fire conditions and still meet the exemptions in California. Use conventional concrete foundations and slab work. So if there is a need for designers and architects to help rebuild, I'm willing to help even from up here in Astoria. The codes have their differences but that's fine. How may we help?
Nothing surprising. Respect the WUI. Build with better materials. Use codes to encourage fire-protective design. Use less petroleum based materials. Build less SFR, concentrate density in defensible urban areas. Do I think there will be a similar building code revolution as after the Chicago fire? Hell no.
^This. I keep saying it, but what burned was mostly way behind what would have been required in current code for WUI. This wouldn't have been nearly as bad if everything was per current standards. That said, I am hoping the orders don't allow building per old code, or we are not making progress. I'm not sure I read it that way though.
There were some things demolished in the fire that were consisting of noncombustible material but they do have failure under the conditions of the fire. So it is important to look at that and learn from this fire to mitigate the risks better and apply a holistic approach at mitigating the fire risks and that is going to be on multiple levels not just our design of buildings.
Some of the buildings, although the exterior walls may have survived the fire. The problem is if you have a heat source like brush and trees close enough, that is burning, to get hot enough that the glass in the windows shatter or break and embers get inside. When you have such firestorm that is sustained, the embers keep making its way inside and then the combustible interior is consumed. The key is the entire envelope has to survive the flames for as long as the fire lasts and embers can fly in by the winds. This includes the windows and doors. We must either find a way to prevent the fire spreading or we have to design the buildings to last through like 30 DAYS if hell's inferno 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... INCLUDING the exterior doors and windows. without failure. That is like NORAD level construction. What do we do then? Even Type I reinforced concrete construction can fail over time where sustain heat reaching north of 1000 degrees and in cases north of 2000 degrees where sustain heat between 500 and 1200 degrees in irregular cycles just causing the concrete to thermal fracturing and failing. Temperature swings between 80 degrees to 1200+ degrees can cause some serious problems. Even a conventional Type I building could fail under such firestorm. Commercial buildings were often Type III and sometimes Type II in this wildfire. While Type I would last the longest, but if the fire lasts long enough and its under continuous inferno long enough, it will fail and collapse. This is my observation from this: https://ktla.com/news/california/wildfires/palisades-eaton-wildfire-damage-maps/ and I use Google map and its street view to look at what it was that was there and use that combination of information.... it says something. While the street view and google maps might not show something super recent that wasn't yet built at the date of the street view and aerial photography. On the other hand, it would be relatively 95% accurate to basically what was there. Throwing 5% for potential changes that would give error. It's probably closer to 98+% in the area.
Without adequate regulations, there will be another fire that once again devastates the area.
This is a time to learn from the tragedy and create new building standards.
I was part of the team that, after the First Interstate Tower fire, (later referred to as the AON building), which damaged 60 floors either due to fire, smoke of water, developed new regulations that have become standard around the country. It was a team effort with the building department, the fire department, architects and contractors coming together and creating new requirements. The rules included having fire rated lobby elevator doors which close automatically and elevators descend to the ground floor if an alarm is sounded. This would have prevented the one death that occurred due to the fire at FIT.
As architects, we must take responsibility in our roles to ensure that the devastating fires that occurred will never again destroy lives.
Why are we not talking about fire resistant construction?
Architects, building officials, and the insurance industry need to come together and develop new fire codes and recommendations for replacement houses. Houses can withstand fires.
Why go through this terrible disaster again?
Published earlier today: Wildfire risk expert discusses cost of fire-proof retrofits
It would involve a solution that is more than just using non-combustible construction. There is a more holistic solution to the issue that needs to be addressed.
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.