Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 15, 2018 - 05:01pm PT
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-15/why-two-years-of-historic-wildfires-haven-t-made-southern-california-safer
But according to Steinberg and others, there are changes that can help—including applying tougher building codes to more new homes, retrofitting old ones, more aggressive landscape rules, less development in the most vulnerable areas, and letting insurers charge premiums that reflect the risk of wildfire. Those reforms, however, remain anathema in a state squeezed by rising housing costs and the instinct to help communities rebuild as quickly as possible.
A tougher issue is what to do about homes that predate the 2008 code. When it comes to wildfires, a building is only as safe as the homes around it: If a house ignites, odds are that the one next door will too, even if it’s built to the new standards.
But Lehmann says California goes too far in the other direction, preventing insurers from raising rates based on projected future losses from worsening wildfires. Nor can insurers take into account the rising costs of reinsurance, another indicator that risks are increasing.
Since last year’s fires, lawmakers have introduced bills to make it harder for insurers to raise rates or cancel coverage for homeowners in high-risk areas.
“We get a lot of pressure from people who are worried about the impact of climate change and all sorts of failures to adapt,” he says. “And yet when we try to provide the signals that many clamor for us to provide, then others don’t like how it looks.”
This is as bad as the state of Florida picking up the insurance cost for flooding and, implicitly, sea level rise.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 05:30pm PT
|
Using the Way Back Machine, it is possible to divine (augur?) a solution to California's flammable housing problem:
Adopt the fire-proof building code (Neronian Building Code) that was enacted in Rome in 64 AD following a devastating fire.
One bonus is that fire-proof construction is also termite proof, and is typically more durable than current methods (i.e. sticks, OSB, drywall and stucco). Another bonus is that a building that is predominantly masonry, as opposed to insulation, has better thermal properties with respect to temperature excursions throughout the day; air-conditioning requirements would be reduced.
A typical house in California lasts 50 years before requiring a complete renovation, or tear-down. Termite and dry-rot damage are common afflictions of older, timber-framed homes.
A typical building from Ancient Rome still exists after 2000 years. Many fireproof buildings in Rome, Italy, and elsewhere, have been renovated over the centuries and are still in use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Maria_degli_Angeli_e_dei_Martiri
Just one example of an alternative building system that (almost) conforms to the Neronian Building Code of 64 is Rastra Block construction.
https://www.rastra.com/
Rastra Blocks are oversized CMUs that are assembled with rebar and grouted to produce an insulated orthogonal grid of reinforced concrete struts. The Rastra company has conducted structural tests to facilitate approval by local building departments (c.f. Simpson Strong-Tie Company's numerous products).
Rastra blocks are made from styrofoam pellets and portland cement, which is not ideal for fire-resistance, and resulting fumes would be toxic. A better system would be to use expanded perlite in place of the styrofoam, and a higher-alumina fire cement. Perlite and fire cement are commonly used as refractory materials in kilns and other applications involving very high temperatures.
The orthogonal grid of the Rastra Block system could be readily adapted to an isotropic grid, or otherwise triangulated grid, for improved lateral stiffness (i.e., earthquake strength).
The key would be have insurance companies offer discounts for fire insurance for adherence to the Neroian Building Code of 64, or its modern equivalent. There must be a financial incentive to building houses that are slightly more expensive initially, but that have a lower overall life-cycle cost.
A tax-benefit scheme from Sacramento, that further incentivized fire-proof architecture, would also be quite helpful.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 06:00pm PT
|
hey there, say, august, tom, DMT... oh my...
thanks for sharing...
*i remeber a friend, and her worries about future flood insurance
troubles... she lived near the levees...
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 07:24pm PT
|
About 8 years ago my buddy was building a cabin in the San Bernardino mountains and was using a local and well established contractor. I looked at the plans and estimates and noticed wood siding. Are you serious...in that tender box?!
I took a drive up there and was suprised to see almost all wood siding going up on the new builds with very few preventative fire measures. I talked the builder into using Hardi Siding and trim as long as I had it shipped up there. It's so much cheaper than wood siding- you can use the savings to have fire rated drywall installed underneath. I'm sure things have changed in those 8 years.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 08:36pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That would be one application for a durable housing structure.
Another would be a three-bedroom home for a family of four.
Yet another, which I don't champion, would be an 8-bedroom, 12-bath home for a retired couple of two, with too much money, who have adapted all those extra rooms for superfluous activities, such as a dedicated "gift-wrapping room" (c.f. Aaron and Candy Spelling's house in Los Angeles).
The idea I have is a house that, after a devastating wild fire, only has to have the landscaping replaced.
What people do with their fireproof, durable house is up to them. It's a free country.
Ancient Rome existed for several hundred years before Emperor Nero decreed a new, fireproof building code to ensure that Rome was the Eternal City.
Nero's family, the Gens Claudia, apparently controlled the brick and concrete business at the time, which is another discussion, altogether.
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 09:01pm PT
|
I think precast concrete homes for forested areas would be a good idea if you really don't want your home to burn down. But at 2 to 3 x the construction cost, it just makes financial sense to build a cheap but flammable home and rebuild if it burns down. Even with these massive fires, I'm sure the odds are still less than 1 in 100 forest homes in CA will burn down in an owner's lifetime.
Full disclaimer: I'm in the precast concrete business, so I'd be really be happy if everyone in the foothills started building precast homes :)
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 09:07pm PT
|
At the very least, a precast bomb shelter.
|
|
10b4me
Social climber
Lida Junction
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 09:08pm PT
|
Keep building them in thickly forested and brushy terrain. I agree with Jody.
|
|
pb
Sport climber
Sonora Ca
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 09:24pm PT
|
We could plant concrete trees too.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 09:25pm PT
|
A cliffside house with a magnificent view, in a heavily forested area, is where the juice is.
Lcation, location, location.
But at 2 to 3 x the construction cost,
Is it really that much higher? I know conventional concrete walls would be cost-prohibitive. But, what about something like those popcorn Rastra Blocks? They result in a 12" CMU wall with vertical and horizontal reinforced concrete struts. The construction cost would be similar to that of a conventional CMU building, which is commonly done in places like Florida.
Perhaps pious legal gambling in California comprises a good fire insurance policy, and a prayerful Christian faith that those Justin Bieber bedroom wall posters will be destroyed.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 09:51pm PT
|
In the Middle of the Earth, in the land of Shire,
Lives a brave little hobbit whom we all admire.
With his long, wooden pipe, and fuzzy, wooly toes,
He lives in a hobbit-hole and everybody knows him . . . Bilbo.
Mister Spock knew that durable architecture was logical.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
Little Rock and Loving It
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 11:07pm PT
|
I think precast concrete homes for forested areas would be a good idea if you really don't want your home to burn down.
Concrete/brick can be damaged beyond repair in an intense fire.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2018 - 11:17pm PT
|
As compared to 2x4s and stucco?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 08:16am PT
|
Someone called?
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 01:56pm PT
|
what brand cragnshag?
https://www.willisconstruction.com/
Is it really that much higher?
Yes- for architectural precast, because there would be almost no repetition- 1 form for every panel. If you could make 500 of the exact same house, then the price would drop to maybe 1.5x conventional wood framed construction.
If you are talking CMU block type construction, I don't know, but it could be close to same price as conventional depending on the seismic constraints of where you build. I think that aesthetics may be an issue with CMU block (your home might look like an overgrown outhouse).
Concrete/brick can be damaged beyond repair in an intense fire. Yes, for sure in cases where there is a substantial fuel source 6 feet away from the house. If you keep a modest amount of space around the precast home clear from big fuel sources (big trees, wood piles, etc) and the neighbors house is more than 20' away, it should be OK. Burning shrubbery at the perimeter of the house wouldn't be enough to do much damage to concrete.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 02:37pm PT
|
I have foot thick concrete outer walls. They pay for themselves with almost nonexistent AC cost (used the AC for 13-14 hours total for the whole summer so far).
Everyone wants to get bailed out but nobody wants to pay for it.
And its gonna get worse with global warming. First a really bad fire and then a juiced up rain bomb= worse mudslides than we've seen.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2018 - 02:38pm PT
|
ICF would work, and is adaptable to almost any style structure. The r-value doesn’t hurt either.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 16, 2018 - 04:37pm PT
|
But at 2 to 3 x the construction cost, it just makes financial sense to build a cheap but flammable home and rebuild if it burns down. Even with these massive fires, I'm sure the odds are still less than 1 in 100 forest homes in CA will burn down in an owner's lifetime.
Even if that is your attitude, I don't see why other insurance payers should subsidize someone living in a high risk area. The insurance company should be able to charge the real cost of the less than 1 in a 100 chance of burning down in a forest.
But,
It isn't just money. These fires can kill people. If the houses are close enough together, a tender box house can catch on fire and then cause semi-fire resistant house next door to burn although it might otherwise have survived.
In the small picture, the cost is rebuilding the house. In the big picture, tax payers pay for a lot of other things. They might pay for the family to stay in a shelter. They pay when a disaster area is declared and owners of burned down houses get tax payer money and/or subsidized loans. They indirectly pay when a person who had a job and was paying taxes is out of work for six months (and collecting unemployment benefits?) because they are living in a shelter and their place of work doesn't exist, or their place of work exists but they moved 100 miles away because there isn't any housing near their place of work.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 16, 2018 - 04:40pm PT
|
build on the coast, you get wiped out by a tsunami, build along the fault line, you get wiped out by an earthquake, build in the forest, you get wiped out by a forest fire, build in the central valley, you get killed by a meth freak or die from asthma, build along a river and your home washes away, build in the gulf of Mexico and you get wiped out by a hurricane, build in the state of Texas and get killed by a red neck, build in the state of Kansas and you get wiped out by a tornado, build in Alaska and you freeze to death, build a house in LA and you die from drugs and alcohol, fire, an earthquake, a tsunami, asthma, or get killed by a heroin addict.
may as well dig a grave and crawl in, too much fear.
I'm not saying live in fear or don't build in the forest.
I am saying, that nobody should subsidize you to live there. Same with tsunami, fault line, flooding, etc.
We shouldn't be requiring insurance companies to offer below market/actuarial rates that are paid for by other home owners (in safer locations) having higher insurance rates than they otherwise would.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!