3 ms·

City fires are completely different from forest fires. For example, the parapets you're so focused on don't make much sense when houses are 100s of feet apart,

City fires are completely different from forest fires. For example, the parapets you're so focused on don't make much sense when houses are 100s of feet apart, as is the case in a lot of places that are burning. Also, London is a different place than California. Buildings in California aren't built with wood for no reason; they do it to withstand earthquakes. There's a big difference between just fireproofing a building and simultaneously fire- and earthquake-proofing a building - the latter is far more difficult and expensive. I don't see that many of the lessons from the Great Fire of London apply to the problem in California.

Theodores 8y ago
I did write that the parapets of London were just a detail, not the focus. I also mentioned that conurbations attract more people over time and land that was once sparsely populated soon gets crowded. In America this might seem unimaginable but if the internal combustion engine dies then so does American suburbia. Those 100ft exclusion zones are not going to last forever however you look at it. It could therefore be prudent to build your house so that if it goes up in flames it is not going to turn the whole town to ash, even if the whole town is not there yet. My general point regarding the Great Fire of London being that fire prevention has been worked out a long time ago. Fire prevention with earthquakes is actually well worked out too. Despite American exceptionalism California is not special. Half of mankind lives in an earthquake zone. The reason for this is that the most fertile land happens to be in earthquake zones, you need some volcanic goodliness to make it so. I accept the point made by the lumber lobby that wood is a great material for building houses. Wood can be marketed as fantastically earthquake proof if your quarterly sales matter more than the dreaded Spotted Owl. But is wood really what you want for a house that is an actual home? To last for generations? What if you live in Italy where earthquakes happen but there is no lumber lobby just up the road? Time is money and convenience is king. It's the American Dream. There is no need to be encumbered by things like sensible building codes if there is no past and no imaginably sustainable future, just the urgent, dramatic now. The culture of consumerism plays its part too. If you are a property speculator in a drought-stricken earthquake zone where fires ravage the countryside every single summer (unless it happens to be an el-Nino year when flooding takes over) then it could be hard to find a market for homes built to last for generations. Why do that when you can flog a slapped together McMansion with double garage side portions for much more profit? It only has to last until the next boom/bust inflection, savings + loan scam or catastrophic 'act of god'. Hollywood's back lot sets are more substantial. I very much like Californian vernacular architecture however I am far more likely to be taking pictures of the scenery rather than of any house when in California. The truly beautiful houses with character are outnumbered by seen-it-before identikit dwellings or those McMansions that have no taste whatsoever. I have actually got lost in several Californian built up areas due to the lack of unique landmarks. I haven't had that problem anywhere else, even Soviet era centrally planned housing can be navigated without feeling like you are stuck in some maze. In summary, fires don't care if they are in California or anywhere else. The short-term-ist consumerist outlook that goes with the territory is the problem, not some unique combo of fires and earthquakes.

Theodores 8y ago

I did write that the parapets of London were just a detail, not the focus. I also mentioned that conurbations attract more people over time and land that was once sparsely populated soon gets crowded. In America this might seem unimaginable but if the internal combustion engine dies then so does American suburbia. Those 100ft exclusion zones are not going to last forever however you look at it. It could therefore be prudent to build your house so that if it goes up in flames it is not going to turn the whole town to ash, even if the whole town is not there yet. My general point regarding the Great Fire of London being that fire prevention has been worked out a long time ago. Fire prevention with earthquakes is actually well worked out too. Despite American exceptionalism California is not special. Half of mankind lives in an earthquake zone. The reason for this is that the most fertile land happens to be in earthquake zones, you need some volcanic goodliness to make it so. I accept the point made by the lumber lobby that wood is a great material for building houses. Wood can be marketed as fantastically earthquake proof if your quarterly sales matter more than the dreaded Spotted Owl. But is wood really what you want for a house that is an actual home? To last for generations? What if you live in Italy where earthquakes happen but there is no lumber lobby just up the road? Time is money and convenience is king. It's the American Dream. There is no need to be encumbered by things like sensible building codes if there is no past and no imaginably sustainable future, just the urgent, dramatic now. The culture of consumerism plays its part too. If you are a property speculator in a drought-stricken earthquake zone where fires ravage the countryside every single summer (unless it happens to be an el-Nino year when flooding takes over) then it could be hard to find a market for homes built to last for generations. Why do that when you can flog a slapped together McMansion with double garage side portions for much more profit? It only has to last until the next boom/bust inflection, savings + loan scam or catastrophic 'act of god'. Hollywood's back lot sets are more substantial. I very much like Californian vernacular architecture however I am far more likely to be taking pictures of the scenery rather than of any house when in California. The truly beautiful houses with character are outnumbered by seen-it-before identikit dwellings or those McMansions that have no taste whatsoever. I have actually got lost in several Californian built up areas due to the lack of unique landmarks. I haven't had that problem anywhere else, even Soviet era centrally planned housing can be navigated without feeling like you are stuck in some maze. In summary, fires don't care if they are in California or anywhere else. The short-term-ist consumerist outlook that goes with the territory is the problem, not some unique combo of fires and earthquakes.