9 ms·
Los Angeles is gearing up to ban wood-frame construction
- b20000 5y agogood, now maybe we’ll get decent quality houses instead of garden sheds in CA. maybe something can be done too about all the shitty little craftsman shacks that are being flipped by entitled boomers looking to get a piece of your tech salaries.
- defterGoose 5y agoGiven that the likely outcome of this is less construction, those "shitty little craftsman shacks" are going to get even more expensive.
- b20000 5y agoi think we are already past the breaking point, and people might simply move elsewhere
- joeman1000 5y agoAs a structural engineer I almost can’t believe this news. Timber construction is great. Timber is a renewable resource and it has a high elastic modulus-to-density ratio. Steel needs to be transported and smelted down again in order to be re-used, assuming it doesn’t rust away over the years. Properly treated timber can last for hundreds of years.
- desertraven 5y agoWhat kind of treated timber lasts hundreds of years? When I think of treated timber I’m thinking of Bunnings treated pine... what is the industry standard timber for longevity?
- dmitriy_ko 5y agoParent poster meant "properly cared for timber", not chemically-treated timber. Timber doesn't have an expiration date. As long as you keep it dry, it will last indefinitely. In fact, it becomes stronger over time. There are many 100+ years timber buildings in US. For timber used outdoors, e.g. for making decks pressure-treated timber is used. It's a timber treated with pesticide (chromated copper arsenate). In the past creosote was used to treat things like wooden railroad ties and power poles, but it's no longer used because it's toxic.
- joeman1000 5y agoIf timber is properly seasoned with appropriate treatments depending on region it can actually last hundreds of years. We have redgum timber at home which was used some time in the late 1800s.
- Grakel 5y agoSo they're banning structures made of 100% biodegradable material that offsets carbon as it grows and is planted exclusively for this purpose, in favor of concrete and steel? Interesting.
- mrfusion 5y agoThat’s a shame. From a climate perspective you can’t beat building with wood. Stuff like this makes the whole movement hard to take seriously.
- Avshalom 5y agoWhat movement, the concrete industry lobbying movement?
- jefftk 5y agoThis is funded by the concrete industry and the arguments are about fire safety. I'm not seeing any climate arguments?
- tommiegannert 5y agoYes, GP is pointing out that the climate argument is missing in the movement.
- Grismar 5y ago"The movement" isn't exactly driven by Big Concrete to begin with though. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that there are a lot of people and businesses in the world that don't give a damn about climate change. If there weren't, we wouldn't be in this mess. "The movement" is trying to counter them.
- notjesse 5y agoThe other thing is earthquake safety. Wood frame is often far more resilient to sheer stress than concrete/brick. Concrete can be reinforced to mitigate that, but I wonder how viable that is for buildings on the scale of SFH, not major developments.
- oconnore 5y ago> the motion would significantly increase the cost of constructing housing in Los Angeles NIMBYs at it again.
- kayodelycaon 5y agoWorse. It’s to sell more concrete and steel buildings.
- epistasis 5y agoIt's a combination of both. NIMBYs love anything that makes construction more expensive because it limits construction, and also ensures that only the wealthiest can have housing, further driving up the price of their primary asset: land.
- capableweb 5y agoAnd at the same time, increasing the amount of a particular asset many in the US seems to love, at least based on the policies in many places: homeless people.
- JasonFruit 5y agoDo you mean land or real estate? Because if it's harder and more costly to build on land, that should decrease demand for it, and prices should fall. Demand for already-improved land should rise, though.
- epistasis 5y agoWhen there's a global limitation on what can be done with land, it limits how much use can be achieved by any given bit of land. The demand is still there, but it's met by further and further out parcels of land, causing them to go up drastically in value. In addition, this causes all sorts of urban sprawl. Which is exactly what happened in LA. They had a huge downzoning of the entire metro area 50 years ago, driving up the prices of land everywhere, to the benefit of suburban NIMBYs in sprawl. TL;DR, when the use of land is broadly limited, on the macro scale, the demand still exists and shifts the price of all land up on the supply-demand curve. The dynamics of limiting individual parcels or small sections of land often have the opposite effect, though.
- mrfusion 5y agoIsn’t wood the best material for earthquakes?
- shiftpgdn 5y agoFrom my understanding it is significantly easier to have a wood frame house meet earthquake based code requirements in California than anything else.
- worker767424 5y agoDunno about the "best," but it's a very good material because it flexes under load. Unreinforced masonry is probably the worst.
- ummonk 5y agoMetal is better, but it's an expensive building material. Wood is the best of the reasonably affordable building materials.
- kevin_b_er 5y agoThis is published by an organization known for deceit. Thus, everything they write should be taken with a grain of salt with the full knowledge they engage in deceitful misinformation practices for the purpose of political action. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Research_Institute#Disinformation_about_Single-Payer_Healthcare https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Research_Insti...
- jefftk 5y agoIt looks like they've gotten the facts right in this case; https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-construction https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-cons... has similar coverage from several months ago. That this would make new housing more expensive, isn't generally viewed as necessary for fire safety, and is funded by the concrete industry, don't seem to be disputed?
- wpietri 5y agoHow do we know that this source is better? I can't find anything on their site about ownership.
- yuliyp 5y agoIs there something that you actually believe is deceitful here? Is it the analysis of the impact of expanding the Fire District? Is it the data about the impact on building costs? Is it the claims about whether wood-framed buildings are safe enough? Refusing to read and consider arguments from people you disagree with isn't a particularly useful strategy for gaining knowledge about a topic.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> Is it the claims about whether wood-framed buildings are safe enough? This one, for me. I know nothing about it. Without further information, I wouldn’t want to conclude anything from a biased source (other than noting that the issue exists).
- 5y ago
- JoshTko 5y agoCali is progressive unless it's about real estate.
- colechristensen 5y ago"Progressive" but not necessarily based on reason.
- coolso 5y agoDo the two ever go hand in hand?
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoI live in a small eu country... wood-framed housing is practically non-existant here. Not sure why, but we always joke about american houses, that are made out of "cardboard", where you hammer a nail to hang a picture, and break through the wall.
- akvadrako 5y agoHuh? You can't hammer a nail to hang a picture at all into a concrete wall. And it's pretty shitty with masonry too.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoYeah, you drill a hole, and put one of those plastic achoors inside, and screw a scew in, and hand a photo on the screw. Our old-school socialist apartment buildings even have internal walls built out of reinforced concrete... drilling a whole to pull an ethernet cable through, means hoping for luck not to hit rebar
- scatters 5y agoYou can't use a stud finder?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mschuster91 5y agoThese don't work for stuff deep inside walls.
- MertsA 5y agoActually they make variants of stud finders to locate rebar in foundations and walls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Qn3Eu87h4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Qn3Eu87h4
- 5y ago
- car 5y agoDon’t buy this sight unseen. This organisation has a political agenda, see comment by kevin_b_er.
- albertopv 5y agoIn Italy and Norway, maybe others, I don't know, wood constructions have been pushed quite a lot because they are more environment friendly than concrete and steel, can this be so different in los angeles?
- hollerith 5y ago>can this be so different in los angeles? No. Making the cement requires much energy.
- cdot2 5y agoMore importantly the chemical reaction that makes cement releases a ton of co2
- robocat 5y agoA friend from Spain visited us in Christchurch New Zealand, and they couldn’t work out why all the housing was “temporary”: most of our homes are built of wood which appeared temporary to her. Solid structures also make sense in hot countries, where thermal mass helps keep your home cool without aircon. Another friend bought a large finca in Spain, that is stone (with rubble infill I think) and is hundreds of years old - very comfortable. Here, wood makes more sense, because of cost and earthquakes. Many brick buildings and brick facades failed during the Christchurch earthquake. I own a home with a broken ring foundation, but completely lovable (edit: liveable) still, because it is a wooden home from the 30’s. The main issue with wooden homes are that they need a lot of expensive ongoing maintenance or they deteriorate. Not so much of an issue in the inner city where buildings get demolished, and replaced by new apartments or town houses.
- jollybean 5y agoThey are 'temporary' in the sense they are not quite designed to last for centuries. In Europe, you have 'Post and Beam' framing which means the underlying structure can last 'a very long time' while the non-weight-bearing walls can be replaced. And there's a lot of stone work which can last 'a very long time' as well. But yes, stone is a problem for earthquakes. I wish there was more research into modern materials for this kind of stuff. I would hope that 'wood' would be something we use for decorative things we see, touch or feel, and that something more mundane can go into the framing.
- jccalhoun 5y agoI found an article from June with more specifics: https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-construction https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-cons... That article contains this interesting nugget of information: "the proposal [...] is backed by an organization called Build with Strength. The campaign, led by the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association..." So it seems this may have more to do with $$$ than actual safety.
- clairity 5y agothis is exactly what regulatory capture looks like, deceptive and anti-progressive (expressly without the typical political association). as such, every ballot measure should be a default 'no' unless you thoroughly understand the second- and third-order implications of the measure, not just because it sounds good on the surface.
- JumpCrisscross 5y agoAnother HN comment [1] notes this source is biased. Do we have an independent source confirming this move would not improve fire safety in Los Angeles? Playing devil’s advocate, if I’m in a concrete business’s government relations office and I see a fire safety proposal that would help my company’s sales, I’m going to pitch in to help. That doesn’t necessarily mean the proposal was corruptly originated or advanced. (It does merit closer inspection.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29299636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29299636
- DantesKite 5y agoYou also have to factor in the risk of earthquakes. Los Angeles doesn't have frequent earthquakes, but because it's near a fault-line, that tail risk has to be addressed (the same way one wears a seatbelt, even though car accidents happen only a couple times in an individual's life).
- necovek 5y agoI never knew that wood construction was considered safer than concrete construction when it comes to earthquakes. Even the smallest of residential houses here (Serbia) are constructed with reinforced concrete as the base and reinforced concrete pillars, with brick walls filling in between the pillars and floors and ceilings: basically, a house is a reinforced concrete box that can move independently from the ground, and that's supposed to guarantee earthquake stability (it's definitely not done for fire reasons, since roof construction is still predominantly wooden). Construction standards have been heavily modified post-1963 Skopje earthquake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Skopje_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Skopje_earthquake). Buildings such as Ušće tower, built in this style, have not survived a big earthquake, but I imagine surviving a couple of tomahawk missiles is a good enough reassurance of stability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%A1%C4%87e_Towers#NATO_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%A1%C4%87e_Towers#NATO_bom... (though I am fully aware that earthquakes and missiles are completely different when it comes to shocks a building experiences). Interestingly, concrete based construction is one of the cheapest around here, possibly because most houses are built that way. So I wonder, how prevalent is reinforced concrete use for houses in USA and esp California? Are there many houses and buildings built with insufficiently-reinforced concrete? I know that wood is a predominant construction choice, but what type of reinforced concrete are you comparing it to?
- legulere 5y agoDoesn’t building using bricks exist in the US, or why isn’t it mentioned? In my region in several places it was banned to build houses using wood hundreds of years ago and there a lot of beautiful stone houses still stand today. Avoiding wood in dense areas really makes sense I guess.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoMasonry structures are practically non-existent, especially in new construction. It's only used as decorative veneer or wall infill for self-supporting steel commercial buildings.
- TaylorAlexander 5y agoCalifornia is prone to earthquakes so we don't really like brick buildings here.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- austincheney 5y agoEarthquakes aside brick is really heavy and extremely brittle, so it is only cost effective if it can be sourced somewhat locally. The only real advantage to brick, aside from aesthetics, is that its a great insulator.
- jefftk 5y agoIt's not a good insulator, though? A 4" brick wall is has an R value of 0.8, so you'd need 5ft thick walls to get R13. It's great for thermal mass, but you still need insulation.
- austincheney 5y agoYes, you still need insulation. But, brick appears to still be a much better insulator than other residential building materials. I found a site that explains it with numbers: https://gambrick.com/does-a-brick-home-need-insulation/ https://gambrick.com/does-a-brick-home-need-insulation/ Additionally, brick is superior at weather resistance over time. 50 years from that brick will continue to insulate about the same as a new wall. You won't get that with wood even with lots of treatment over the years.
- worker767424 5y agoThis is just goofy. Timber-framed structures do well in earthquakes, and while they catch fire often enough during construction, once fire sprinklers are installed and people live there, serious residential apartment fires in modern construction are really rare. The most recent fire that comes to mind is Grenfell Tower, but it's larger than you'd normally use wood for.
- vlovich123 5y agoI imagine the concern in LA is the massive fires they’re seeing on an annual basis, not so much home fires…
- klyrs 5y agoI could see that if such the rule was "within 100 yards of a forest" or something, but that would only cover a tiny fraction of the city.
- frogblast 5y agoIn California that is defined as the “Wildland/Urban Interface”. That zone has been subject to much stricter building codes since 2008. Timber frame homes are allowed, as other factors (venting, roof material, rain gutters, roof material, siding material, landscaping) are dramatically more important. The vast majority or LA county homes are not in a WUI zone, so wildfire extent can’t be used as an argument for this.
- djrogers 5y agoLos Angeles isn’t seeing massive fires on an annual basis - at least, not the parts of LA that would be affected by this.
- KineticLensman 5y ago> Timber-framed structures do well in earthquakes, and while they catch fire often enough during construction, once fire sprinklers are installed and people live there, serious residential apartment fires in modern construction are really rare. The most recent fire that comes to mind is Grenfell Tower, but it's larger than you'd normally use wood for Grenfell Tower was constructed using pre-cast concrete blocks, and was not timber framed [0]. The devastating fire [1] was due to flammable aluminium composite cladding. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wayfarer1291 5y agoFor earthquake reasons alone this is completely insane, and clearly a blatant attempt at regulatory capture by the concrete association. Just asinine. For most of LA (apart perhaps from certain canyons and hill areas) the risk of fire is not significantly different from anywhere else. It's a cityscape. Earthquakes however are an omnipresent threat and wood frame buildings in general do far better. For example - many of the concrete buildings built along Wilshire blvd. in the westside may not survive a big quake.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- codingdave 5y ago> "The motion currently winding its way through City Council" Original motion is here --> https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-2019.pdf https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-... Full history here --> https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=19-0603 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa...
- Mave83 5y agoIn Germany, only a small portion of our houses are wood framed. But we have high standards, so our wood frames are protected and escape routes in special are covered by non burning plates. In addition, building stairs with the right wood can make them more sustainable to fire than concrete. Overall, that's a very bad decision they made or want to make and there are even more technology available to prevent any form of fire in wood framed houses. Example: circuit breakers with lightning detection.
- frosted-flakes 5y agoNot sure if you're aware, but America also has high fire standards for wood-framed construction, particularly for multi-family dwellings, which have required firewalls and sprinklers for many decades. Today, all U.S. model building codes now include sprinkler requirements for all one- and two-family homes, but this only became a requirement in the last decade, so many homes still do not have sprinklers. Electrical wiring is also subject to quite strict codes for the same reason.
- cultofmetatron 5y agodoes this apply to CLT as well? last I heard, CLT construction holds up favorably when it comes to fire resistance while having all the benefits of stick build construction.
- yholio 5y agoA very detailed write-up of this topic, with extensive research and citations: https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/wood-construction-and-the-risk-of https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/wood-construction... Conclusions: -> Overall, it seems like wood construction does somewhat increase the potential risk of fire, mostly by allowing fires that do occur to be somewhat deadlier and more destructive. However, this effect is mostly swamped by other factors such as what state and city you live in, or whether you live in a house or an apartment. For a wood apartment in Salt Lake City, the risk of fire is vanishingly small; for a wood single family home in a tiny town in Arkansas, it’s much larger. -> The most important factor for fire risk in a home is whether or not it’s sprinklered. Fire sprinklers reduce the risk of fire by an enormous amount, and sprinklered wood construction seems to perform about as well as sprinklered non-combustible construction. And sprinklers are cheap, costing about $1-2 per square foot (much less than it would cost to say, change a wood house to concrete). -> For wildfires specifically, we see something similar - construction details such as fire protected eaves and class A roofs, along with things like community density, matter far more than whether your home is wood or steel.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoErase CO2 negative construction and replace with CO2 positive construction. Sounds legit.
- m0zg 5y agoIntresting that CA can be for the environment and for concrete (which emits a lot of CO2 during its production [1]) _at the same time_ somehow. Hypocrisy? Incompetence? Corruption? I'll let you decide. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844
- jweir 5y agoMeanwhile many other cities are exploring mass timber more and more. This allow building larger snd taller buildings out of timber. I’ve seen a few lovely mass timber buildings built. These are radically different than the stick frame construction which is of dubious origins. https://youtu.be/2gWxRVqNI3M https://youtu.be/2gWxRVqNI3M
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nostrademons 5y agoWe know how to make wildfire-resistant homes, and it has nothing to do with framing materials: https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-ready/defensible-space/ https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-re... There are a lot of relatively low-cost interventions that homeowners can do for hundreds-to-thousands of dollars (rather than the ~50% increase in construction cost of this proposal) that have proven benefits. Keep dry brush and plants more than 5 feet away from the home. Use fire-resistant roofs (which don't have to be expensive; asphalt shingles qualify). Prefer vinyl or stucco siding over wood. Cover attic vents with 1/16" mesh. Clean your gutters. These are not complicated things, and many are things you should do anyway. They're much cheaper than building out of reinforced concrete, and more effective.
- FateOfNations 5y ago> vinyl Yeah, no. It might not easily catch fire itself, but it definitely melt off and expose whatever is under it. They have cement composite siding that is probably a much better option if want something that looks and installs like vinyl.
- LinuxBender 5y agoThere is a lot of debate here with wood vs concrete with merit on both sides. I can see using concrete for the foundation but just me personally, I am going with a steel Quonset hut on a concrete foundation. They are cheap, durable, easy to install. These would probably be ugly in a city I suppose unless someone could find a creative way to make them look nice. I am waiting for steel to come back down in price. Two thirds of it will be a workshop/garage. One third will be insulated with either closed cell foam or aircrete, I haven't decided. It gets cold here. Quonset huts are also much less expensive to move around. I'm honestly surprised Los Angeles has not used Quonset huts for the affordable housing or even homeless shelters.
- web2sucks 5y agoWasn’t the housing situation bad enough?