4 ms·

Such a tragedy. I am very sorry for anyone affected by this :( As a non-local it’s hard to judge how big this is. Can anyone point to map or explain to what ex

by baxtr 2y ago

Such a tragedy. I am very sorry for anyone affected by this :( As a non-local it’s hard to judge how big this is. Can anyone point to map or explain to what extend LA is affected? Is it 5% of the area/population or rather 50%?

input_sh 2y ago
https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents.html https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents.html Not particularly snappy, but feature-packed. You can see evacuation zones, look at live cameras, see which parts have already burned to the ground, see which parts are in danger.
harmmonica 2y ago
I saw a sibling comment posted a link to a map, but I wanted to provide you some context. As you can see on those maps, these fires are quite big in terms of land area/acreage. The thing it's important to understand about Los Angeles, though, is that there's a "mountain" range that runs east/west literally right through the city itself (mountain in quotes because as it bisects the city the mountains aren't very tall). Where it bisects the city itself you may recognize the names of some of the areas with houses plastered all over the "mountain:" Hollywood Hills, Beverly Hills, Bel Air. As you get east and west of the city, though, those mountains get a bit taller and way less populated. The Palisades fire, the first one that started, is the literal western/northwestern end of the city of LA. Its northern border is, albeit low elevation in mountain terms, mountainous and is more or less the definition of urban/wildland interface. That's part of the reason the fire spread so quickly, though in this case not even the primary reason. The other major fire is not in the city of LA, but just north of the city of Pasadena, which is east of Los Angeles. But the geography/topography is nearly identical (down to a similar east/west mountain range, but with much taller mountains). A majority of the area that's burning out of control there is largely mountainous with very little habitation (if anyone who lost a home there reads this, I don't mean to diminish how much damage has occurred in Altadena; I'm just pointing out that the massive land area of the fire is not representative of the impact on inhabited areas).
- baxtr 2y ago
  Thank you so much for this detailed comment! Very insightful and helpful for me to get the right context.

by baxtr 2y ago

input_sh 2y ago

https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents.html https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents.html Not particularly snappy, but feature-packed. You can see evacuation zones, look at live cameras, see which parts have already burned to the ground, see which parts are in danger.

harmmonica 2y ago

I saw a sibling comment posted a link to a map, but I wanted to provide you some context. As you can see on those maps, these fires are quite big in terms of land area/acreage. The thing it's important to understand about Los Angeles, though, is that there's a "mountain" range that runs east/west literally right through the city itself (mountain in quotes because as it bisects the city the mountains aren't very tall). Where it bisects the city itself you may recognize the names of some of the areas with houses plastered all over the "mountain:" Hollywood Hills, Beverly Hills, Bel Air. As you get east and west of the city, though, those mountains get a bit taller and way less populated. The Palisades fire, the first one that started, is the literal western/northwestern end of the city of LA. Its northern border is, albeit low elevation in mountain terms, mountainous and is more or less the definition of urban/wildland interface. That's part of the reason the fire spread so quickly, though in this case not even the primary reason. The other major fire is not in the city of LA, but just north of the city of Pasadena, which is east of Los Angeles. But the geography/topography is nearly identical (down to a similar east/west mountain range, but with much taller mountains). A majority of the area that's burning out of control there is largely mountainous with very little habitation (if anyone who lost a home there reads this, I don't mean to diminish how much damage has occurred in Altadena; I'm just pointing out that the massive land area of the fire is not representative of the impact on inhabited areas).

baxtr 2y ago
Thank you so much for this detailed comment! Very insightful and helpful for me to get the right context.