6 ms·

Why the Getty Center Is the Safest Place for Art During a Fire (2019)

105 points by wallflower 2y ago

axlee 2y ago
Note: while this is a 2019 article, the Getty Center has not burned during the 2025 Palisades fire.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  No, but it's been inside the evacuation area for a while: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0876669,-118.5930521,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!21m1!1s%2Fg%2F11wvkwr_jq!5m1!1e8?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwOC4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExMjM0SAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0876669,-118.5930521,12z/dat... It's also relevant because the Getty Center has been rather smug about how awesome their fire protection is.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > It's also relevant because the Getty Center has been rather smug about how awesome their fire protection is. I think your "smug" comment is unwarranted. They put a ton of solid engineering thought, money and planning into protecting the center from fire. Nothing is 100% but I think their confidence is warranted. Related, the Getty Villa right in the middle of the Palisades also put a lot of thought, planning and money into fire prevention, and despite being directly in the path of the Palisades firestorm, no structures on the Villa burned
    - KennyBlanken 2y ago
      They are being really smug, talking about designs and systems that mean nothing when you've got temperatures outside the building hot enough to melt aluminum engine blocks, infrared radiation intense enough to set fire to things hundreds of feet away - as well as very low oxygen and very high CO/CO2 levels along with dozens of different toxic gasses - all of which HEPA filtration won't do squat about. A "stone facade" doesn't stop +1200 degree temperatures, especially when everything on the outside will undergo incredible thermal expansion and at the least open up gaps. Steel expands about 1-2% for just an increase to 100 degrees C. 300C means about 3-4% expansion. And then there's the huge expanses of windows which will shatter or pop out - and even if they don't, the intense IR radiation will by and large go through them. People don't realize just how insanely hot wildfires get. Go look at the pictures of neighborhoods that have burnt- they're leveled with the exception of some chimneys, steel girders for houses that have them (most these days don't, builders have been using wood-composite beams) iron fences, car bodies. Everything else is burned or melted. There isn't a building in the world that will stop the megawatts of heat energy per square meter wildfires can generate in IR radiation.
      - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        Yes, wildfires get incredibly hot. But the fires essentially always travel by embers or direct contact with fire - your comments about IR radiation seem to imply that IR alone will cause ignition, which is rarely if ever the case. Here is a story about a bunch of people who survived the Camp fire in Paradise, CA, surrounded by the raging inferno, by staying in the middle of a parking lot: https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/wildland/news/21034768/over-hundred-people-survive-camp-fire-paradise-ca-parking-lot-firefighters https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/wildland/news/...
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        It is rarely the case, indeed. However, in incidents like e.g. the Fort McMurray fire (Alberta, 2016), this is precisely what happens. One property with a heavy fuel load fanned by strong winds (i.e. plentiful O2 supply) gets hot enough that it causes ignition in a neighboring exposure. In Ft. McMurray, there were documented cases of an entire 4+ bedroom house being reduced to ash in roughly 5 minutes. The heat generated by that process is easily sufficient to cause ignition in buildings <typical suburban layout> apart.
        hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        Even in that case I'm sure a huge part of the heat transfer is convection, especially with the high winds. Comment I was replying to was talking about IR igniting things by shining through windows, which I believe is mostly bullshit.
      - hyeonwho4 2y ago
        Stone doesn't burn, and neither does concrete. Glass melts. Steel evidently didn't burn at the temperatures these fires got to. So it makes sense that a building made of concrete and steel with stone facades and fiberglass insulation would survive the fire, especially after clearing out and hydrating the surrounding landscape so it wouldn't have the density or flammability of a forest. The Getty Center may have gotten lucky, but they might have also earned their "luck" through investment and planning.
  - marze 2y ago
    Everyone with a fire-hardened house should be feeling good. If all Pacific Palisades houses were fire-hardened, the fire would have burned vegetation but few houses. Even modest fire hardening would help. If a wood-frame house burns, it is a danger to all nearby houses. Hardening reduces the chain reaction potential.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      How effective is fire-hardening in these conditions? And how much would it cost? And finally, does anyone know how fire-hardened structures have actually performed?
    - pwarner 2y ago
      There's just not enough talk about this. This is the actual failure of government, not focusing enough on surviving fires
      - mmooss 2y ago
        How is it a failure of government? The people of these areas reasonably have not wanted spend large amounts of their money to prevent unusual disasters like this one. Do you spend that in your community?
      - weaksauce 2y ago
        the cost would be enormous. it’s in an earthquake zone and it needs to withstand that. there’s already way too few houses for people at a reasonable cost. they’ve already evacuated and only a handful of lives have been lost to the people that stayed behind. it’s not normal santa ana winds it’s the hardest winds i’ve seen here in decades... probably 100 years or more. people are the important thing here.
- DidYaWipe 2y ago
  The Getty Villa was far more threatened by the Palisades Fire than the center.
  - lambda 2y ago
    The fire is still burning, is only partially contained, has gotten close to the Center, and the winds are forecast to pick up again tomorrow. So there's still a chance it will be at risk. Now, they've had days to prepare for this, and apparently have plenty of contingencies in place, but this is still relevant the fire could get there.
mycentstoo 2y ago
Additional Context: The Getty Villa which is on the border of Malibu and Pacific Palisades was the structure that was threatened by fire directly. This article is about the Getty Center which lies in Brentwood and fires did not reach it. Center: 1200 Getty Center Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90049 Villa: 17985 Pacific Coast Highway, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  The reason this article is likely appearing now is because the Getty Center proper is currently in a zone which is under evacuation orders: "The Getty Center, situated in Brentwood, draws 1.8 million visitors annually and houses hundreds of centuries-old art pieces from renowned artists such as Van Gogh, Rembrandt and Monet. But even though as of Saturday, the center was included in a mandatory evacuation zone as a result of the Palisades Fire expansion into Brentwood, the center insisted its campus is the "safest place possible" for its massive art collection." https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/heres-how-the-getty-centers-design-protects-it-against-wildfires/3602278/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/heres-how-the-getty... This news report links the the article posted. As of my check right now (1/12/25, noon Pacific Time), the Palisades Fire is still only 11% contained, so it's not yet over.
  - mycentstoo 2y ago
    Oh I know, I live very close to there. I just wanted to add insight for those that might not be familiar with those being two separate things.
  - fmajid 2y ago
    Will it remain the safest place if there are no people left on-site to staff the fire-protection mechanisms because of a mandatory evacuation order?
    - bugglebeetle 2y ago
      The Getty has an endowment in the billions and an entire team devoted to this that is permitted to be on site, coordinates with local fire and police services, etc. The entire center is also built into the hillside, with fireproof vaults in the underground levels, so there is no real risk to any of the collections.
__turbobrew__ 2y ago
I guess it is too expensive to have a fm-200 based fire suppression system? They say they have sprinklers as a last resort but I’m guessing it would destroy most of the art if you needed to use them.
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  Most art is sealed into covered frames. You also design fire suppression sprinklers to start in outer rooms. Smoke is a far greater danger to art in a fire.
  - popalchemist 2y ago
    The art at the Getty is not sealed.
- cududa 2y ago
  Did some googling, and from what I can find, there’s one fm-200 based museum suppression system in Cincinnati - which is also the home of Proctor and Gamble, a manufacturer of Hydrofluorocarbons. I’m guessing there’s a pretty good reason no one put these in museums/ they tried and they didn’t work. I tend to think of property insurance companies having goals that are the most “morally aligned” with the goals of civilization. They don’t want fires, floods, etc to happen, or they lose money. They spend a lot of money researching climate patterns and construction standards, lobby for climate policies and new building standards, etc. I’m sure insuring a museum and the risk of a payout is a dicey endeavor. The companies insuring them have probably lit many mock-museums on fire to decide what suppression system/ designs they’ll insure
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    FM200 is not the only system available - Inergen, Novec 1230, CO2, etc (nobody has used Halon in ages if they can avoid it, as it's toxic.) Gaseous fire suppression systems have numerous requirements that make them unsuited for a large publicly accessible space. There's oxygen displacement; most of them are "nontoxic" to breathe but still displace oxygen, so you have to have various measures to keep from killing people - that could range from delayed discharge up to SCBA stations (and staff training, maintenance, etc.) The other problem is that you need sufficient concentration of the agent; the concentration varies, and some need higher concentrations (and better sealing) than others. That means quite a lot of work if the space/building wasn't built with it in mind. Even for a relatively small and simple server room, gaseous fire suppression installation is expensive and a general pain in the ass. The systems are intended for spaces that aren't normally occupied. Vaults/storage for example, and industrial spaces (electrical substations, for example.)
hnbear 2y ago
Very interesting to see the thought put into it. And given the cultural and historic significance, they’re literally irreplaceable. Must be a fun exercise in incident management and prevention. I found this interesting too - https://www.getty.edu/news/the-hidden-engineering-protecting-getty-art-from-earthquakes/ https://www.getty.edu/news/the-hidden-engineering-protecting... An article about their approach to earthquake protection. In both cases it looks like they’re leading these sorts of engineering developments.
Projectiboga 2y ago
Curious that an oil barron set aside resources to protect his own loot from his oil profits. Yes having these holdings availible to the public is cool and helps us. I was fond of their brand as they had a large presence in South Jersey. Getty had affordable gas that seemed to burn well in my college car in the late 1980's.
thefrozenone 2y ago
Children of Men was a documentary.
mxxx 2y ago
There’s a museum built a few years ago in regional Australia that was also designed with bushfire resistance in mind. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2022/06/underground-art-museum-protects-works-from-natural-disaster/ https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-cultu...

105 points by wallflower 2y ago

axlee 2y ago

Note: while this is a 2019 article, the Getty Center has not burned during the 2025 Palisades fire.

KennyBlanken 2y ago
No, but it's been inside the evacuation area for a while: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0876669,-118.5930521,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!21m1!1s%2Fg%2F11wvkwr_jq!5m1!1e8?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwOC4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExMjM0SAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0876669,-118.5930521,12z/dat... It's also relevant because the Getty Center has been rather smug about how awesome their fire protection is.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > It's also relevant because the Getty Center has been rather smug about how awesome their fire protection is. I think your "smug" comment is unwarranted. They put a ton of solid engineering thought, money and planning into protecting the center from fire. Nothing is 100% but I think their confidence is warranted. Related, the Getty Villa right in the middle of the Palisades also put a lot of thought, planning and money into fire prevention, and despite being directly in the path of the Palisades firestorm, no structures on the Villa burned
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    They are being really smug, talking about designs and systems that mean nothing when you've got temperatures outside the building hot enough to melt aluminum engine blocks, infrared radiation intense enough to set fire to things hundreds of feet away - as well as very low oxygen and very high CO/CO2 levels along with dozens of different toxic gasses - all of which HEPA filtration won't do squat about. A "stone facade" doesn't stop +1200 degree temperatures, especially when everything on the outside will undergo incredible thermal expansion and at the least open up gaps. Steel expands about 1-2% for just an increase to 100 degrees C. 300C means about 3-4% expansion. And then there's the huge expanses of windows which will shatter or pop out - and even if they don't, the intense IR radiation will by and large go through them. People don't realize just how insanely hot wildfires get. Go look at the pictures of neighborhoods that have burnt- they're leveled with the exception of some chimneys, steel girders for houses that have them (most these days don't, builders have been using wood-composite beams) iron fences, car bodies. Everything else is burned or melted. There isn't a building in the world that will stop the megawatts of heat energy per square meter wildfires can generate in IR radiation.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      Yes, wildfires get incredibly hot. But the fires essentially always travel by embers or direct contact with fire - your comments about IR radiation seem to imply that IR alone will cause ignition, which is rarely if ever the case. Here is a story about a bunch of people who survived the Camp fire in Paradise, CA, surrounded by the raging inferno, by staying in the middle of a parking lot: https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/wildland/news/21034768/over-hundred-people-survive-camp-fire-paradise-ca-parking-lot-firefighters https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/wildland/news/...
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        It is rarely the case, indeed. However, in incidents like e.g. the Fort McMurray fire (Alberta, 2016), this is precisely what happens. One property with a heavy fuel load fanned by strong winds (i.e. plentiful O2 supply) gets hot enough that it causes ignition in a neighboring exposure. In Ft. McMurray, there were documented cases of an entire 4+ bedroom house being reduced to ash in roughly 5 minutes. The heat generated by that process is easily sufficient to cause ignition in buildings <typical suburban layout> apart.
        hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        Even in that case I'm sure a huge part of the heat transfer is convection, especially with the high winds. Comment I was replying to was talking about IR igniting things by shining through windows, which I believe is mostly bullshit.
    - hyeonwho4 2y ago
      Stone doesn't burn, and neither does concrete. Glass melts. Steel evidently didn't burn at the temperatures these fires got to. So it makes sense that a building made of concrete and steel with stone facades and fiberglass insulation would survive the fire, especially after clearing out and hydrating the surrounding landscape so it wouldn't have the density or flammability of a forest. The Getty Center may have gotten lucky, but they might have also earned their "luck" through investment and planning.
- marze 2y ago
  Everyone with a fire-hardened house should be feeling good. If all Pacific Palisades houses were fire-hardened, the fire would have burned vegetation but few houses. Even modest fire hardening would help. If a wood-frame house burns, it is a danger to all nearby houses. Hardening reduces the chain reaction potential.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    How effective is fire-hardening in these conditions? And how much would it cost? And finally, does anyone know how fire-hardened structures have actually performed?
  - pwarner 2y ago
    There's just not enough talk about this. This is the actual failure of government, not focusing enough on surviving fires
    - mmooss 2y ago
      How is it a failure of government? The people of these areas reasonably have not wanted spend large amounts of their money to prevent unusual disasters like this one. Do you spend that in your community?
    - weaksauce 2y ago
      the cost would be enormous. it’s in an earthquake zone and it needs to withstand that. there’s already way too few houses for people at a reasonable cost. they’ve already evacuated and only a handful of lives have been lost to the people that stayed behind. it’s not normal santa ana winds it’s the hardest winds i’ve seen here in decades... probably 100 years or more. people are the important thing here.
DidYaWipe 2y ago
The Getty Villa was far more threatened by the Palisades Fire than the center.
- lambda 2y ago
  The fire is still burning, is only partially contained, has gotten close to the Center, and the winds are forecast to pick up again tomorrow. So there's still a chance it will be at risk. Now, they've had days to prepare for this, and apparently have plenty of contingencies in place, but this is still relevant the fire could get there.

mycentstoo 2y ago

Additional Context: The Getty Villa which is on the border of Malibu and Pacific Palisades was the structure that was threatened by fire directly. This article is about the Getty Center which lies in Brentwood and fires did not reach it. Center: 1200 Getty Center Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90049 Villa: 17985 Pacific Coast Highway, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272

sbuttgereit 2y ago
The reason this article is likely appearing now is because the Getty Center proper is currently in a zone which is under evacuation orders: "The Getty Center, situated in Brentwood, draws 1.8 million visitors annually and houses hundreds of centuries-old art pieces from renowned artists such as Van Gogh, Rembrandt and Monet. But even though as of Saturday, the center was included in a mandatory evacuation zone as a result of the Palisades Fire expansion into Brentwood, the center insisted its campus is the "safest place possible" for its massive art collection." https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/heres-how-the-getty-centers-design-protects-it-against-wildfires/3602278/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/heres-how-the-getty... This news report links the the article posted. As of my check right now (1/12/25, noon Pacific Time), the Palisades Fire is still only 11% contained, so it's not yet over.
- mycentstoo 2y ago
  Oh I know, I live very close to there. I just wanted to add insight for those that might not be familiar with those being two separate things.
- fmajid 2y ago
  Will it remain the safest place if there are no people left on-site to staff the fire-protection mechanisms because of a mandatory evacuation order?
  - bugglebeetle 2y ago
    The Getty has an endowment in the billions and an entire team devoted to this that is permitted to be on site, coordinates with local fire and police services, etc. The entire center is also built into the hillside, with fireproof vaults in the underground levels, so there is no real risk to any of the collections.

__turbobrew__ 2y ago

I guess it is too expensive to have a fm-200 based fire suppression system? They say they have sprinklers as a last resort but I’m guessing it would destroy most of the art if you needed to use them.

Schiendelman 2y ago
Most art is sealed into covered frames. You also design fire suppression sprinklers to start in outer rooms. Smoke is a far greater danger to art in a fire.
- popalchemist 2y ago
  The art at the Getty is not sealed.
cududa 2y ago
Did some googling, and from what I can find, there’s one fm-200 based museum suppression system in Cincinnati - which is also the home of Proctor and Gamble, a manufacturer of Hydrofluorocarbons. I’m guessing there’s a pretty good reason no one put these in museums/ they tried and they didn’t work. I tend to think of property insurance companies having goals that are the most “morally aligned” with the goals of civilization. They don’t want fires, floods, etc to happen, or they lose money. They spend a lot of money researching climate patterns and construction standards, lobby for climate policies and new building standards, etc. I’m sure insuring a museum and the risk of a payout is a dicey endeavor. The companies insuring them have probably lit many mock-museums on fire to decide what suppression system/ designs they’ll insure
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  FM200 is not the only system available - Inergen, Novec 1230, CO2, etc (nobody has used Halon in ages if they can avoid it, as it's toxic.) Gaseous fire suppression systems have numerous requirements that make them unsuited for a large publicly accessible space. There's oxygen displacement; most of them are "nontoxic" to breathe but still displace oxygen, so you have to have various measures to keep from killing people - that could range from delayed discharge up to SCBA stations (and staff training, maintenance, etc.) The other problem is that you need sufficient concentration of the agent; the concentration varies, and some need higher concentrations (and better sealing) than others. That means quite a lot of work if the space/building wasn't built with it in mind. Even for a relatively small and simple server room, gaseous fire suppression installation is expensive and a general pain in the ass. The systems are intended for spaces that aren't normally occupied. Vaults/storage for example, and industrial spaces (electrical substations, for example.)

hnbear 2y ago

Very interesting to see the thought put into it. And given the cultural and historic significance, they’re literally irreplaceable. Must be a fun exercise in incident management and prevention. I found this interesting too - https://www.getty.edu/news/the-hidden-engineering-protecting-getty-art-from-earthquakes/ https://www.getty.edu/news/the-hidden-engineering-protecting... An article about their approach to earthquake protection. In both cases it looks like they’re leading these sorts of engineering developments.

Projectiboga 2y ago

Curious that an oil barron set aside resources to protect his own loot from his oil profits. Yes having these holdings availible to the public is cool and helps us. I was fond of their brand as they had a large presence in South Jersey. Getty had affordable gas that seemed to burn well in my college car in the late 1980's.

thefrozenone 2y ago

Children of Men was a documentary.

mxxx 2y ago

There’s a museum built a few years ago in regional Australia that was also designed with bushfire resistance in mind. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2022/06/underground-art-museum-protects-works-from-natural-disaster/ https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-cultu...