5 ms·

This is such a worn out talking point. Because concrete and bricks are more expensive and for most places wood construction is perfectly adequate. It's really

This is such a worn out talking point. Because concrete and bricks are more expensive and for most places wood construction is perfectly adequate. It's really very intuitive.

HPsquared 2y ago
How much more expensive compared to the fire risk? This is where risk pricing is important.
- infecto 2y ago
  And this is where insurance when allowed to set premiums, can help guide the market to the right solution. I don't believe LA has ever had a fire of this scale. Similar to that large fire in NorCal a few years back. I am certain either through insurance requirements or simple price comparisons, homes that are getting rebuilt will be done so using modern standards. Its worth mentioning that a lot of this is not so much a concrete vs wood discussion. You can absolutely build a wood framed home that is fire resistant.
- apocalyptic0n3 2y ago
  From the article: > Some of the homes in Pacific Palisades were 90 years old 90 years exceeds your lifespan, the lifespan of your children, and maybe the lifespan of your grandchildren depending on when in your lifetime it is built. Even if the house is never sold and is simply inherited, it is very likely that a home that age is lived in by someone the builders never met. So if a house burns down once every 3 generations, what incentive is there to build it to be more fire-resistant? These fires are bad, yes. But LA isn't burning down once a year. LA is massive and only small chunks are affected by each fire. For reference, these fires are the most destructive in history and have destroyed an estimated 12,000+ structures throughout metro LA and Riverside. Per ChatGPT, there's an estimated 3 million buildings in LA County alone with the rest of the greater metro area (San Bernadino, Orange, Riverside, and Ventura counties) have an estimated 5 million. So while, yes, the odds of your home burning down are elevated in metro LA, they are still quite slim. Slim enough that making the initial building even more expensive is not worth it, especially not in an area that also sees a lot of earthquakes.
elzbardico 2y ago
Americans are incredibly resistent to change and due to exceptionalism they have this idea that whatever they do is better than what anybody else. That's the real reason.

This is such a worn out talking point. Because concrete and bricks are more expensive and for most places wood construction is perfectly adequate. It's really very intuitive.

HPsquared 2y ago

How much more expensive compared to the fire risk? This is where risk pricing is important.

infecto 2y ago
And this is where insurance when allowed to set premiums, can help guide the market to the right solution. I don't believe LA has ever had a fire of this scale. Similar to that large fire in NorCal a few years back. I am certain either through insurance requirements or simple price comparisons, homes that are getting rebuilt will be done so using modern standards. Its worth mentioning that a lot of this is not so much a concrete vs wood discussion. You can absolutely build a wood framed home that is fire resistant.
apocalyptic0n3 2y ago
From the article: > Some of the homes in Pacific Palisades were 90 years old 90 years exceeds your lifespan, the lifespan of your children, and maybe the lifespan of your grandchildren depending on when in your lifetime it is built. Even if the house is never sold and is simply inherited, it is very likely that a home that age is lived in by someone the builders never met. So if a house burns down once every 3 generations, what incentive is there to build it to be more fire-resistant? These fires are bad, yes. But LA isn't burning down once a year. LA is massive and only small chunks are affected by each fire. For reference, these fires are the most destructive in history and have destroyed an estimated 12,000+ structures throughout metro LA and Riverside. Per ChatGPT, there's an estimated 3 million buildings in LA County alone with the rest of the greater metro area (San Bernadino, Orange, Riverside, and Ventura counties) have an estimated 5 million. So while, yes, the odds of your home burning down are elevated in metro LA, they are still quite slim. Slim enough that making the initial building even more expensive is not worth it, especially not in an area that also sees a lot of earthquakes.

elzbardico 2y ago

Americans are incredibly resistent to change and due to exceptionalism they have this idea that whatever they do is better than what anybody else. That's the real reason.