Some luck involved, methinks, but still interesting. Small eaves, no roof vents?, windows intact....
https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1hy22ui/house_designed_on_passive_house_principles/?sort=old
+
comments mention other builds with good fire prevention --1 inch stucco, roof tiles
The link in the first comment is an interesting read: https://passivehouseaccelerator.com/articles/building-forward-in-the-face-of-fires
When we were building, I read about two houses that survived what was at that time the fire that had destroyed the most houses in California. Everything I have read said that protection starts from the house out. So you first fix the house, then you work on what's around it.
That means
- enclosed eaves, small eaves, no decks, fire screens on all vents and other openings. This house looks like it ticks all those boxes.
- fire resistant materials. At least in our area, wood siding is no longer allowed. Our house is fiber cement. The log house companies lobbied for an exception based on the fact that there is no void in the logs.
Around the house, the first five feet are critical, the second 30 feet are still vital, and out to 100' still makes a big difference. What you do at 400' away makes almost no difference at all. Looking at that house, there appears to have been no trees or brush close by. That's huge.
>> windows
One of the principles of passive house building (according to what I *just* read) is thermally efficient windows. The article (above) mentions triple pane windows and tempered glass. That's probably the big thing that the passive home principles bring for fire safety.
The surprising thing I came across when I was researching this was that in the hot fire that destroyed hundreds (thousands?) of homes but spared the two being studied, researchers were perplexed to find so many broken windows with the glass outside the house. They figured out that most houses had caught fire *inside* first due to radiant heat coming through the windows, and then the windows blew out.
So that's the one place where I think the passive house principles are probably a big deal.
The flip side to this is that when they interviewed the homeowners, they said they wished their houses had burned and they could just have the insurance money. All their friends and neighbors were gone, their neighborhood stunk of smoke and ash.
That really struck me. I don't want my house to be one of the few that burns, but I also don't want it to be one of the few that doesn't, assuming I have insurance. When we almost lost the house in 2018, we realized we didn't care about the building and what was in it. We did care about our friends and neighbors and realized that there is no way to rebuild our community in a major loss. It will just be a massive diaspora. I expect that is mostly what will happen in LA. The capacity to rebuild all those homes in, say, 2 years, simply doesn't exist.
> will happen in LA
Newsom is negotiating to change zoning to multi-family in the Palisades (and probably all the burned out areas). That's a good, timely move and politically savvy ...but probably not welcomed by Palisades home lot owners. I think it does recognize that the neighborhood is never going to return to the way it was.
Although, when they find out that contractors have the capacity to build 2000 homes per year in LA and the people with deep pockets who can pay way beyond pre-fire rates are first in line, people might be excited about development that gets more units online faster.
Oh wait. I'm sorry. I need more caffeine. Temporary mind glitch.
I keep thinking about those 3D printed houses made of cement. They would seem fire resistant if designed right (eaves, etc.) but how earthquake proof are they without rebar?
>3d
If printed directly on the footers they'd react horrifically, I think, worse than cinderblock. But most post-construction anti-quake retrofits I've watched (municipal buildings in SF, IIRC) involved jacking them up and inserting stacked sheets of teflon. That'd be pretty easy to do with 3d construction --pour the footers, roll out teflon (even under the slab), then print. But what would it add to cost? Dunno.
>I keep thinking about those 3D printed houses made of cement.
When cob houses are made in the middle east, they are often fired from the inside. A couple of barrels of oil are put inside the house and set on fire. The heat essentially makes a ceramic house.
Cob is mix of sand, clay, water and some sort of "rebar" like material -- straw is the most common. In the middle east, the entire house is made of cob and the roof is usually a dome. Cob is like adobe but you don't make bricks first: you just mound the mud on top of itself and let it dry. The walls are about a foot and a half thick and narrow a bit as you go up. And, they are cool in the summer and warm in the winter because MASS.
In Europe, before wooden houses were common, cob was used with a reed roof. On the underside of the roof, a layer of cob was put on the inside essentially to keep critters from trying to get in from above, but that layer of mud fireproofed the roof from the underside.
The reeds are bound really tightly together with wire, and if they do catch an ember on top, they usually smolder for WEEKS or just burn themselves out.
Old technology might just save people.
That reminded me of tabby construction is coastal SC, GA, & FL
Lowcountry Tabby Construction - South Carolina Lowcountry
https://southcarolinalowcountry.com/lowcountry-tabby-construction/
TLDR; passive
Why this Boston homeowner doesn't pay anything to heat his house - Fast Company
https://www.fastcompany.com/91259477/why-this-boston-homeowner-doesnt-pay-anything-to-heat-his-house
Honestly, that's impressive in a place like Boston - cold and cloudy.
And the houses are beautiful if you like modern architecture (which I do, as well as many other styles)
They cover heating pretty well, but they kinda dance quickly past summer cooling in that article.