I found an article from June with more specifics: <a href="https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-construction" rel="nofollow">https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-cons...</a><p>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..."<p>So it seems this may have more to do with $$$ than actual safety.
So 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.
A very detailed write-up of this topic, with extensive research and citations:<p><a href="https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/wood-construction-and-the-risk-of" rel="nofollow">https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/wood-construction...</a><p>Conclusions:<p>-> 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.<p>-> 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).<p>-> 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.
For earthquake reasons alone this is completely insane, and clearly a blatant attempt at regulatory capture by the concrete association. Just asinine.<p>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.
This 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.
In 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?
As 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.
> "The motion currently winding its way through City Council"<p>Original motion is here --> <a href="https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-2019.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-...</a><p>Full history here --> <a href="https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=19-0603" rel="nofollow">https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa...</a>
Doesn’t building using bricks exist in the US, or why isn’t it mentioned?<p>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.
We know how to make wildfire-resistant homes, and it has nothing to do with framing materials:<p><a href="https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-ready/defensible-space/" rel="nofollow">https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-re...</a><p>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.<p>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.
In 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.<p>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.
Meanwhile many other cities are exploring mass timber more and more. This allow building larger snd taller buildings out of timber.<p>I’ve seen a few lovely mass timber buildings built.<p>These are radically different than the stick frame construction which is of dubious origins.<p><a href="https://youtu.be/2gWxRVqNI3M" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/2gWxRVqNI3M</a>
There 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.
does 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.
This 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.<p><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Research_Institute#Disinformation_about_Single-Payer_Healthcare" rel="nofollow">https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Research_Insti...</a>
Intresting 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.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844</a>
good, 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.
I 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.