The news out of Los Angeles isn’t great lately. Here’s a photo of Pacific Palisades:
It looks as though some concrete structures are still standing.
My engineering/planning question for today: Why aren’t all houses in fire-prone parts of California made from concrete? In Florida, after wooden houses didn’t come through hurricanes in good shape people decided to pay an extra 10 percent during construction and build from concrete.
Maybe my assumption that a concrete house is mostly invulnerable to fire is wrong? It’s tough for me to imagine, though, a fire so intense that it would melt concrete and take out a roof supported by concrete or steel beams, especially if the houses themselves weren’t combustible what would be feeding a fire in a neighborhood like the one shown above?
Wooden houses are obviously easier to engineer to withstand earthquakes, but concrete structures can be made just as earthquake-proof, I thought.
As it happens, I’m in Berkeley, California right now. Here’s how the smartest Californians protect themselves against a risk even bigger than fire (University of California, Berkeley Faculty Club):
OMG, I about died laughing when I go to the end…