By now I suspect every homeowner in CA knows that shake shingle roofs are attractive but deadly if you are located near a fire danger. It also appears that having a filled swimming pool and a firehose (along with a generator if the power is out) is a good defense. Of course, clearing brush that might ignite is also important. What other techniques do builders or architects use?
For example, indoor sprinklers probably wouldn’t do the job if it was the rooftop that caught on fire first. Should roofs be equipped with sprinklers if they aren’t made of fire-resistant materials? Aren’t there foam building products that are fire-tested in some way? Or some other similar fire-resistant material that has been tested? Didn’t I read about this in the Whole Earth Catalog a hundred years ago?
Has anyone ever heard of barricadegel.com? Their lack of any current press releases makes me question them.
It seems a good time for people who are rebuilding in these dangerous areas to choose new materials. I bet Arnold would welcome such suggestions, and it could bring some new business to Calif.
Replies
And let's not forget firescaping. In combination with all the other things (no wood shake roofs, periodic controlled burns and helllllooooo not building in the middle of burn prone forests), it could keep your house standing and even look good.
This jobless recovery has done more to promote the consumption of exquisite chocolate than the finest chocolatier. Cost be damned.
Edited 10/29/2003 8:33:31 PM ET by PLANTLUST
Firescaping, indeed!
I saw a couple of interesting pieces on, maybe Nightline, one showing all the shake shingle houses totally burned but the adjacent greenery not, and another of a huge mountain burn that didn't affect an adjacent building development that had been designed with extras like boxing in the eaves.
Many areas of California are already regulated on materials. I know that several years ago (more than 10) when my aunt needed to replace the wood shake roof on her house she wasn't allowed to. She ended up having to get concrete 'shakes', and I believe that also meant beefed up framing to handle the weight.
You know, I think that is a good idea, period, providing it isn't a con job to make some billionaire CEO more $. Wouldn't foam be lightweight enough to avoid adding more structural support?
Sort of on the other hand, since immigration to Calif is expected to continue, people will continue to move into the hinterlands and risk such fires. It's also likely the burn will actually rejuvinate many plants, especially in the forests where nature normally takes its toll due to lightning.
Given that man isn't much of a match against nature, you'd think that water collection devices (for perimeter defense) and wind or solar collectors (for alternative power during outtages) would be mandatory for all new structures.