| ▲ | gregwebs 18 hours ago | |
It seems some houses that focused on fire safety survived the fire with minimal damage. https://nypost.com/2025/01/15/real-estate/passive-house-surv... Metal roof, passive house so embers don’t get sucked in. Concrete walls around the property and plants that don’t contribute to the fire. The house might cost an additional $100k to build compared to conventional. But it would make all that back on energy, roofing, and insurance costs- probably at the point the conventional home would need a roof replacement. Builders don’t build such houses unless a client or building code mandates it. | ||
| ▲ | gregwebs 15 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Other sources say the house wasn’t a passive house but did have fire rated walls. It seems like a lot of fire resistance can be created just by focusing on defensible space and having a concrete or metal fence. Then protecting the roof ventilation from fire (there are special screening materials that can be bought). Then using class A rated materials on the roof and then the exterior. Then metal framed windows instead of vinyl. Actually doesn't cost that much more- they should require it in building codes in these areas. The issue then is retrofit- insurers should probably require a defensible space in these high risk areas. | ||