Why would anyone live in a known firezone in a house that is not fire resistant?

[headingnorth]

The areas burning in Southern California have some of the highest property values in the country and are inhabited by mostly wealthy people.
And yet their houses for the most part have burned down, including many multi-million dollar mansions owned by celebrities and other high-income people.

I lived in Southern California (Orange County) my whole life but rarely ever hear about houses that were saved because the house was constructed or retrofitted with fire-resistant or fireproof methods. From my research there are many proven methods you can use to make your home very fire-resistant if not fireproof, and many are surprisingly affordable. Many people will spend tens of thousands of dollars to build a new kitchen or patio for their house, but will spend little if anything to make  their homes resistant to fire in an area where thousands of homes are destroyed by fire every year. That is very bizarre to me. What am I missing? Are people just stupid?

[caroasi]

The areas burning in Southern California have some of the highest property values in the country and are inhabited by mostly wealthy people.
And yet their houses for the most part have burned down, including many multi-million dollar mansions owned by celebrities and other high-income people.

I lived in Southern California (Orange County) my whole life but rarely ever hear about houses that were saved because the house was constructed or retrofitted with fire-resistant or fireproof methods. From my research there are many proven methods you can use to make your home very fire-resistant if not fireproof, and many are surprisingly affordable. Many people will spend tens of thousands of dollars to build a new kitchen or patio for their house, but will spend little if anything to make  their homes resistant to fire in an area where thousands of homes are destroyed by fire every year. That is very bizarre to me. What am I missing? Are people just stupid?

The problem isn't that people are stupid. The problem is that people assume because the government approved their house it is safe. That is more a problem of brainwashing than intelligence. ONLY a private or public non-profit (which excludes all today's governments) certification should be taken as a sign that a house is safe, but so far as I know there is no such agency. We all have the right to build a house to any standard of safety we want on our own property. If another person sets the standards for your house, you don't own it.

People in a fire zone who can afford fire protection should have an emergency water tank hooked up to emergency water sprinklers that sprays their roof and the area immediately around their house. They should have a filtering system to filter out smoke.

Even rich people don't like paying for things twice, once to the government inspector and then again to a private organization inspector that can actually do the job right. When you understand the government inspector is there as part of a protection racket designed to fleece your money and make sure "your" house is actually theirs, then it all makes sense.

[BADecker]

^^^ Right! Even smart people can't be smart in everything. Usually they are alert when insurance companies start shutting down policies... alert that something is not right. But things get by even the smart people.

[Hispo]

.... Many people will spend tens of thousands of dollars to build a new kitchen or patio for their house, but will spend little if anything to make  their homes resistant to fire in an area where thousands of homes are destroyed by fire every year. That is very bizarre to me. What am I missing? Are people just stupid?

Perhaps they have a set of wrong priorities?
I have been reading a bit about what could have been done to protect those houses, mostly from people on Twitter (who may not have the best I formation on the topic), many of them believe building materials which are resistant to fire, like red bricks, cannot be used in those house in California because of the high risk of earthquakes, believing it would be counter productive having people living houses which would turn into rumble and trapping their residents in the case of a big shake.
Though, there are also materials which are quite light and also fire proof, not sure how affordable they are.

[paxmao]

I am afraid that you are not technically knowledgeable. All houses need to comply with at least the code that was approved at the time they were built and occassional the laws will require some updates to existing buildings. There are many other regulations about fire, fire services, fire protection and fire extinction.

The problem is that absolutely any material known to humans can burn or be melted or vaporised under a high temperature. What we have seen in California is probably a mega-fire or a giga-fire that, due to size and extent, generates temperatures that will burn anything and can create their own conditions.

This is related to climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megafire

A recent NASA study expands the megafire definition to include a variety of factors: "Between climate change and almost a century of fire exclusion, forest fires have become more extreme in size, severity, complexity of behavior and resistance to extinction. These fires are commonly referred as megafires and are at the extremes of historical variations."[2]

Using one definition, only 3% of all fires reach "megafire" status, yet they are responsible for more than 50% of burned surfaces on the planet.[3]

These fires form pyrocumulus and pyro cumulonimbus, clouds which are also named "fire-breathing dragons".

With the new politics of "drill babe drill" and "die renewables die", you should expect to see more and more of these.

[BADecker]

I am afraid that you are not technically knowledgeable. All houses need to comply with at least the code that was approved at the time they were built and occassional the laws will require some updates to existing buildings. There are many other regulations about fire, fire services, fire protection and fire extinction.

The problem is that absolutely any material known to humans can burn or be melted or vaporised under a high temperature. What we have seen in California is probably a mega-fire or a giga-fire that, due to size and extent, generates temperatures that will burn anything and can create their own conditions.

This is related to climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megafire

A recent NASA study expands the megafire definition to include a variety of factors: "Between climate change and almost a century of fire exclusion, forest fires have become more extreme in size, severity, complexity of behavior and resistance to extinction. These fires are commonly referred as megafires and are at the extremes of historical variations."[2]

Using one definition, only 3% of all fires reach "megafire" status, yet they are responsible for more than 50% of burned surfaces on the planet.[3]

These fires form pyrocumulus and pyro cumulonimbus, clouds which are also named "fire-breathing dragons".

With the new politics of "drill babe drill" and "die renewables die", you should expect to see more and more of these.

Your 'drill baby drill' means Trump in control.  Trump in control means less and less of these.

[pooya87]

From my research there are many proven methods you can use to make your home very fire-resistant if not fireproof, and many are surprisingly affordable.

Correct me if I'm wrong but most houses in the US specially in the California region are made out of wood. There is nothing anyone can do to fireproof wood, any attempt would just be a waste of money!!!

The solution is simply to stop building houses using easily flammable material (better say fuel for fire), it's the 21st century after all...

[BADecker]

Even steel frame homes don't stand up. Stone or brick homes can crumble in the heat. The beauty of nature that you were looking for when you moved here, has to be cut back at least 50 feet so that there is a firebreak around your home. Fifty feet isn't really enough.

[Zoomic]

.... Many people will spend tens of thousands of dollars to build a new kitchen or patio for their house, but will spend little if anything to make  their homes resistant to fire in an area where thousands of homes are destroyed by fire every year. That is very bizarre to me. What am I missing? Are people just stupid?

Perhaps they have a set of wrong priorities?
I have been reading a bit about what could have been done to protect those houses, mostly from people on Twitter (who may not have the best I formation on the topic), many of them believe building materials which are resistant to fire, like red bricks, cannot be used in those house in California because of the high risk of earthquakes, believing it would be counter productive having people living houses which would turn into rumble and trapping their residents in the case of a big shake.
Though, there are also materials which are quite light and also fire proof, not sure how affordable they are.

This makes sense to me now. I have been thinking people over there are only trying to cut cost by building houses with wood instead of bricks, never knew it's because California is prone to earthquakes.

Of a truth, a lot would have been saved if California had more of fire resistant buildings, it's time they look for better alternatives that won't burn down easily and still be suitable for California's environment.

[suchmoon]

The solution is simply to stop building houses using easily flammable material (better say fuel for fire), it's the 21st century after all...

There is no feasible building material that can protect against the kinds of wildfires we're seeing in California. Let's say you build a bunker at a great expense, but you would still have to evacuate, because you'd be cooked/suffocated if you stay inside, your property inside and outside would still be destroyed, and you would likely have to rebuild the expensive pointless bunker anyway (e.g. reinforced concrete gets weakened above 500C). The solution is to (a) not fuck up the environment and (b) not live in dangerous places. Too late for both.

[paxmao]

The solution is simply to stop building houses using easily flammable material (better say fuel for fire), it's the 21st century after all...

There is no feasible building material that can protect against the kinds of wildfires we're seeing in California. Let's say you build a bunker at a great expense, but you would still have to evacuate, because you'd be cooked/suffocated if you stay inside, your property inside and outside would still be destroyed, and you would likely have to rebuild the expensive pointless bunker anyway (e.g. reinforced concrete gets weakened above 500C). The solution is to (a) not fuck up the environment and (b) not live in dangerous places. Too late for both.

The Paris agreement temperature is certain to be reached and there is little doubt about what is going to happen. There have always been fires and floods, but these are going to increase in size and this has name: Xi and Trump. While many countries make their best efforts to cut emissions and become energetically independent and get a distributed resilient grid others live in the Dark Ages.

It is not of idiots to not act on what's not known, but it is of idiots to deny and not act.