Why are the houses in LA constructed with wood?
The wildfires in LA are spreading like crazy, with entire neighborhoods being destroyed with all houses being burnt down. While the current focus is on containing the wildfire, one of the main questions is why is it spreading so rapidly? Are the wooden houses in LA (just like rest of the US) contribute to this? I am not a construction material expert, but aren’t houses in hot climate usually made of concrete and not wood?
When I first came to North America, I always wondered why are the houses made of wood. They did not look very strong, compared to the concrete and brick houses in India. The hollow walls did not give any confidence. I remember having a conversation on this topic with a South African in Canada, as houses in South Africa are also made with concrete and bricks. We wondered if it is due to more of Northern European tradition, which hasn’t evolved over time.
Wooden houses are good at retaining heat and hence are excellent in the cold climates. I learnt this hard way last month, when there was a power outage in the Seattle area due to Bomb Cyclone. In spite of not having power for a couple of days and low temperature outside, the temperature inside the house was still bearable. So having wooden houses in the colder climates do have advantages. So perhaps when Europeans, which were dominated by English, Irish, Germans, moved to the US, they continued the tradition of using wood for houses. And the initial settlements were in New England, which does have cold climate.
But then they continued using the same material in the hot climates of California, Texas or Florida. Shouldn’t they have adopted to the local climate and used the materials accordingly? I remember visiting the old town of San Diego last winter, where they mentioned that the traditional houses in San Diego were adobe houses (wood brick houses). The warmer parts of the Europe (Italy, Spain) also seem to have more brick and concrete houses unlike colder Germany or Scandinavia. Not only are they stronger, but they also keep the houses cooler in the hot climates. So such houses are much more energy efficient as wooden houses require more air conditioning. So looks like there are not any sensible reasons for using wood for houses in the hot climes.
The few benefits of wooden houses seem to be more of commercial and not related to climates. Few reasons cited by LLMs include faster to build due to ease of construction, cheaper to build and because wood is available abundantly in the North America. I do not think these reasons justify building million dollar houses with wood, especially in the hotter parts of the US. In fact, I would argue that building wooden houses is not justified considering the risks associated with them. The main risk of wooden houses is, of course, fire.
There have been multiple instances of fires destroying entire cities in the US or in the Northern Europe — Great London fire comes to mind. But I am not aware of such great fires in Italy or Spain. Is it because the houses are made of bricks, which prevents fire from easily spreading? Maybe in the past the benefits of wood overweighed the risks in the colder climates. But now with the technology, we can keep houses warm in the winter with electric heaters rather than relying on wood to retain the heat. Lower risk because of concrete/ brick construction will also reduce the need of Fire Department. Let’s be honest, most of the fire alarms are false alarms and they have to be taken seriously only because the fire can spread quickly in the neighborhoods with wooden houses. If the impact of fire is expected to be small and contained, perhaps we can do away with a small Fire Department.
To summarize, houses in the warmer climates, especially where there is risk of wildfires, should be made of concrete or bricks. Even in the colder climates, there must cost-benefit analysis to see if wooden houses make sense. There is no point in sticking with wooden houses just because “houses were always built with woods”!
