Due to the wildfires, January 2025 will be remembered as an historic month for the city of Los Angeles. Fire ripped through neighborhood communities destroying property and lives. This event proves natural disasters are an equal opportunity destroyer of property and taking innocent lives. The fire did not care if it destroyed multi-million-dollar mansions or the working class homes. It did not discriminate.

While California is known for wildfires, this event seemed different. While the ignition of these fires remains under investigation at the time of this writing, the uproar of how fast it spread may never be resolved due to political issues. Blame has been cast in multiple directions from ineptness to political favoring. The weather—and in particular climate change—is another factor set for scrutiny. All this has led residents of the city to watch political leaders and supervisors continuously hold news briefings that seem driven to shift, redirect blame or take credit for success.

Combustible?

Some parties note California was prime and almost deserved this devastation due to inappropriate construction (mainly by allowing wood-framed homes and questioning California’s sanity). Pointing to Europe and how they build with masonry is their answer. It appears that news people took the bait. After all, it is brief and seems logical, and can help the construction industry, since all they care about are profits. Masonry homes of Europe are indeed noncombustible, but they also have a weakness that would be exposed in California. Stacked masonry units do not do well in seismic events. While steel reinforcement can negate much of this issue, the cost becomes significant, more than it would be to make wood framing highly fire resistant.

Light wood-frame construction was developed in the United States due to its speed of construction, strength and affordability. Fire is the Achilles’ heel for wood framing but Americans found a way to clad wood studs with a non-combustible material, such as Portland cement (stucco). We did well but with what lies ahead, we may need to up our game to meet the changes that we are certain to face.

Adapting stucco to be more robust in fire protection is fairly simple. The adjustments would be minimal in cost and provide major fire protection benefits for building owners. While this should be simple, our politicians will likely listen to others and fall to political pressures and consultants with self-serving agendas.

Precious Details

If you think stucco is the most popular cladding in California, then why did so many homes fail? The answer is in the details. In particular, open eaves and other exposed combustible surfaces. These eaves and exposed wood elements are a problem for flames or embers that fly around looking to ignite unprotected wood. The seamless membrane of cement cladding is real protection. However, most stucco homes have dry wood exposed eaves that allow fire to spread quickly across the roof and attic.

The cost to cement plaster these overhangs is not that significant during initial construction; sadly, as a retrofit, cost can be prohibitive. There are a few other design tips as well, with minimal impact to construction costs. Most are not expensive as upfront costs.

There is a repeated news story here in Los Angeles with pictures of a lone standing white stucco home along the beach in Malibu. Before and after pictures dramatically illustrate its survival, even as the other homes were only few feet away. They may or may not have been stucco homes, but it is certain they were not built the same as the lone survivor. The owner was quoted as saying he loved stucco, stone and his fireproof roof. I have to assume the architect employed details to make the stucco most effective at fire resistance.

The responsible solution is to keep cement plaster cladding, make some minimal design alterations to protect wood, and eliminate weak spots. Ventilated cladding can be an issue in fire zones. An airspace behind exterior cladding sounds great, unless a fire impacts the walls. But it could be worked out with a little critical thinking and planning.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans. Brad Pitt wanted to help that community. Others with different agendas jumped on board to take advantage of a crisis. I remember watching television as they highlighted the new homes, new products and innovative ideas. I was concerned about these homes and could not see how they would survive water damage with no window flashing.

In 2024, the foundation that Brad Pitt founded settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit for construction defects on those homes.

It was not Pitt’s fault—he is not a construction expert and should not be expected to know. The politicians and other leaders ignored warning signs and fell for slick marketing presentations. I hope Los Angeles leaders can be smarter, but it does not look too promising.