Fires persist in raging, alerts of unsettling winds are common, and inhabitants rummage through the debris for possessions and pets in ravaged locales.
Ultimately, choices will need to be made by inhabitants, elected representatives, builders, and planners regarding the fate of this scorched land.
Those who resided and suffered in the communities obliterated by these fires, the most catastrophic fires in Los Angeles County’s history, will eventually be permanently relocated elsewhere, or decisions will be made about whether to reconstruct the homes and neighborhoods that once existed. Some individuals have resided in the Palisades for many years, while others are relative newcomers. In Altadena, numerous generations of families have occupied the residences. Whatever choices the residents make, the rest of us, including state, county, and municipal leaders, must be cautious not to displace them once more by obstructing their attempts to rebuild.
However, considering the sequence of devastating blazes over recent decades leading to this incident, we now recognize that we need to adapt our lifestyles and construction practices. This must be the case.
This doesn’t inherently imply that we will never reconstruct in fire-affected regions. It suggests establishing firebreaks or buffer zones to create some form of separation between developments and undeveloped terrain. It involves utilizing more fire-resistant materials and fireproof ventilation systems in buildings.
Every tragic urban fire attributed to California wildfires has imparted lessons to cities about improving construction and community design.
Building regulations have evolved over the years, and newer structures are becoming increasingly resistant to fire. Yet, this does not resolve every issue.
“The construction sector has consistently remarked, ‘It is indeed possible to build safely in this vicinity,'” states J.P., director of policy at the Center for Biological Diversity, who has advocated for legislation governing construction in high-fire risk zones. Rose declares, “The government refuses to acknowledge that these codes are insufficient merely because a structure built to code has burned. It declines to assess whether these truly function, and placing full confidence in them is quite literally playing with fire.”
One aspect that remains relatively unchanged is the locations Californians desire to inhabit. For many years, they have settled on hillsides, tucked away in valleys, and spread over foothills. And it is not solely about the scenery. People reside in communities they are familiar with, perhaps where they grew up, close to family and friends, or near their places of employment.
Rebuilding in fire-prone regions may encompass burying power lines, widening roadways to facilitate better access to neighborhoods in the event of a blaze, and adding external sprinklers on roofs of residences. This might be essential. A few of these concepts are not economical, but none of them would be counterproductive against destructive fires.
In the upcoming days, numerous inquiries will arise concerning whether there were sufficient firefighters present during the blaze and whether enough personnel were dispatched proactively when storm alerts signaled danger in the arid region. A discussion will emerge.
“The loss of life and devastation from recent wildfires should serve as a strong reminder that California must not continue to expand into hazardous wildfire zones. It refuses to take action. What will it require?” the editorial board commented over five years ago.
Yet, if we wish to persist in living here and create additional housing, which was already desperately needed long before the thousands of fire victims lost their homes, we must build with an awareness of an environment that is sure to become increasingly challenging.
We must continue to think and act as a community, including by supporting those who wish to rebuild. Numerous challenges lie ahead. Returning residents must also be integrated into the solution.