Letters to the Editor: Why concrete buildings might not be the answer to fire in California

To the editor: While there is a need to upgrade the building codes to more fire-resistant practices, the kind of tilt-up concrete buildings suggested by one letter writer is not necessarily the answer. Those buildings are more rigid and might suffer more from earthquakes.

After the Northridge earthquake in 1994, the Seismic Addendum was added to the American Welding Society’s Structural Welding Code to address the rigidity of steel-frame buildings that fractured in the quake. Wood-frame buildings can move to a degree for survivability.

There are practices available to reduce the chances of embers entering structures and causing ignition. Those would be advised as a way to reduce a fire’s severity.

Alan Johnson, Seal Beach

The writer is a retired certified welding inspector and a former member of the American Welding Society’s committee on structural welding.

..

To the editor: It’s not a matter of “if,” but rather of “when” — and it’s entirely predictable.

If you live in a fire-prone area, you can take all the fire precautions available — brush clearance 100 feet from a structure, irrigation and planting fire-retarding plants, for example. But “when” is still possible at any time.

Why an insurance company would ever sell policies for these areas is confusing. Why the city or county of Los Angeles or any other similar areas allow homes to be built in these areas is outrageous.

Wood burns and steel melts, and if you’re lucky enough to have a concrete home with a tile roof, even that type of structure will last only so long in an inferno.

Dave Simon, North Hollywood

The writer is a landscape architect.