With all the recent forest fires in the west; Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, hundreds of homes were lost in these fires and hundreds more might be lost in the next few weeks.

The Northern Colorado - High Park Fire has destroyed 248 homes - In Utah over 30 structures have been lost with 300 homes are being threatened as I type this. - In New Mexico over 242 homes were destroyed by that fire - and the numbers keep growing and growing...

Here in my state of Arizona, we had over a dozen homes destroyed by that Crown King fire (which is now out). The Greer, Arizona fire destroyed 25 homes.

Only one home survived the flames being right on top of it, the newscast featured that one home. That home was owned/designed by an architect who used only metal and concrete on the exterior. No wood eves to vent as those vents are just pathways for embers to get into your roof and walls. It survived the fire with no damage and the homeowner is back in the home.

Home Spared From Fire due to Fireproofing Home

We've seen this played out time and time over the years. These homes burn to the ground and they go right back to building with a wood frame exterior walls and roof. I don't understand it. If you live in a high forest fire danger area, why not employ building materials that will not fuel the fire? Metal & concrete are two great choices.

If we address the "green" part of the equation. Imagine the amount of materials needed & pollution expended to rebuild the 1,000 homes, again.

I just don't get it...



Estes Park, Colorado home burning - June 23, 2012

Your pique is misplaced, Lbear. If wildfires represented a significant economic housing loss in the West, insurance companies would decline coverage in risky areas, rebuilding would stop and these areas would depopulate. No, insurers wouldn't impose tougher construction requirements because their risk is the 1,000 existing homes rather than the 10 or so that might be built this year. As it is, 248 homes represent 0.015 percent of Colo's housing stock. Yup. Fifteen thousandths of one percent. You want to get upset, study the federal flood insurance program, which charges a flat premium regardless of risk and keeps rebuilding the same beachfront, riverfront, whateverfront houses over and over. (After Katrina, there was some discussion of buyouts.) Nice picture though.

I don't see any mention of concrete as fireproofing in the article. Sounds like a steel SIP house to me.

Speaking of pictures and switching to another of your favorite bogeymen, why is that we haven't seen an ICF house standing strong and proud in a field of tornado devastation? Could it be that a tornado has never struck one, or that image would the ICf house as just another one of the (roofless) girls?

This is a pic from the New Mexico wildfire, man, that is a sad site to see all those trees burned. Looks apocalyptic, like a nuke went off.



This picture was taken on June 26th in Colorado. You can see two homes burning in the background. The embers travel so far and find their way into the eaves and soffits of the homes and sometimes the homes start to burn even before the actual fire is on top of them. Once the fire is inside of the homes wood walls and wood trusses, its over. You figure they would at least put cement board or stucco on the exterior walls but a lot of those homes had wood siding and paneling on the exterior.

The ICF and Steel SIP industry should really make their presence known in those areas. Most people never heard of ICF or steel SIPs and figure their only option is to rebuild with wood again. One thing is certain, the lumber industry reps will be out there in full force ready to make a killing on rebuilding in wood again. At least if the property owners know that they have an alternative building source utilizing steel or concrete. This gives them the choice, most don't even know that there is a choice.

It's Colorado's worst forest fire in their entire history. Very sad...

The total burned down homes is now at 350+ in Colorado Springs.

The Denver Post

It will be curious to see how many rebuild in wood frame again and how many use wood shake shingled roofs. Will we see any homes rebuilt with concrete, SCIPs or Steel SIPs?

I don't think that would help.

Now if people new the difference between preservation and conservation, billions of board feet of lumber would be harvested, improving the economy, making for proper fire breaks and open parks for wildlife or...we can just let "nature" run its course, spending millions fighting fire and risking lives. Now there's a lesson for you.

Yes, I'm sure there are quite a few loggers that would be willing to construct nice wide fire breaks. For free.

While the actual risk and economic losses aren't high, "fireproof" might make a good selling point. I suspect that SCIPs would do well. Plus automated, battery powered sprinklers on the roof.

The even make and sell a DIY fire gel that can be applied to the home prior to the fire hitting. It has been proven to save homes from burning down. It is applied with a garden hose.

FIREGEL

One should have products like these on hand if they live in a high forest fire area.

Having built homes in the Colorado mountains, I have seen it isn't near as much a problem of materials as it is having a fire safe/ defensible site. Building officials are gaining but have a ways to go. I have seen many homes with large pine trees within 10 feet. sure they are pretty, till they burn.

Although the homes in Colorado Springs were started by a forest fire, the majority were burned due to their proximity to the house next door. A fire break at the adge of the subdivision probably would have saved them all.

Like a flood plain, a fire plain should be considered for large subdivisions bordering forests. or as mentioned maybe the ones at the perimeters could be requred to be Fire resistant.

IIRC some towns in the fire-prone eastern Cascades require metal or tile roofing by code, after years of experience with (once common) cedar shake roofs being ignited by falling embers from even fairly distant forest fires.

Unvented roofs also help, since embers can't get sucked into the attic during a firestorm.

Low-E windows have been shown to be a factor in rejecting the heat of smaller fires, but in firestorms like CO and NM this year that's probably not gonna cut it.

Different risk, but illustrative. After paying billions in hail claims in Texas, insurers began refusing to cover houses with cedar shake roofs. Some homeowners were in a box because of subdivision deed restrictions requiring same. But insurers started leaving the state in droves and, given a choice of no shakes or no insurance, reason prevailed. My guess is that aren't enough rooftops in Lbear's pictures for a similar showdown in the mountain west.

Just a couple of comments:

I've been looking at many of these Colorado wildfires up close in recent years, I lived 3 blocks from the fire in Boulder 7 years ago, 4 miles from the 4 Mile fire last year, and am currently living in a new house my wife and I have been building 10 miles from the High Park Fire this year, so when we chose materials and construction techniques for this new house we chose them to be energy efficient, low maintenance, and good for fire protection. So it is ICF with an unvented steel roof. The unvented roof is clearly not the most energy efficient, or the least costly, with the additional conditioned volume and exterior surface area, but was a compromise as we really wanted the protection from fire afforded by the unvented structure. Time and again I have seen firefighters walk the fire around a house, appearing to have saved it, then a few hours later, with the fire and fighters miles away, it goes up from the embers blown into the attic. At that point there is nothing that can be done because the entire structure is involved from the inside out. We also didn't build in the trees, the closest is about 100 feet away, if a burning tree falls though your roof it matters little how fireproof you built the exterior.

I also must beg to differ with respect to the comments attempting to blame environmentalists for these fire issues. Most of us western environmentalists understand that environments need to be managed, which includes harvesting trees. The difficulty is not the willingness to harvest, but the shear magnitude of the problem. We have had the pine bark beetle come though, and the forest that the High Park Fire is burning is 70% beetle kill. If there were resources to harvest, and market for the product, we would be happy to have it gone. The state has put into place incentives to use the material, it is about the cheapest stuff I can get, so many of the ceilings in the new house are T&G beetle kill (it is really very pretty with the blue staining). So I'm trying to do my part and get some of the fuel out of the hills.

Posted By dave111 on 07 Jul 2012 04:19 PM
Just a couple of comments:
 
So it is ICF with an unvented steel roof. The unvented roof is clearly not the most energy efficient, or the least costly, with the additional conditioned volume and exterior surface area, but was a compromise as we really wanted the protection from fire afforded by the unvented structure. Time and again I have seen firefighters walk the fire around a house, appearing to have saved it, then a few hours later, with the fire and fighters miles away, it goes up from the embers blown into the attic. At that point there is nothing that can be done because the entire structure is involved from the inside out.

That's a great point about vented soffits and attics/roofs. Embers will find their way into the vented soffits and attics even if the actual fire is miles away. Steel roofs are the way to go but concrete works well also.

Unvented roofs are energy efficient if you design them correctly and use the right materials.

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/fire.aspx

Note that the only mention of "harvesting" in the Sierra Club statement is in its prohibition of "salvaging" logs already burned. We can't even clean up the mess mismanagement has made!

When I was a kid "Smokey the Bear" and I were ever watchful for forest fires, now we must "Let 'em Burn". Were we wrong then or wrong now? I would argue, both. Balanced management is the key, using all of our resources to manage the source and the scale of forest fires. Controlling fires is like controlling a riot; until it the energy is gone - or it rains - it is best to get out of the way and look for the cause of the riot and the fuel that fed it.

Suppose fire breaks were allowed before the beetle killed so many? No, you are undeniably correct; better that "nature" run supreme, than any "man" benefit therefrom.

You can build anything you like, any where you like; the right fire will burn it down. I lived in CO and NM, and can't tell you how the misguided mismanagement of our natural resources saddens me. I feel for those who live in those remote areas and find themselves burned out, but like the folks on the beach, when a big wave comes in, you pay for the privilege.

I will miss the trees but revel in the new parks full of aspen and wild flowers that follow. It is the anarchy that bothers, when all nature is let loose having been bound so tight by misguided preservationists.

Resistant is good. Steel roofs in the Sound fight mold.

But a break is the answer. Even the high flying, tree-huggers in Vail get it!

http://www.vailhomeowners.com/JuneNewsletterFinalJune2808.pdf

This will work for animal house in wilderness areas as well.

Hug your tees!