Lake Tahoe – Did 200 Homes Have to Be Lost?
I would like to think “0”. Is that realistic? Who knows? I believe it would have made a significant difference. Just as saying after the fact that more “clearing” around the homes would have made a significant difference. True statements. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.
I think a strong case can and should be made for the ICF solution to minimize a problem in the future concerning fire damage. Most ICF homes have no less than a 2 hour fire rating. I know Rastra is rated at 4 hours but has withstood 6 hours of intense testing with very little degradation. There are other factors to consider when thinking about fire damage and ICFs. In areas like Tahoe, many people seem to want to maintain a “look” that often times requires the use of “wood” siding or the “log” look. Although very aesthetically pleasing, not very practical from my perspective when living in an area prone to “fire”. Why provide more fuel?
My solution is to build with Rastra, apply a nice rock/stucco combination look to the home and have more peace of mind in terms of your ability to withstand the potential for forest fires. I am “bias” to Rastra so that is what I like to promote. However, ICFs in general would be a better alternative for any of the homes in areas such as Tahoe (any ICF).
Remember, besides the obvious benefits of fire protection provided by ICFs, you still have the other benefits such as very high wind resistance, rodent proof in the case of Rastra, very high energy efficiency ratings and longevity to name a few.
But with Rastra, I contend there are added benefits not associated with other ICFs. I won’t get into all the details but in general, stucco application is easier than most of the other ICFs, thermal quality stats are better than most of the other ICFs and Rastra is an “environmental” product that uses “recycled” Styrofoam. I do not think there are any other products that can compare (my opinion). Having said that, had any of the ICFs been used in the Tahoe area…..I do not think we would be talking about 200 homes being lost.
For that matter, if “common sense” approaches to building were to have been in widespread use, there would likely not had been so many homes lost. Start with siding with non-combustible materials such as stucco, rock etc. Use all metal roofs (or at least something rated as “fire proof”) etc. Aesthetics are important but in designing homes in these “high risk” areas, it is the responsibility of the Architects and Engineers to provide designs that are aesthetically pleasing as well as practical and provide for an added degree of safety in terms of types of construction.
I would not advocate a requirement for ICF construction in any area but it seems like good Architects and Engineers would encourage it in those areas like Tahoe in doing diligence with their customers/clients. There are ways to minimize the additional “costs” that are associated with ICF construction. If enough demand is there….those additional costs will be reduced proportionately.
