The Los Angeles Wildfires: Why Local Conditions Are Ignored in Construction

By Mika Horelli, BRUSSELS    

An old tale tells the story of three little pigs who each built a house for themselves. The big bad wolf blew down the first two houses, but the third house – made of bricks – withstood the wolf’s attacks. While this story originates from European folklore and is most widely known in its English rendition, its lesson is more relevant than ever: weak structures pose real dangers, especially in the face of today’s natural disasters.

The historic wildfires in Los Angeles have once again destroyed thousands of homes, including luxury residences owned by millionaires. According to the latest reports, damages from early this year have already exceeded $50 billion (€46 billion or £40 billion), with over 2,000 buildings lost.

California’s annual wildfires are a well-known phenomenon, yet buildings are still not designed to withstand them. Why does the U.S. fail to incorporate local environmental conditions into construction practices, even when the risks are so clear?

Economic and Cultural Barriers to Resilient Construction

The first explanation is money. Disaster-resistant construction is more expensive, and both developers and buyers often prioritize short-term costs over long-term benefits. For example, building a hurricane-resistant home can cost up to 15% more than a standard house. At the same time, insurance companies often justify higher premiums for resilient buildings, even though their long-term benefits are undeniable.

When I visited Biloxi, Mississippi, in 2006 to report on Hurricane Katrina reconstruction, I was shocked to see houses still being built from cheap particleboard covered with faux-sturdy finishes. When I inquired why, locals explained that banks wouldn’t finance storm-resistant construction. Everything had to be as cheap as possible. Only those who didn’t need loans could afford to build properly.

Cultural factors also play a significant role in perpetuating poor construction practices. Many regions cling to traditional building methods, resisting change even as climate conditions and associated risks evolve. People often underestimate the likelihood and severity of natural disasters. In California, despite efforts to improve building codes, many still construct homes in fire-prone areas. Political will is also often insufficient to enforce necessary changes.

The U.S. lacks national, uniform building codes. Regulations vary by state and even local jurisdictions, leading to significant disparities in building resilience. While Florida has made strides in preparing for hurricanes, California has yet to adopt widespread measures to address wildfire resilience.

Weak enforcement compounds the problem. Even where stricter regulations exist, compliance is often poorly monitored. Building industry oversight is not a priority in many areas, and local authorities frequently lack the resources or determination to oversee construction projects adequately. This enables the continued use of cheaper, riskier building methods.

Many Americans rely on insurance to cover disaster damages instead of investing in more durable structures. This risk transfer to insurance companies might seem attractive in the short term, but it fails to address the underlying problem in the long run. With natural disasters becoming more frequent, rising insurance premiums have left many households uninsured. When disasters strike, the financial consequences are even more devastating.

Is Europe Smarter?

In Europe, building codes are generally stricter and more consistent than in the U.S., but challenges persist here as well. In the Netherlands, where much of the land lies below sea level, flood risks are taken very seriously. Flood protection extends to both infrastructure and building design. Foundations are reinforced, and new residential areas are developed comprehensively with water resilience in mind.

Southern Europe faces a more complex situation. For example, earthquakes are common in Greece. While building codes require earthquake-resistant structures, older buildings often lack adequate maintenance. Post-crisis austerity measures have further delayed necessary improvements.

In Nordic countries, construction often focuses on cold climates and energy efficiency. Denmark is a leader in sustainable construction. In Copenhagen, flood barriers are integrated with urban improvements, such as green spaces and water management systems. Tåsinge Plads, for example, has been redesigned to absorb heavy rainfall and prevent flooding. Similar innovations could be applied to other cities across Europe.

In the Alps, buildings have traditionally been designed to withstand avalanches and extreme weather. Modern construction continues this legacy by incorporating innovative solutions such as roofs that can bear heavy snow and natural barriers to protect settlements.

Despite the issues in the U.S., innovative solutions are being developed there, including smart materials and modular construction that can expedite post-disaster rebuilding. Europe could benefit from U.S. expertise, particularly in leveraging AI and data for risk management and building design.

Toward a More Resilient Future

FEMA studies in the U.S. show that adhering to modern building codes could prevent over $600 billion (€552 billion or £480 billion) in cumulative disaster losses by 2060. Meanwhile, Europe’s Green Deal and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive aim to enhance building sustainability against natural disasters.

Achieving change requires political will, stricter building codes, and better enforcement. Public attitudes must also shift to recognize the long-term benefits of resilient construction. Banks and insurers play a crucial role, as they should incentivize more sustainable building practices through their financing and insurance policies.

As climate change intensifies, the risk of natural disasters will only grow. Neither the U.S. nor Europe can afford to maintain the status quo. Resilient construction is not just an environmental issue but also an economic and human necessity. It’s time to move away from short-term thinking and build for a future that can withstand storms and wildfires – on both sides of the Atlantic.