[giantg2]

If I remember correctly, those protections are tailored mostly to interior fires. I believe there are additonal recommendations (not required in code) for homes in fire prone areas.

Edit: when I say not in code, I mean not in the IBC. I think CA has their own code for fire prone areas. I'm not sure if that code only applies to rural areas or not. One would hope that it applies universally and the rebuilding will be done with the fire hardening methods. Insurance might influence reconstruction too.

[kneath]

Chapter 7 addresses both interior and exterior fires. Exterior fires are a danger to buildings everywhere (see: Great Chicago Fire).

[giantg2]

Yeah, but the external shit is basically "if it's wood, is it treated with fire retardant". It's not like vinyl siding is great for fires.

[kneath]

Not going to enter into anymore baiting, but no — that is not at all the extent of Chapter 7's protections against external fire.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2018/chapter-7-fire-and...

[SkyPuncher]

I don't think the other commenting is baiting.

My understanding is building code primarily focuses on (1) primarily keeping occupants safe long enough to get out of the house (e.g. material must have a minimum fire resistance duration) (2) keeping emergency responders safe when entering a house fire (e.g. stair hand rails cannot be open to avoid snagging fire fighter clothes or hoses). Once these two tasks are done, the code doesn't really care if the house burns to the ground.

Further, these codes are often the reference base used nationally. They're a reasonably safe base, but different location may add more requirements.

The Wildland Codes are specifically for wildfires, which burn longer and more intensely.

[giantg2]

Not baiting. You can compare chapter 7 to the CA wildlands code and see the dramatic difference in fire prevention. As others have pointed out, the newer construction made under the code you are referencing are still burning to ground.