This is also climate dependent, though. Most of CT, VT, MA, NY, PA, NH, ME are essentially tactless forests separated by small meadows. Where I grew up in CT, if we did not prune the forest, it would encroach about 5-10ft/year into our lawns. if you truly didn't mow, it might have been twice or three times that.

Also when I grew up we'd make burn piles once a year to burn all the deadwood that came down around the property. It was often impossible to light those piles of wood without kerosene since everything was so wet.

I think a lot of the forest living is inspired by places like VT and CT where building in a forest is fine and safe. In the middle of a pine forest in northern CA is a totally different ecosystem and can't be treated the same.

> No one likes their house burned down.

Then trim vegetation from your house at least 30'/10m, and keep things tidy out to at least 100'/30m:

* https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-re...

* https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/...

Make sure there are no dries leaves or pine needles gathered in places, ensure that your attic vent is properly screened from embers, that flammable furniture (e.g., cushions) is not laying about too close to the house.

Lots of simple, preventative measures that people can do to increase their odds.

That’s really not enough, forest fires are basically distributed denial of service attack. A tiny spark which wouldn’t be a significant issue on it’s own can destroy a house when nobody is there actively protecting it.

Clearing vegetation and material selection can make a huge difference, just don’t expect a normal house to be ok anywhere near a fire.

Embers are actually the things that cause the most damage:

* https://www.intermap.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/2015/03/does-y...

* https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/embers-cause-up-to-90-of...

It seems that by dealing with anything on/near your structure that can be ignited by them can reduce risk by quite a lot.

A big enough fire, which is what you get with tall, overcrowded trees, will set many houses on fire from hundreds of yards away - even if no embers or anything else land on the house.

It is really amazing the amount of heat released, and how quickly, in one of these fires.

The three main sources of ignition during a wildfire are embers, direct flame contact, and radiant heat. This is why the FPA and others have the three different zones, of particular distances, where they recommend doing particular things. House can survive large quantities of radiant heat:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq6wy_tffpg

Quite often what happens with radiant heat is that it breaks a window, which then allows embers to go into the house and set it alight. Embers are actually the things that cause the most damage:

* https://www.intermap.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/2015/03/does-y...

* https://ibhs.org/ibhs-news-releases/embers-cause-up-to-90-of...

On the other hand radiant heat often kills people the most (e.g., through heat stroke).

It’s also pretty wasteful when you think about it. How much energy could we harness if we simply allowed logging and used the wood for heating, construction, or electricity.

Near me is a very picturesque mountain town, I would love to live there. However the houses are just woven into the forest, its only a matter of time until the entire place goes up in flame.

Yes, it is a beautiful way to build. It's also completely indefensible in event of a wildfire.

>I think building lots of houses in forests, is a similar problem as when people build lots of houses in flood plains.

So is the Bay Area a good place to build houses? Santa Rosa, CA?

The cost for permission from Sonoma County to build a family home in Santa Rosa can approach $60k.

I was being facetious.

The previous poster was comparing building California homes near trees to the folks who build on flood plains.

A natural expansion of that tells you that you can't build in Santa Rosa (Tubbs Fire), Oakland hills (more fires), the Bay Area (earthquakes, someday the Hayward Fault will let loose), or really much of anywhere near the coast (rising sea levels, California Coastal Commission has decided that protecting your property with water barriers is no bueno).

The unfortunate reality is that some of this may be true. Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage. If the property is untenable after 20 years then the owner is out a good chunk of money.

This isn’t a big deal when property is cheap and can be paid off within 5-10 years, and rebuilt. But housing has become dramatically more expensive relative to cash flow than it has been historically.

> Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage.

With a cheap enough house, it's just the thing. Spend all of your money on land.

Maybe the future is in RVs. If they let me get away with it, I can see scraping a parking pad in Big Sur and sticking a motorhome on it. Relatively earthquake-proof. Fire? Simply drive away. Vacations to the desert can be slept in your own bed. Want to live the classic life? Buy a GMC Motorhome.

Maybe those behemoths make sense. Live the Jim Rockford lifestyle.