Center: 1200 Getty Center Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90049
Villa: 17985 Pacific Coast Highway, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
"The Getty Center, situated in Brentwood, draws 1.8 million visitors annually and houses hundreds of centuries-old art pieces from renowned artists such as Van Gogh, Rembrandt and Monet.
But even though as of Saturday, the center was included in a mandatory evacuation zone as a result of the Palisades Fire expansion into Brentwood, the center insisted its campus is the "safest place possible" for its massive art collection."
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/heres-how-the-getty...
This news report links the the article posted.
As of my check right now (1/12/25, noon Pacific Time), the Palisades Fire is still only 11% contained, so it's not yet over.
You totally showed them
Here, at work, in real life. People just argue with whatever dumb thing they can come up with, for the sake of arguing, it makes them feel smart. It's really hard to have a meaningful conversation with them.
I go to a couple philosophical discussion groups and the occasional town hall meeting. People just can't get their imaginary needs satisfied.
"But that area seems unsafe"
"We could hire a security guard to be around"
"But what if the security guard is a criminal, like in that one episode of muh favorite tv show"
"We could do an extensive background check, work with companies that have a good reputation, ..."
"But what if they make all that up, I saw that in a movie"
And nothing. ever. gets. done.
Btw, I've even seen people get a small round of applause by their peers after making one of such arguments irl. This comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn200lvmTZc.
Having heard about wildfire policies for some high-profile institutions in fire-prone areas, they'll often have their own procedures, in coordination with local authorities, which may not involve evacuating when others do, and may involve people coming to the site when others are evacuating.
I enjoy the villa at least as much as the main center. It would be a huge loss.
I found this interesting too - https://www.getty.edu/news/the-hidden-engineering-protecting...
An article about their approach to earthquake protection.
In both cases it looks like they’re leading these sorts of engineering developments.
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-cultu...
Now, they've had days to prepare for this, and apparently have plenty of contingencies in place, but this is still relevant the fire could get there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0876669,-118.5930521,12z/dat...
It's also relevant because the Getty Center has been rather smug about how awesome their fire protection is.
I think your "smug" comment is unwarranted. They put a ton of solid engineering thought, money and planning into protecting the center from fire. Nothing is 100% but I think their confidence is warranted.
Related, the Getty Villa right in the middle of the Palisades also put a lot of thought, planning and money into fire prevention, and despite being directly in the path of the Palisades firestorm, no structures on the Villa burned
A "stone facade" doesn't stop +1200 degree temperatures, especially when everything on the outside will undergo incredible thermal expansion and at the least open up gaps. Steel expands about 1-2% for just an increase to 100 degrees C. 300C means about 3-4% expansion. And then there's the huge expanses of windows which will shatter or pop out - and even if they don't, the intense IR radiation will by and large go through them.
People don't realize just how insanely hot wildfires get. Go look at the pictures of neighborhoods that have burnt- they're leveled with the exception of some chimneys, steel girders for houses that have them (most these days don't, builders have been using wood-composite beams) iron fences, car bodies. Everything else is burned or melted.
There isn't a building in the world that will stop the megawatts of heat energy per square meter wildfires can generate in IR radiation.
Just out of sheer curiosity, I would be tremendously curious to understand what kind of personal/professional background/experience you have that would qualify you to certify their emergency systems as functionally ineffective and their messaging "smug".
Here is a story about a bunch of people who survived the Camp fire in Paradise, CA, surrounded by the raging inferno, by staying in the middle of a parking lot: https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/wildland/news/...
However, in incidents like e.g. the Fort McMurray fire (Alberta, 2016), this is precisely what happens. One property with a heavy fuel load fanned by strong winds (i.e. plentiful O2 supply) gets hot enough that it causes ignition in a neighboring exposure.
In Ft. McMurray, there were documented cases of an entire 4+ bedroom house being reduced to ash in roughly 5 minutes. The heat generated by that process is easily sufficient to cause ignition in buildings <typical suburban layout> apart.
Comment I was replying to was talking about IR igniting things by shining through windows, which I believe is mostly bullshit.
Even modest fire hardening would help. If a wood-frame house burns, it is a danger to all nearby houses. Hardening reduces the chain reaction potential.
I’m guessing there’s a pretty good reason no one put these in museums/ they tried and they didn’t work.
I tend to think of property insurance companies having goals that are the most “morally aligned” with the goals of civilization.
They don’t want fires, floods, etc to happen, or they lose money. They spend a lot of money researching climate patterns and construction standards, lobby for climate policies and new building standards, etc.
I’m sure insuring a museum and the risk of a payout is a dicey endeavor. The companies insuring them have probably lit many mock-museums on fire to decide what suppression system/ designs they’ll insure
Gaseous fire suppression systems have numerous requirements that make them unsuited for a large publicly accessible space. There's oxygen displacement; most of them are "nontoxic" to breathe but still displace oxygen, so you have to have various measures to keep from killing people - that could range from delayed discharge up to SCBA stations (and staff training, maintenance, etc.)
The other problem is that you need sufficient concentration of the agent; the concentration varies, and some need higher concentrations (and better sealing) than others. That means quite a lot of work if the space/building wasn't built with it in mind. Even for a relatively small and simple server room, gaseous fire suppression installation is expensive and a general pain in the ass.
The systems are intended for spaces that aren't normally occupied. Vaults/storage for example, and industrial spaces (electrical substations, for example.)
The vast majority of fire suppression events I've heard of (in a DC or similar environment) are unintentional, meaning the halon wouldn't be toxic (according to my potentially flawed memory).
Certainly, if there's been a legit fire suppression event, you wait for people with the hard-hats to clear the facility. Of course, you should do the same if there's been a no-fire suppression event, but ideally your fire suppression mechanism doesn't kill the people in the room needlessly...
They may have a system like that in a vault but not for the whole facility.