Twelve months after devastating wildfires tore through parts of Los Angeles, researchers are still uncovering lessons from one of the most destructive urban fire disasters in modern history.
The fires shocked communities worldwide, including in Australia, by showing how quickly flames can overwhelm dense suburbs and how vulnerable modern cities can be to extreme fire conditions.
The fires broke out in early January 2025, a time of year when wildfires are usually less common.
But unusually dry conditions combined with ferocious winds, reaching nearly 160 kilometres per hour, created a perfect storm.
Dozens of fires ignited, with two major blazes — the Palisades and Eaton fires — spreading rapidly through neighbouring suburbs. Instead of burning through forests alone, the fires jumped from house to house in a process known as conflagration.
In total, about 37,000 acres burned and more than 16,000 buildings were destroyed. According to Swiss Re, the event became the costliest wildfire disaster ever recorded globally, with insured losses estimated at 40 billion US dollars.
That figure far exceeded losses from Australia’s Black Summer bushfires.
Although official records listed 31 direct deaths, later research painted a far grimmer picture. Studies linked around 440 indirect deaths to the fires, driven by poor air quality, stress, disrupted healthcare, and mental health impacts. One hospital in Los Angeles even recorded a 46 percent increase in heart attack admissions in the three months following the fires.
Researchers found that the built environment played a major role in the scale of destruction. Many homes were built before California’s wildfire building codes came into effect in 2008, meaning they lacked modern fire-resistant features.
Dense housing, flammable materials near buildings, and limited space between homes allowed flames and embers to spread rapidly. Even when homes had some fire-resistant features, these were often undermined by weak points such as windows, vents, or nearby vegetation.
Studies from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety and the Berkeley Fire Research Lab showed that no single measure is enough to protect homes.
The most effective protection came from a combination of actions, including better building design, retrofitting older homes, increasing separation between structures, and removing flammable materials close to buildings.
Clearing combustible materials within just 1.2 metres of a house was shown to significantly reduce the risk of destruction.
These findings have driven new policy debates in California. Authorities, including CAL FIRE, are moving toward stricter rules known as “Zone 0,” which aims to create a fuel-free area immediately around homes.
While some residents have pushed back, arguing that gardens can be protective or that vegetation removal worsens heat, research shows that even well-watered plants can ignite during extreme fires.
The implications for Australia are serious. Australian cities have also experienced urban bushfire disasters, such as the 1967 Hobart fires and the 2003 Canberra fires. Like California, many Australian homes were not designed for bushfire conditions, and development continues to expand into high-risk areas.
Research supported by Natural Hazards Research Australia and led by University of Tasmania suggests that Australia would benefit from a similar focus on the area closest to homes, where small changes can make a big difference. Scientists argue that voluntary guidelines alone are not enough.
Experts now say Australia needs a coordinated national approach to housing resilience, including clearer standards, better communication from fire agencies, and stronger incentives such as subsidies, insurance discounts, or low-interest loans.
As climate change drives more extreme fire weather, the lesson from Los Angeles is clear: when fires enter cities, preparation at the household and neighbourhood level can mean the difference between survival and catastrophe.
