“Now, this most extravagant of American cities faces a growing perception that it has reached a limit [...]. Many believe that the implications - scientific, economic, medical, social, technological and political - of L.A.’s environmental confrontation foreshadow the showdown awaiting the entire world. That raises the question: If, with all its wealth, Los Angeles can’t save itself, can anyplace?” [1]

INTRODUCTION : A CITY IN CRISIS

​[Image 1] 

​

Los Angeles is a city shaped by overlapping crises. Wildfires, earthquakes, and floods only become disasters when they interact with the city’s existing social, political, and economic vulnerabilities embedded in its urban fabric. [2] The design of Los Angeles has amplified its exposure to these environmental hazards. A century of profit-driven expansion and speculative growth has prioritized development over resilience, while zoning policies rooted in racial and class exclusion have segregated communities and concentrated marginalized populations. These systemic issues, combined with transportation shifts and land-use decisions, have entrenched inequalities and deepened risk. Compounded by accelerating climate change impacts, these factors intensify the city’s vulnerability to devastation.

​

The recent wildfires exposed the unsustainable practices that have shaped Los Angeles’ landscape. These fires serve as a warning and a catalyst for comprehensive change - an opportunity to transform Los Angeles into a more resilient, equitable city. To understand how it can evolve, one must first look back at the historical decisions - particularly those involving zoning, transportation, and development that created these vulnerabilities and continue to hinder resilience efforts.

​

THE ORIGIN OF VULNERABILITY

​

The historical narrative of Los Angeles has been shaped by cycles of exploitation, displacement, and transformation. Long before Spanish colonization began in 1771, the region was home to the Tongva, Chumash, and other Indigenous peoples, who lived in relationship with the land for thousands of years. Their largest village, Iyáangá, meaning ‘Valley of Smoke,’ sat in what is now the Los Angeles Basin. [3] This name underscores the enduring environmental challenges, particularly recurring smoke from wildfires that continue to affect the city.

​

In the early 20th century, Los Angeles experienced rapid growth; between 1900 and 1930, the population increased from 100,000 to over a million, making it one of the fastest-growing urban centers globally. [4] This growth was fueled by transcontinental railroads, the real estate industry, the film industry, irrigation systems that supported agriculture, and the discovery of oil. Yet this boom came with consequences: unchecked suburban sprawl, heavy reliance on the automobile, and rising exposure to environmental risks like poor air quality and risk of wildfire. [5] Much of Los Angeles’ sprawl can be traced back to the dismantling of its extensive streetcar network in the 1920s and 30s. This shift was influenced by powerful oil and automobile companies seeking to expand their markets. These corporations are believed to have orchestrated the buyout and destruction of the existing transit network, all to maximize profits and, in turn, shape the entire future fabric of the city. [6]

​

Alongside these transportation changes, early zoning policies introduced in the 1900s increasingly codified racial and economic segregation by legally restricting where different racial and socioeconomic groups could live. Laundries owned by Chinese immigrants were among the early targets of restricted land uses, marking the origins of racially motivated land policies in Los Angeles. [7]  Over time, single-family zoning became a tool to prevent economically disadvantaged communities of color from entering predominantly white neighborhoods - a practice that spread across California and beyond. Today, 76% of Los Angeles’ residential land remains zoned for single-family housing, resulting in large lots, expensive homes, and limited opportunities for affordable, diverse multi-unit housing options. [8] 

​

This zoning pattern has not only contributed to the city’s housing crisis but also reflects a broader cultural attachment to the single-family suburban home model. Since mass production of these homes began in the late 1940s, they have become the American dream of economic success and upward mobility - shaping economic, social, and political life across the country and making it difficult to imagine alternatives that break from this ideal. [9] This cultural attachment also fuels significant resistance to zoning reform. Homeowners often oppose higher-density or more affordable housing typologies, fearing a loss of property value, neighborhood character and safety, or social status. Such opposition reinforces existing zoning policies, perpetuating exclusionary housing patterns and complicating efforts to address the housing crisis.

​

The spatial distribution of wealth, land use, and wildfire risk in Los Angeles reveals its layered vulnerabilities. Image 3 maps the concentration of high-income households, primarily clustered in certain areas of the city. When overlaid with wildfire risk zones [Image 4], it becomes clear that many affluent communities occupy wildfire-prone areas, underscoring the tension between desirable living environments and environmental hazards. As has been observed, Los Angeles has deliberately put itself in harm’s way; historic wildfire corridors have been transformed into view-lot suburbs that prioritize scenic and profitable development over safety and resilience. [10] Meanwhile, [Image 5] illustrates the dominance of single-family zoning across the city, restricting housing diversity and perpetuating socioeconomic segregation. Together, these maps visually depict how historical zoning policies and economic stratification intersect with environmental risks, shaping the lived realities of residents across Los Angeles.

​

These historic, political, and spatial vulnerabilities heighten risk from natural events that are occurring more frequently than ever before. Such man-made vulnerabilities are the dependent variable of disaster and can, therefore, be prevented or mitigated. [11] The January 2025 wildfires in Altadena and Pacific Palisades starkly illustrated these intersecting vulnerabilities, revealing how the city continues to struggle with long-standing systemic weaknesses, especially when compounded with environmental events. [Image 6,7,8]

​

CASE STUDIES: RECENT WILDFIRES IN ALTADENA & PACIFIC PALISADES ​

​

The Eaton and Pacific Palisades Fires of January 2025, though highly destructive, present opportunities for regeneration and resilience through thoughtful and deliberate action. Fire holds a complex, multi-species history; it is both a vital ecological force sustaining natural processes and an agent capable of significant disruption. Its material and symbolic significance - what it both enables and threatens - remains deeply contested amid contemporary environmental crises. [12] In Los Angeles, this duality is especially pronounced: human decisions around land use, zoning, and development have transformed fire from a regenerative force into a catalyst for social and ecological challenges. These fires thus reflect deeper, systemic vulnerabilities rather than simply being “natural events.”

​

The Eaton Fire, impacting Altadena just north of downtown, became the second most destructive wildfire in California’s history, destroying over 11,000 structures. West Altadena, a historically Black neighborhood, faced disproportionate impacts due in part to delayed evacuation orders. By contrast, East Altadena, a wealthier and predominantly white area, received earlier evacuation notices. [13] This disparity highlights ongoing environmental justice concerns that marginalized communities continue to face in Los Angeles. In response, several community-led initiatives have emerged focusing on grassroots emergency preparedness, equitable resource distribution, and advocacy for inclusive evacuation protocols to better protect vulnerable populations in future crises.

​

In Pacific Palisades, evacuation efforts were complicated by narrow canyon roads, leading to severe traffic congestion that forced many residents to abandon their vehicles and flee on foot through smoky conditions. Since the 1970s, the Pacific Palisades Community Council has raised concerns about inadequate evacuation infrastructure that poses risks to public safety. Despite these longstanding warnings, development has continued, influenced by economic interests that have sometimes taken precedence over safety considerations. Fire officials and city traffic officers have acknowledged the challenges posed by overdevelopment and the insufficiency of current infrastructure to support safe evacuations. [14] Addressing these complex issues requires recognizing the interplay of political, economic, and safety priorities, alongside community input and investments in infrastructure improvements to enable more effective emergency responses.

​

The post-fire rebuilding process has also faced significant challenges. As of April 2025, only a few rebuilding permits had been issued, leaving many residents displaced. [15] Rising rebuilding costs, limited insurance coverage, and widespread underinsurance have priced many homeowners out of their neighborhoods. This has allowed developers to acquire land at low prices, raising concerns about potential displacement and exclusion of former residents.

​

Additionally, many homes damaged by smoke remain uninhabitable due to toxic ash and residue. Materials such as treated wood, plastics, and insulation release harmful chemicals when burned, complicating environmental cleanup and recovery efforts. Residents often face costly environmental testing requirements to access insurance payouts, further delaying their return and recovery. Families must navigate difficult choices between living in unsafe conditions, paying for remediation themselves, or facing displacement. This bureaucratic deadlock leaves many in limbo, highlighting systemic challenges in disaster recovery. [16]

​

In light of these issues, advocacy groups and policymakers are pushing for reforms aimed at streamlining rebuilding permits, improving insurance frameworks, and mandating stronger fire-resistant construction standards. Community organizations are also calling for investment in affordable housing to ensure equitable recovery and prevent displacement. These efforts emphasize the need for systemic change to break the cycle of vulnerability and exclusion that continues to affect wildfire-impacted neighborhoods. [Image 9] 

​

RETHINKING BUILDING MATERIALS

​

Central to the challenges of the current rebuilding efforts is the building industry’s persistent focus on profit, cost-cutting, and short-term solutions over the long-term strength and sustainability needed to address climate change. In the aftermath of devastating events, the response has primarily been to rebuild as quickly and cheaply as possible, often using materials that fail to provide the lasting resilience required to withstand future climate crises. Los Angeles needs to address both its physical and social infrastructure, ensuring more equitable recovery for all communities. [17]

​

Current rebuilding strategies reflect a broader problem: an overemphasis on efficiency and profit margins at the expense of durability and sustainability. For decades, the building industry has leaned heavily on mass production techniques and low-cost materials that contribute to the short lifespan and vulnerability of buildings. While these materials designed for rapid assembly may suffice, they fail to account for the increasing risks posed by natural disasters, ensuring that the cycle of vulnerability is repeated. 

​

One significant barrier to meaningful change in the rebuilding process is the limited availability and widespread adoption of climate-resilient materials. Sustainable options like hempcrete, bamboo, and rammed earth exist, yet they remain largely sidelined in favor of established construction practices. Synthetic materials such as treated wood, plastics, and insulation dominate the market, despite their negative environmental impact and lack of durability in the long term. 

​

The construction industry’s reluctance to embrace alternative, sustainable materials is compounded by the absence of institutional support for these changes. Outdated building codes and regulations continue to favor profit-driven construction techniques, while the long-term benefits of climate-resilient materials are largely ignored. Government policies often lag behind the growing need for reform, resulting in a situation where the status quo persists despite the mounting evidence that change is necessary. Without substantial efforts to overhaul building codes and create incentives for developers to adopt sustainable materials, the rebuilding process will likely repeat the same mistakes of the past.

​

At the heart of these challenges lies the commodification of housing. American culture has transformed housing from a fundamental human need into a financial asset, often at the expense of long-term safety and resilience. This profit-driven approach, while benefiting developers and contractors in the short term, contributes to the ongoing cycle of vulnerability that exacerbates the impact of natural disasters. For residents of wildfire-prone areas like Los Angeles, this means that the homes being rebuilt today may not be the homes they can depend on in the future. [Image 10] 

​

TOWARDS SHIFTING LANDSCAPES​

Los Angeles stands out among American cities for the extreme extent to which certain urban development patterns have fully materialized. [18] This exceptional growth, much like the natural role of fire in ecosystems that clears space for renewal, calls for embracing new possibilities in the city’s future evolution - possibilities centered on affordable housing, ecological design, and land-use practices rooted in the needs and priorities of local communities. 

​

One key opportunity for urban renewal in Los Angeles is the development of affordable housing, particularly in areas historically zoned for single-family homes. California’s 2021 Senate Bill 9 allows up to four units on these lots, promoting greater density. This shift can help ease housing shortages, reduce sprawl, and foster vibrant, diverse neighborhoods while respecting existing urban scale. New housing models can incorporate shared spaces, communal living, and multi-family units that encourage interaction and collaboration, offering affordable, socially, and environmentally sustainable options.

​

Alternative models, such as downsizing or shared, multi-unit living, enable residents to remain in their communities despite financial pressures. These strategies support neighborhood continuity but often require guidance, creative problem-solving, and flexibility in relief of restrictive zoning policies. Architects and planners play a crucial role in facilitating these discussions, helping communities envision solutions that balance affordability with long-term cohesion.

​

Alongside affordability, ecological design is essential for cities to coexist with the environment. As Los Angeles grows, development that disregards nature is no longer viable. The city can also learn from Indigenous practices, which emphasized local materials and harmony with the land, offering enduring lessons in resilience and sustainability. This knowledge reminds us that balanced, regenerative living is possible and can enrich contemporary urban planning.

​

For example, in parts of Eastern Europe, there is historical evidence that indigenous communities regularly burned their houses made of earth. This practice is theorized to have multiple potential purposes, such as strengthening the structures by essentially ‘ceramifying’ the earthen walls and possibly cleansing the buildings of disease or pests. [19] This example highlights the complex existing relationship between fire and architecture, where fire is not always destructive but also regenerative and protective. Such traditional knowledge broadens the understanding of how fire has always emphasized renewal and resilience in architectural practices.

​

Urban development cannot progress without meaningful policy reform. Though momentum for change exists, outdated codes and rigid regulations still limit the adoption of innovative design and sustainable materials. Flexible policy frameworks that encourage experimentation and calculated risk are essential to overcoming these barriers. Germany’s emerging “Gebäudetyp E” program reflects this shift by offering architects and builders a legal pathway to test alternative construction methods, materials, and energy strategies outside conventional codes. [20] This regulatory flexibility fosters innovation and challenges assumptions about safety, cost, and design, paving the way for transformative architectural practices. By supporting experimental prototypes that can be built, evaluated, and refined, such programs accelerate the shift toward more sustainable, affordable, and resilient construction. Creating this kind of regulatory space is critical for building equity and resilience, especially as cities face climate risks and housing shortages. Ultimately, the future of Los Angeles is not just about current recovery - but about reimagining urban life to meet the challenges of the future.

​

CONCLUSION : FROM CRISIS TO RESILIENCE​

​

“The ultimate world-historical significance - and oddity - of Los Angeles is that it has come to play the double role of utopia and dystopia for advanced capitalism.” [21] 

​

Los Angeles has always resisted conventional models of urban development, and perhaps this is its most defining feature. [22] Its sprawling geography, fragmented infrastructure, and layered cultural landscapes expose the enduring influence of past decisions on the vulnerabilities and challenges the city now faces. These risks are not incidental; they are the accumulated weight of historical patterns - of exclusionary zoning, car dependence, privatized space, and uneven access to resources - that have shaped the city’s form and function. Yet within these contradictions lies its complex potential. The same processes that have produced LA’s fractures have also given rise to its dynamism, its diversity of voices, and its capacity for reinvention. Rather than offering simple answers or definitive solutions, any meaningful consideration of LA’s future must begin with an honest reckoning with these interwoven legacies.

​

The lessons of Los Angeles - its tensions between growth and scarcity, freedom and inequality, innovation and neglect - are not confined to this city alone. As a symbol of global urban life under capitalism, Los Angeles reflects dilemmas that resonate far beyond its boundaries. Its story suggests that the future is not a break from the past, but a continuation shaped by memory, struggle, and the slow evolution of values and priorities. To imagine what might come next is not to prescribe a single path, but to remain attentive to these connections - to see how risk and possibility are inseparable, and how the weight of history both limits and enables new forms of life. In this recognition, hope remains possible - not as a guaranteed outcome, but as an ongoing process shaped by collective awareness, critical reflection, and the shared endeavor of imagining otherwise. If Los Angeles can meet this challenge, it could lead a global reimagining of the urban future. In its contradictions lies its opportunity.
 

[2] Haigh and Amaratunga (2011), p.288.

[3] McCawley (1996), p.45.

[4] Keil (1998), p.52.

[15] Farberov (2025).

[18] Davis (2006), p.6.

[20] Launched in December 2023, the pilot supports 19 experimental projects and has federal approval for broader implementation in 2025. For details, see: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geb%C3%A4udetyp_E.

References

​

Four Ecologies. 2nd ed. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009).

Chico, David, Berkeley and the Origins of Single-Family Zoning (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2020).

Davis, Mike, City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. (London, UK: Verso, 2006).

Davis, Mike, Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1999).

Feuerstein, Christiane, Turnaround Urbanism: Perspektivwechsel und Transformation in Downtown Los Angeles (Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript, 2019).

Haraway, Donna, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016).

Hayden, Dolores, Redesigning the American Dream: The Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life (New York, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1986).

Haigh, Richard, and Dilanthi Amaratunga (eds.), Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment: Rebuilding for Resilience (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).

Keil, Roger, Los Angeles: Globalization, Urbanization and Social Struggles (Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1998).

McCawley, William, The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles (Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 1996).

Minke, Gernot, “Rammed Earth Construction: A Review of Past, Present and Future.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 31, 2012, pp. 123–136. 

Rothstein, Richard, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (New York, New York: Liveright, 2017).

Online References

Castleman, Terry, and Grace Toohey. ‘As Western Altadena Waited Hours for Evacuation Orders, Fire Commanders Faced Utter Chaos.’ Los Angeles Times, (1 Feb. 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-01/eaton-fire-mobile-command-center-delayed-evacuations (accessed 15 April 2025).

Farberov, Snejana. ‘Los Angeles Approves Just 4 Permits to Rebuild in Pacific Palisades After Nearly 7,000 Burned in Wildfires.’ New York Post, (27 Mar. 2025), https://nypost.com/2025/03/27/real-estate/l-a-approves-4-permits-to-rebuild-in-pacific-palisades-after-fires/ (accessed 15 April 2025).

Gutierrez, Melody, Nathan Fenno and Paige St. John. ‘Escape from the Palisades’: Split-second decision-making, confusing responses.’ Los Angeles Times (7 Jan. 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-07/run-for-your-lives-motorists-trying-to-flee-pacific-palisades-faces-flames-chaos-danger (accessed 15 April 2025).

Phillips, Anna.‘These L.A. Homeowners Had Coverage for Fire. But Not for the Toxins Left Behind.’The Washington Post, 21 Feb. 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2025/02/21/los-angeles-fire-insurance-smoke-damage/ (accessed 5 May 2025).

Weisman, Alan, ‘L.A. Fights for Breath’, The New York Times Magazine, (30 July 1989), p.15. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/30/magazine/la-fights-for-breath.html (accessed 6 May 2025).

Image Sources

Facsenator, Yard sign at burnt down property (2025). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Altadena_Not_for_Sale_sign_post-Eaton_Fire.jpg (accessed 14 April 2025).

Google Earth, Altadena Before Eaton Fire December 2, 2023 (2023). https://earth.google.com/web (accessed April 14, 2025).

Google Earth, Altadena During Eaton Fire January 9, 2025 (2025). https://earth.google.com/web (accessed April 14, 2025).

Google Earth, Altadena After Eaton Fire January 20, 2025 (2025). https://earth.google.com/web (accessed April 14, 2025).

Peterson, Melanie for U.S. Army Corps for Engineers, Brick Chimneys Remain (2025).  https://www.dvidshub.net/image/9075076/debris-removal-pacific-palisades (accessed June 21, 2025).

Pontius, D.W. & Pacific Electric Railway Co. Lines of the Pacific Electric Railway in Southern California. (1912). https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~290319~90061883%3ALines-of-the-Pacific-Electric-Railw# (accessed June 21, 2025).
 

​