Iterative Systems Inquiry: Post-Fire Community Rebuilding in Altadena

Phase 1: Exploratory Mapping

System Definition & Boundaries

What system are we attempting to understand or influence? We're exploring the post-fire community rebuilding system in Altadena - the complex web of relationships, resources, processes, and structures that determine how and whether communities recover and regenerate after catastrophic wildfire.

Where do we currently draw the boundaries of this system? Currently, the system boundaries are often drawn around:

  • Physical structures (individual homes)

  • Property lines (individual lots)

  • Insurance and financial recovery

  • The timeframe of immediate rebuilding (1-3 years)

  • The geographic area directly affected by fire

What might we be excluding by drawing these boundaries?

  • Long-term community evolution (10-50 year horizons)

  • Watershed and ecological systems that transcend property lines

  • Cultural and social networks that define "community" beyond physical proximity

  • Regional housing systems that influence recovery options

  • Climate patterns that will shape future fire risk

  • Economic systems that determine resource availability

What larger systems is this nested within?

  • California's climate adaptation system

  • Regional housing and land use systems

  • Global climate change and weather pattern shifts

  • Insurance and financial markets

  • Legal/regulatory frameworks for disaster recovery

  • Economic systems of wealth distribution and property valuation

What subsystems exist within it?

  • Individual household decision-making processes

  • Permitting and regulatory approval workflows

  • Insurance claim and litigation processes

  • Material and labor supply chains

  • Community support networks

  • Public infrastructure reconstruction

  • Information sharing networks

Stakeholder Landscape

Who is affected by this system? Who affects it?

Affected:

  • Homeowners who lost structures

  • Renters displaced by fire

  • Neighborhood businesses

  • Schools and community institutions

  • Surrounding communities receiving displaced residents

  • Future generations who will inherit rebuilt communities

  • Local ecosystems and wildlife

Affecting:

  • Insurance companies

  • Government agencies (local, state, federal)

  • Utilities (especially Southern California Edison)

  • Building industry (contractors, suppliers)

  • Legal system (courts, attorneys)

  • Financial institutions

  • Philanthropic organizations (Steadfast LA, etc.)

  • Media shaping public narratives

Whose voices are dominant? Whose are marginalized?

Dominant:

  • Property owners with significant resources

  • Insurance companies

  • Regulatory authorities

  • Professional experts (architects, engineers, attorneys)

  • Media defining recovery narratives

  • Large contracting firms

Marginalized:

  • Elderly homeowners on fixed incomes

  • Renters without property rights

  • Multi-generational households with complex needs

  • Cultural/historic communities with specific preservation concerns

  • Those with limited English proficiency

  • Those without technical/legal expertise to navigate systems

  • Those without political connections

Who benefits from current arrangements? Who bears the costs?

Benefits:

  • Insurance companies limiting payouts

  • Lawyers collecting contingency fees

  • Investors purchasing distressed properties

  • Developers building higher-value replacement housing

  • Suppliers and contractors with pricing power in shortage

  • Adjacent property owners seeing value increases

Costs:

  • Elderly homeowners unable to navigate recovery

  • Lower-income households facing uninsured losses

  • Communities losing cultural and historical continuity

  • Future residents inheriting less resilient structures

  • Taxpayers subsidizing infrastructure rebuilding

  • Local governments losing tax base during recovery

What different perspectives exist on how the system functions?

  • Insurance View: System works when claims are processed according to policy terms

  • Regulatory View: System works when rebuilding meets updated safety codes

  • Economic View: System works when property values and tax base are restored

  • Homeowner View: System works when families can return to familiar communities

  • Community View: System works when social networks and cultural identity are preserved

  • Ecological View: System works when rebuilding enhances resilience to future fires

  • Equity View: System works when recovery doesn't amplify existing inequalities

How do we ourselves relate to this system?

  • As potential innovators offering alternative rebuilding approaches

  • As observers of system dynamics and failure points

  • As advocates for specific community-preserving solutions

  • As potential partners to existing stakeholders

  • As systems thinkers seeing connections between seemingly separate elements

Historical Context

How has this system evolved over time?

  • Shift from local community-based recovery to professionalized disaster management

  • Evolution from straightforward insurance claims to complex litigation

  • Movement from simple rebuilding to code-compliant reconstruction

  • Transition from affordable recovery to increasingly expensive rebuilding

  • Development of specialized disaster recovery industries and professions

  • Increasing complexity of regulatory requirements

  • Growing influence of climate change on disaster frequency and severity

What key events or turning points have shaped its current state?

  • 1991 Oakland Hills Fire: Revealed urban wildfire vulnerability

  • 2018 Camp Fire (Paradise): Demonstrated catastrophic community-scale loss

  • Recent insurance market retreat from California

  • Implementation of Chapter 7A building codes

  • Court decisions regarding utility liability

  • Creation of California's $21B wildfire fund

  • Historical redlining creating vulnerability patterns

  • Urbanization of wildland-urban interface areas

What patterns have persisted despite attempts at change?

  • Disproportionate recovery rates between wealthy and lower-income households

  • Cycle of rebuilding in vulnerable locations

  • Under-insurance despite educational campaigns

  • Reactive rather than proactive adaptation

  • Emphasis on individual rather than community-scale solutions

  • Focus on structures rather than social systems

  • Prioritization of speed over transformation

  • Rebuilding to prior conditions rather than future conditions

What past interventions have been tried? With what results?

  • Traditional disaster housing (FEMA trailers): Inadequate, temporary, disconnected

  • Insurance reform: Limited success, companies still withdrawing

  • Building code enhancements: Improved structure survivability but increased costs

  • Community rebuilding organizations: Variable success, often dependent on leadership

  • Government buyout programs: Limited adoption, politically challenging

  • Litigation against utilities: Delayed compensation, reduced rebuilding funds

  • Master planning: Often abandoned due to immediate needs

  • Streamlined permitting: Helped with speed but not fundamental challenges

What stories do different stakeholders tell about this history?

  • Insurance Industry: "We can't sustainably cover increasing climate risks"

  • Government: "We're improving codes and regulations to enhance safety"

  • Homeowners: "The system is increasingly stacked against our recovery"

  • Communities: "We're losing our history and character with each disaster"

  • Developers: "This is an opportunity to build back better and more valuable"

  • Environmentalists: "We continue to rebuild in places that will burn again"

  • Social Justice Advocates: "Disasters amplify existing inequalities"

  • Emergency Managers: "We're better prepared but facing worse conditions"

Initial Observations

What visible symptoms or manifestations brought our attention to this system?

  • 9,400+ structures destroyed in the Eaton Fire

  • Slow pace of debris removal and rebuilding

  • Vacant lots appearing on market without rebuilding

  • Disproportionate impact on historically Black neighborhoods

  • Elderly homeowners facing impossible rebuilding hurdles

  • Community organizations forming to address recovery gaps

  • Litigation beginning against Southern California Edison

  • New prefab housing initiatives emerging (Steadfast LA)

  • Insurance companies withdrawing from market

  • Updated fire hazard severity zone maps

What strikes us as surprising or puzzling about the current situation?

  • Disconnect between fire risk models and actual fire behavior

  • Simultaneous housing shortage and rebuilding barriers

  • Empty lots selling for $500K+ despite rebuilding challenges

  • Traditional approaches continuing despite repeated failures

  • Limited innovation in financing/ownership models

  • Gap between stated intentions of helping and actual outcomes

  • Wealth being extracted from community during recovery

  • Dominance of individual property paradigm despite community impacts

What data exists about the system? What data is missing?

Exists:

  • Property ownership records

  • Fire extent and damage assessments

  • Insurance coverage statistics

  • Rebuilding costs estimates

  • Demographics of affected areas

  • Building permit applications/approvals

  • Housing values and market activity

Missing:

  • Community social network mapping

  • Long-term displacement outcomes

  • Mental health impacts of recovery process

  • Cultural asset identification and impact assessment

  • Expected vs. actual recovery timelines

  • True costs of traditional vs. alternative approaches

  • Community preferences for recovery approaches

  • Detailed vulnerability mapping combining social and physical factors

Where do we notice energy, resistance, or stagnation in the system?

Energy:

  • Initial philanthropic response (Steadfast LA, etc.)

  • Community organizing and mutual aid

  • Legal action against utilities

  • Media coverage immediately after disaster

  • Real estate market activity for vacant lots

  • New fire map development

Resistance:

  • Insurance companies withdrawing coverage

  • Regulatory complexity despite streamlining attempts

  • Construction industry capacity limitations

  • Traditional rebuilding paradigms despite changing conditions

  • Property rights absolutism blocking community-scale solutions

Stagnation:

  • Debris removal process

  • Decision-making for vulnerable homeowners

  • Innovation in financing models

  • Adaptation to climate realities

  • Integration of equity considerations in recovery

  • Implementation of known best practices

What feels most alive or most stuck in the current situation?

Most Alive:

  • Community desire to return and rebuild

  • Opportunity for fundamental rethinking

  • New technical approaches to construction

  • Recognition of climate reality

  • Multi-generational connections to place

  • Innovation at the edges of the system

Most Stuck:

  • Binary thinking (rebuild exactly as before or abandon completely)

  • Financial models requiring full capital upfront

  • Property ownership paradigms

  • Individual vs. community-scale solutions

  • Short-term vs. long-term thinking

  • Disconnection between housing and ecological systems

  • Legal and administrative processes

Emerging Insights

Leverage Points

  1. The Critical 12-18 Month Window

    • Mortgage forbearance creates temporary breathing room

    • Opportunity for community-scale planning before individual decisions lock in

    • Space for innovative approaches before traditional rebuilding begins

    • Time to build new systems and relationships

  2. Community-Scale Financial Structures

    • Joint venture models that preserve ownership while enabling density

    • Collective negotiating power with insurance and utilities

    • Shared resources for rebuilding (legal, technical, administrative)

    • Risk pooling across properties

  3. Multi-functional Design Paradigms

    • Housing that generates income while providing shelter

    • Structures that adapt to changing needs and conditions

    • Communities that enhance both human and ecological resilience

    • Property configurations that balance privacy and connection

  4. Permeable System Boundaries

    • Reimagining property lines as zones of integration rather than separation

    • Seeing rebuilding as an ecological and social process, not just structural

    • Extending timelines to include multi-generational thinking

    • Connecting individual recovery to community regeneration

Next Inquiry Directions

  1. Community Network Mapping

    • How do social relationships actually function in Altadena?

    • What informal support systems exist?

    • Which community nodes are most critical to preserve?

    • How do information and resources actually flow?

  2. Alternative Ownership Prototyping

    • What legal structures could support joint development?

    • How might property rights be reimagined while preserving equity?

    • What models exist that balance individual and collective interests?

    • How can ownership adapt to changing conditions over time?

  3. Integrated Recovery Design

    • How might rebuilding enhance rather than simply restore?

    • What multi-functional approaches meet multiple needs simultaneously?

    • How can recovery processes themselves build community capacity?

    • What alternatives exist to the binary "rebuild/abandon" paradigm?

  4. System Intervention Modeling

    • What ripple effects might various interventions create?

    • Where are the highest leverage points for limited resources?

    • How might legal, financial, and design innovations be integrated?

    • What minimal structures would enable maximum community self-organization?