So it’s not just resistant to fire, it’s also much more energy-efficient and preserves temperature better.
Would the insulation also make it sound-proof?
And it looks nice. The only problem is I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s very expensive and/or difficult to build.
EDIT: People are saying it’s technically <20% more expensive, but requires specialized, skilled craftsmen and takes longer to build.
If energy prices increase and climate change become a concern, and as new architects who are taught new techniques come around, I can see these being widespread in the future. But for now, probably the only people getting these are people who care enough to sacrifice some money/time/flexibility.
Not necessarily. Thermal insulation uses light materials, sound insulation requires heavy materials.
It also provides a basis for substantive criticism. E.g., there are many claims advanced without any evidence or testing of those claims.
There are full-size structure tests under wildfire / WUI (wildland/urban interface) conditions. These are nontrivial and expensive. Findings are often nonintuitive.
I'd found some good videos previously, those aren't turning up for me presently, though this is a detailed discussion of the phenomenon:
<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=NRpVPhjGscA>
I'd be quite wary of either coincidental anecdotes (as Reddit discussion notes, there are several other surviving structures, apparently not Passivhaus designs), or speculative discussion of how a design might perform under actual wildfire conditions.
One example from the current fires is the Pasadena Jewish Center, which at first blush looks fairly robust: stucco or concrete construction, clay tile roof. But that structure burnt completely in the Eaton fire.
Story of the destruction here: <https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2025-01-08/pasadena-...>
I've found a few images of the structure previously, though those don't show much detail. The vulnerability of that specific building was surprising to me.