A modular, precast system of concrete ‘rings’ can be connected in different ways to build a range of models of energy-efficient homes. Pablo Moyano Fernández, CC BY-SA
To spur the construction of affordable, resilient homes, the future is concrete
Pablo Moyano Fernández, Washington University in St. Louis Wood is, by far, the most common material used in the U.S. for single-family home construction. But wood construction isn’t engineered for long-term durability, and it often underperforms, particularly in the face of increasingly common extreme weather events. In response to these challenges, I believe mass-produced concrete homes can offer affordable, resilient housing in the U.S. By leveraging the latest innovations of the precast concrete industry, this type of homebuilding can meet the needs of a changing world.
Wood’s rise to power
Over 90% of the new homes built in the U.S. rely on wood framing. Wood has deep historical roots as a building material in the U.S., dating back to the earliest European settlers who constructed shelters using the abundant native timber. One of the most recognizable typologies was the log cabin, built from large tree trunks notched at the corners for structural stability.Log cabins were popular in the U.S. during the 18th and 19th centuries.Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images In the 1830s, wood construction underwent a significant shift with the introduction of balloon framing. This system used standardized, sawed lumber and mass-produced nails, allowing much smaller wood components to replace the earlier heavy timber frames. It could be assembled by unskilled labor using simple tools, making it both accessible and economical. In the early 20th century, balloon framing evolved into platform framing, which became the dominant method. By using shorter lumber lengths, platform framing allowed each floor to be built as a separate working platform, simplifying construction and improving its efficiency. The proliferation and evolution of wood construction helped shape the architectural and cultural identity of the nation. For centuries, wood-framed houses have defined the American idea of home – so much so that, even today, when Americans imagine a house, they typically envision one built of wood.A suburban housing development from the 1950s being built with platform framing.H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock via Getty Images Today, light-frame wood construction dominates the U.S. residential market. Wood is relatively affordable and readily available, offering a cost-effective solution for homebuilding. Contractors are familiar with wood construction techniques. In addition, building codes and regulations have long been tailored to wood-frame systems, further reinforcing their prevalence in the housing industry. Despite its advantages, wood light-frame construction presents several important limitations. Wood is vulnerable to fire. And in hurricane- and tornado-prone regions, wood-framed homes can be damaged or destroyed. Wood is also highly susceptible to water-related issues, such as swelling, warping and structural deterioration caused by leaks or flooding. Vulnerability to termites, mold, rot and mildew further compromise the longevity and safety of wood-framed structures, especially in humid or poorly ventilated environments.
The case for concrete
Meanwhile, concrete has revolutionized architecture and engineering over the past century. In my academic work, I’ve studied, written and taught about the material’s many advantages. The material offers unmatched strength and durability, while also allowing design flexibility and versatility. It’s low-cost and low-maintenance, and it has high thermal mass properties, which refers to the material’s ability to absorb and store heat during the day, and slowly release it during the cooler nights. This can lower heating and cooling costs. Properly designed concrete enclosures offer exceptional performance against a wide range of hazards. Concrete can withstand fire, flooding, mold, insect infestation, earthquakes, hail, hurricanes and tornadoes. It’s commonly used for home construction in many parts of the world, such as Europe, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, as well as India and other parts of Southeast Asia. However, despite their multiple benefits, concrete single-family homes are rare in the U.S. That’s because most concrete structures are built using a process called cast-in-place. In this technique, the concrete is formed and poured directly at the construction site. The method relies on built-in-place molds. After the concrete is cast and cured over several days, the formwork is removed. This process is labor-intensive and time-consuming, and it often produces considerable waste. This is particularly an issue in the U.S., where labor is more expensive than in other parts of the world. The material and labor cost can be as high as 35% to 60% of the total construction cost. Portland cement, the binding agent in concrete, requires significant energy to produce, resulting in considerable carbon dioxide emissions. However, this environmental cost is often offset by concrete’s durability and long service life. Concrete’s design flexibility and structural integrity make it particularly effective for large-scale structures. So in the U.S., you’ll see it used for large commercial buildings, skyscrapers and most highways, bridges, dams and other critical infrastructure projects. But when it comes to single-family homes, cast-in-place concrete poses challenges to contractors. There are the higher initial construction costs, along with a lack of subcontractor expertise. For these reasons, most builders and contractors stick with what they know: the wood frame.
A new model for home construction
Precast concrete, however, offers a promising alternative. Unlike cast-in-place concrete, precast systems allow for off-site manufacturing under controlled conditions. This improves the quality of the structure, while also reducing waste and labor. The CRETE House, a prototype I worked on in 2017 alongside a team at Washington University in St. Louis, showed the advantages of a precast home construction. To build the precast concrete home, we used ultra-high-performance concrete, one of the latest advances in the concrete industry. Compared with conventional concrete, it’s about six times stronger, virtually impermeable and more resistant to freeze-thaw cycles. Ultra-high-performance concrete can last several hundred years. The strength of the CRETE House was tested by shooting a piece of wood at 120 mph (193 kph) to simulate flying debris from an F5 tornado. It was unable to breach the wall, which was only 2 inches (5.1 centimeters) thick.The wall of the CRETE House was able to withstand a piece of wood fired at 120 mph (193 kph). Building on the success of the CRETE House, I designed the Compact House as a solution for affordable, resilient housing. The house consists of a modular, precast concrete system of “rings” that can be connected to form the entire structure – floors, walls and roofs – creating airtight, energy-efficient homes. A series of different rings can be chosen from a catalog to deliver different models that can range in size from 270 to 990 square feet (25 to 84 square meters). The precast rings can be transported on flatbed trailers and assembled into a unit in a single day, drastically reducing on-site labor, time and cost. Since they’re built using durable concrete forms, the house can be easily mass-produced. When precast concrete homes are mass-produced, the cost can be competitive with traditional wood-framed homes. Furthermore, the homes are designed to last far beyond 100 years – much longer than typical wood structures – while significantly lowering utility bills, maintenance expenses and insurance premiums. The project is also envisioned as an open-source design. This means that the molds – which are expensive – are available for any precast producer to use and modify.The Compact House is made using ultra-high-performance concrete.Pablo Moyano Fernández, CC BY-SA
Leveraging a network that’s already in place
Two key limitations of precast concrete construction are the size and weight of the components and the distance to the project site. Precast elements must comply with standard transportation regulations, which impose restrictions on both size and weight in order to pass under bridges and prevent road damage. As a result, components are typically limited to dimensions that can be safely and legally transported by truck. Each of the Compact House’s pieces are small enough to be transported in standard trailers. Additionally, transportation costs become a major factor beyond a certain range. In general, the practical delivery radius from a precast plant to a construction site is 500 miles (805 kilometers). Anything beyond that becomes economically unfeasible. However, the infrastructure to build precast concrete homes is already largely in place. Since precast concrete is often used for office buildings, schools, parking complexes and large apartments buildings, there’s already an extensive national network of manufacturing plants capable of producing and delivering components within that 500-mile radius. There are other approaches to build homes with concrete: Homes can use concrete masonry units, which are similar to cinder blocks. This is a common technique around the world. Insulated concrete forms involve rigid foam blocks that are stacked like Lego bricks and are then filled with poured concrete, creating a structure with built-in insulation. And there’s even 3D-printed concrete, a rapidly evolving technology that is in its early stages of development. However, none of these use precast concrete modules – the rings in my prototypes – and therefore require substantially longer on-site time and labor. To me, precast concrete homes offer a compelling vision for the future of affordable housing. They signal a generational shift away from short-term construction and toward long-term value – redefining what it means to build for resilience, efficiency and equity in housing.An image of North St. Louis, taken from Google Earth, showing how vacant land can be repurposed using precast concrete homes.Pablo Moyano Fernández, CC BY-SAThis article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis.Pablo Moyano Fernández, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Washington University in St. Louis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
PG&E Donates $1 Million to Local Food Banks to Help Feed Families
PG&E donates $1 million to local food banks across Northern and Central California—equivalent to about 3 million meals—supporting 38 food banks serving 47 counties.
Just in time for the holidays, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced a $1 million donation to local food banks across Northern and Central California—support aimed at meeting a surge in demand as more families and seniors struggle to put food on the table. According to PG&E, the contribution is expected to provide the equivalent of roughly 3 million meals and will support 38 food banks serving 47 counties within PG&E’s service territory.
A third major food-bank contribution since September
The $1 million gift marks the third food-bank-focused contribution since September from PG&E or The PG&E Corporation Foundation (the PG&E Foundation). Combined, those efforts bring PG&E’s total community food support in 2025 to $2.37 million. PG&E emphasized that the funding for these charitable contributions comes from PG&E shareholders—not customers.
Food banks facing record-breaking demand
Food banks across California are reporting pressure levels not seen since the pandemic. Officials with the California Association of Food Banks say demand has reached record highs, driven in part by an unexpected surge during the federal government shutdown this fall. “California food banks experienced an unexpected surge with the [federal government] shutdown this fall. So, we reached out for help on their behalf and PG&E responded,” said Stacia Levenfeld, Chief Executive Officer of the California Association of Food Banks. “Their $1 million gift to food banks throughout Northern and Central California will have a meaningful impact on the lives of millions of people this holiday season and help food banks continue their critical work in our communities.” PG&E leaders framed the donation as an extension of a longstanding partnership with food bank networks. “We are grateful to help local food banks fulfill their mission during this time of increasing demand, especially as more families and seniors are struggling through the holiday season,” said Carla Peterman, Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs, PG&E Corporation and Chair of The PG&E Corporation Foundation Board. “Our longstanding partnership with the California Association of Food Banks supports the safety net that is our local food banks.”
Where the 2025 food support has gone
PG&E outlined additional contributions made earlier in the year:
September: The PG&E Foundation awarded $1.12 million to support local food banks, tribal food banks, and senior meal programs.
November: The PG&E Foundation donated $250,000 to the California Association of Food Banks’ Emergency Response Fund.
Equity-focused grant distribution
The California Association of Food Banks notes that while California produces nearly half of the nation’s fruits and vegetables, more than one in five residents still don’t know where their next meal will come from. Food insecurity rates are even higher in many communities of color. PG&E said grant amounts awarded to local organizations will account for county poverty and unemployment levels, using a formula from the California Department of Social Services. The goal: promote equity by directing more support to counties with higher need.
About the PG&E Corporation Foundation and PG&E
The PG&E Corporation Foundation is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, separate from PG&E and sponsored by PG&E Corporation. PG&E is a combined natural gas and electric utility serving more than 16 million people across 70,000 square miles in Northern and Central California. More information is available at pge.com and pge.com/news.
Why this matters
As food banks brace for sustained demand beyond the holiday season, large-scale donations like PG&E’s can help stabilize local supply—especially when distributed with an equity lens that targets the counties facing the steepest economic pressures. For families, seniors, and individuals navigating rising costs, the impact is immediate: more meals available now, and stronger community support systems heading into the new year. Community links:
In the 1970s, Lynwood, CA, dreamed of a downtown mall anchored by Montgomery Ward. Decades later, the empty lots told a story of ambition, delay, and renewal.
In the early 1970s, Lynwood, California, dreamed big.
City leaders envisioned a new, modern downtown — a sprawling shopping and auto mall that would bring jobs, shoppers, and a sense of pride back to this small but growing city in the southeast corner of Los Angeles County. At the heart of the plan stood a gleaming new Montgomery Ward department store, which opened around 1973 and promised to anchor a larger commercial center that never fully came.
But for those of us who grew up in Lynwood during that time, the promise never quite materialized.
Instead, we remember acres of empty lots, chain-link fences, and faded “Coming Soon” signs that sat for decades — silent witnesses to a dream deferred.
The Vision That Stalled
In 1973, Lynwood’s Redevelopment Agency launched what it called Project Area A — an ambitious plan to clear and rebuild much of the city’s downtown core. Small businesses and homes were bought out, land was assembled, and the city floated bonds to support new construction.
For a brief moment, it looked as if the plan might work. Montgomery Ward opened its doors, serving as a retail beacon for the area. Yet the rest of the mall — the shops, restaurants, and auto dealerships — never came.
By the mid-1970s, much of downtown had been bulldozed, but little replaced it. And by the time Ward closed its Lynwood location in 1986, the vast lots surrounding it had become symbols of frustration and unfulfilled potential.
What Happened?
Some longtime residents whispered about corruption or backroom deals — the kind of speculation that grows when visible progress stalls.
But newspaper archives and redevelopment records tell a more complex story.
Lynwood’s plans collided with a series of hard realities:
The construction of the Century Freeway (I-105) disrupted neighborhoods and depressed land values. Environmental cleanup and ownership disputes slowed development. Economic shifts in retail — as malls in nearby Downey, South Gate, and Paramount attracted anchor stores — drained the local market. And later, political infighting among city officials made sustained redevelopment almost impossible.
Advertisement
To this day, there’s no public record of proven corruption directly tied to the 1970s mall plan. What did exist was a tangle of bureaucracy, economic change, and missed opportunity — a perfect storm that left Lynwood’s heart half-built and half-forgotten.
Growing Up Among the Vacant Lots
For those of us who were kids in Lynwood during that era, the story is more personal.
We remember the sight of the Montgomery Ward building — modern and hopeful at first, then shuttered and fading by the mid-1980s.
We remember riding bikes past the empty dirt fields that were supposed to become shopping plazas. And we remember the quiet frustration of adults who had believed the city’s promises.
Those empty blocks became our playgrounds — but they also became symbols of the gap between what Lynwood was and what it wanted to be.
A New Chapter: Plaza México and Beyond
By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the dream finally resurfaced in a new form.
Developers transformed the long-idle site into Plaza México, a vibrant commercial and cultural hub that celebrates Mexican and Latin American heritage.
It took nearly 30 years for Lynwood’s downtown to come alive again.
The result is beautiful — but it’s also bittersweet for those who remember how long the land sat empty, and how many local businesses and residents were displaced in pursuit of a dream that took a generation to fulfill.
Advertisement
Looking Back
The story of Lynwood’s lost mall isn’t just about urban planning.
It’s about hope, change, and resilience. It’s about how a community tried to reinvent itself — and how the children who grew up watching that effort still carry its memory.
Sometimes, when I drive through that stretch of Imperial Highway and Long Beach Boulevard, I still imagine what might have been: the bustling mall that never was, and the voices of a neighborhood caught between ambition and uncertainty.
📚 Further Reading
Montgomery Ward will close its Lynwood store. (Jan 3 1986) — Los Angeles Times.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Population Density: How Los Angeles Compares to New York and Chicago
How dense are America’s biggest cities? A clear breakdown of population density in Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago—city limits vs metro areas—and why it matters.
Population Density: How Los Angeles Compares to New York and Chicago
When people think of crowded American cities, New York City usually comes to mind first. Los Angeles, by contrast, is often labeled as “sprawling,” while Chicago is seen as a middle ground. But population density tells a more nuanced story—especially when comparing city proper numbers versus metro-area density.
City Proper: How Dense Are the Cities Themselves?
Looking only at official city boundaries, the differences are stark:
New York City averages about 27,000–28,000 people per square mile, making it by far the most densely populated major city in the United States.
Chicago comes in at roughly 12,000 people per square mile, dense but far more spread out than New York.
Los Angeles, despite being the nation’s second-largest city by population, averages just 8,400–8,500 people per square mile.
This gap reflects development patterns. New York grew upward with dense apartment buildings and extensive transit. Los Angeles expanded outward with single-family neighborhoods and car-oriented planning.
Metro Areas Tell a Different Story
When the lens widens to include surrounding suburbs and commuter communities, the rankings shift:
Los Angeles Metro Area: ~7,000 people per square mile
New York Metro Area: ~5,300 people per square mile
Chicago Metro Area: ~3,500 people per square mile
This surprises many readers. While New York’s core is extremely dense, its metro region stretches across a vast, lower-density area spanning parts of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Los Angeles, on the other hand, has a metro region that is more consistently built-up, with fewer truly rural gaps.
Why Density Feels Different in Each City
Population density doesn’t always match perception:
New York feels crowded because density is concentrated vertically and transit funnels millions into compact areas.
Los Angeles feels congested not because of extreme density, but because people are spread out and heavily reliant on cars.
Chicago balances both, with dense neighborhoods near the core and more traditional suburban sprawl outward.
For cities like Los Angeles—now reinvesting in rail, buses, and transit-oriented development—understanding density is critical. As coverage on LA Metro and urban revival continues, these numbers explain why transit challenges in Southern California differ so sharply from those in New York or Chicago.
The Big Picture
Most dense city: New York City
Most dense metro area: Los Angeles
Most balanced: Chicago
Density isn’t just about how many people live in a place—it’s about how they live, move, and interact with the city around them.
Further Reading: Population Density & Urban Development
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
