logo
‘Built to burn.' L.A. let hillside homes multiply without learning from past mistakes

‘Built to burn.' L.A. let hillside homes multiply without learning from past mistakes

On a hot, dry November morning in 1961, flames from a trash pile on brushland north of Mulholland Drive were picked up by Santa Ana winds and swept across the canyons of one of Los Angeles' wealthiest enclaves.
The apocalyptic scenes that played out — of Hollywood celebrities fleeing and clambering onto their roofs — captured the world's attention like no urban conflagration in history. Actor Kim Novak and Richard Nixon, then a former vice president who moved to L.A. to practice law, wielded garden hoses to soak their wooden roof shingles. Actor Fred MacMurray enlisted studio workers from the set of 'My Three Sons' to evacuate his family and help firefighters cut down brush around his Brentwood home.
When the blaze reached the mansions of Bel-Air, thermal heat lifted burning shingles high into the air and 50-mph winds hurled them more than a mile over to Brentwood. By nightfall, the Bel-Air fire had destroyed 484 homes, including those of actor Burt Lancaster, comedian Joe E. Brown and Nobel laureate chemist Willard Libby.
After firefighters extinguished the flames, socialite and actor Zsa Zsa Gabor, wearing white kitten heels and a string of pearls as she clutched a shovel, dug through the rubble of her Bellagio Place home for a safe with jewels.
The Bel-Air fire became known as the 'the big one,' the event that forced everyone in Los Angeles to reckon with the dangers fire posed to their coveted hillsides.
In response, L.A. officials ushered in new fire safety measures, investing in more firefighting helicopters, new fire stations and a new reservoir. They also outlawed untreated wood shingles in high-fire-risk areas and initiated a brush clearance program to create defensible space around homes.
But they did not stop building on fire-prone ridges and canyons.
And there was no major push to radically rethink how they built. Over the next half a century, new housing tracts filled the wildland interface. And a succession of larger and more deadly fires swept through the region. But all the safety improvements prompted by the Bel-Air and subsequent fires could not outpace the escalating threat from new development and climate change.
The massive blazes that engulfed Los Angeles hillsides communities Jan. 7, destroying 16,000 structures and killing at least 29 people in and around Pacific Palisades and Altadena, have prompted a new reckoning on how so many L.A. homes came to be built on land so vulnerable to fire and how, or whether, they should be rebuilt.
It's a crossroads the region has found itself at before when the power of fire left us reeling.
'California is built to burn — it's not unique in that — but it's built to burn on a large scale and explosively at times,' said Stephen Pyne, a fire historian and professor emeritus at Arizona State University.
'You can live in that landscape, but how you choose to live will affect whether that fire is something that just passes through like a big thunderstorm, or whether it is something that destroys whatever you've got.'
::
The story of how Los Angeles developed itself for disaster began with careless building on hillsides more than a century ago.
As the emerging metropolis began to overtake San Francisco as the most populated city in the West, shrewd real estate developers began to cast their eyes up to the foothills of the Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountains.
'The future of Los Angeles is in the hills,' proclaimed a 1923 ad for a new subdivision that showed renderings of Spanish Revival-style homes looming over steep hillsides and bluffs. 'Hollywoodland will soon be a tract of beautiful homes with magnificent views.'
Lots cost as little as $2,000 — the equivalent of about $36,000 today.
The 1920s were a boom time for L.A., an era of heady confidence in humans' ability to reshape the natural environment. The 1913 construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, a bold engineering feat that transported water more than 230 miles to the semiarid region, paved the way for more than 100,000 people to move into the city each year. As the automobile allowed a burgeoning new middle class to live farther from downtown, the hills no longer looked so remote.
Hollywoodland may have been the most cannily marketed hillside subdivision: Its developers — including Harry Chandler, then publisher of the Los Angeles Times — erected a 45-foot-tall sign on Mt. Lee and invited reporters to chronicle the blasting of granite with dynamite and the cutting of roads with steam shovels.
But all over the mountains surrounding L.A., developers were buying up ranchland, filing plat maps and producing lavish real estate ads and sales brochures touting the foothills as an elevated paradise for a newly emerging upper middle class.
Bel-Air marketed itself as 'the Exclusive Residential Park of the West' — so exclusive its owner refused to sell to members of the motion picture industry. Beverly Wood touted itself as 'the Switzerland of Los Angeles.' Pacific Palisades, founded by Methodists, was a 'Christian community' with modern amenities 'where the mountains met the coast.' In Altadena, a railroad hub in the shadows of the San Gabriel Mountains, Altadena Woodlands offered 'a garden spot' and 'panorama of wondrous beauty.'
In all the marketing hype, there was no mention of the risk of fire and landslides.
'It was a period of almost zero environmental consciousness,' said Philip Ethington, a professor of history, political science and spatial sciences at USC. 'They had a poor understanding of the long, long history of fires, and the long ecological necessity of them. The developers didn't want to dwell on the hazards. They saw fires as freak events.'
L.A.'s sloping suburbs came to embody not just the city's ambition but its folly.
Many hillside homes were built with combustible wood shingle roofs. They were crowded together, next to flammable brushland, and accessed by narrow, winding roads that struggled to accommodate two-way traffic or firetrucks. Some communities had only one way in and out.
'To be in the hills, to be outside the madding crowd, this is part of the DNA of this region,' said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former Los Angeles County supervisor who represented L.A.'s foothills from 1994 to 2014. 'In a way, Los Angeles itself is an engineering feat: It's an accidental city that was promoted by the sense that anything is possible. But the engineers also didn't fully anticipate the implications of what they were doing.'
For thousands of years, Indigenous people lived in L.A.'s mountains. Some settled in the village of Topaŋa, a mile up the coast from what is now Pacific Palisades.
But native Californians who were drawn to the woodlands at the base of mountains had a different relationship with fire, Ethington said; they chose not to live in the narrow canyons that were flood-prone and dangerous fire traps when dry Santa Ana winds blew.
'They knew it's perilous for basic reasons: It's a Mediterranean environment that has a necessary regular annual drought,' Ethington said. 'Most of the rain falls within a few months … and then the rest of the year is dry, so it's highly flammable.'
Every year, Indigenous people set small low-intensity fires to manage the landscape and clean out low-lying brush — a process that magnified the yield of their plants for medicine and craft-making. It also helped to prevent intense crown fires.
The Spanish colonizers suppressed this intentional annual brush burning, claiming it was incompatible with agriculture. In 1850, when California became the nation's 31st state, legislators passed the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, which prohibited intentional burning in prairie lands.
But the move to suppress fire, some experts say, only magnified the risk of more destructive blazes.
Some L.A. officials sounded the alarm in the height of the 1920s building boom.
In 1923, less than six months after construction began in Hollywoodland, L.A.'s fire chief pushed for an ordinance prohibiting wood shingles after a wildfire destroyed nearly 600 homes in the foothills of the Northern California city of Berkeley.
'Without a doubt,' the city building inspector told the L.A. Times, 'the prohibiting of wood shingles should extend from the eastern limits of the city to the outer edge of Hollywood.'
But the lumber industry came out in force against a ban, ultimately persuading L.A. and California not to act.
In 1930, city leaders got another warning — this time closer to home.
'FLAMES ROARING THROUGH SANTA MONICA HILLS,' the front page of The Times declared Nov. 1, 1930, as nearly 1,000 men battled a towering wall of fire that blazed south across the Malibu coast. 'MAJOR DISASTER LOOMS.'
The wildfire was 25 miles away. But if strong north winds continued to blow, The Times reported, the blaze would engulf remote mountain areas inaccessible to firefighters and fuel up on dense brushland. Firefighters, officials feared, would be helpless to stop it sweeping through Topanga and destroying many of the newly built homes across Pacific Palisades and Hollywood Hills.
Alarmed, L.A. County Supervisor Henry Wright rounded up 100 men to patrol the edges of the city. If the fire got 'close into the city of Los Angeles,' Wright said, 'our whole city might go.'
Ultimately, the north winds subsided and hundreds of firefighters and volunteers got the fire under control. But with calamity averted, there was little debate on how to avoid future brush fires from tearing through L.A.'s foothill communities.
Wright, the new chair of L.A. County Board of Supervisors, emphasized the need for 'an improved method of preventing disastrous forest fires' and developing a county building code and 'intelligent zoning.' But a year into the Great Depression, unemployment was the county's biggest priority. The county created a fund for hundreds of men to work on firebreaks. Beyond that, there was little effort to rethink how, or whether, to build homes in fire-prone hills.
After World War II, economic growth and GI benefits fueled another rapid building boom. As people moved to new subdivisions on former ranchland in the San Fernando Valley, hillside lots were no longer on L.A.'s outskirts. They were just another, highly desirable, part of L.A. suburbia.
The risks magnified as new generations pushed farther into natural spaces, creating fire-belt suburbs.
In Pacific Palisades, already less isolated after the extension of Sunset Boulevard and the 1937 opening of Pacific Coast Highway, single-family homes ventured farther up the canyons. In Altadena, new tracts were built on farmland. In Bel-Air, the builder of a new subdivision of mid-century modern homes in Roscomare Valley campaigned for a 1952 statewide proposition to fund schools, confident that would lure more residents.
When experts from the National Fire Protection Assn. surveyed Los Angeles in 1959, 'they found a mountain range within the city, combustible roofed houses closely spaced in brush-covered canyons and ridges, serviced by narrow roads,' according to a documentary produced by the Los Angeles Fire Department. 'They called it 'A Design for Disaster.''
Just two years later, the Bel-Air fire showed the world catastrophic scenes of Los Angeles.
L.A. officials made a number of reforms. But even as L.A.'s fire chief noted the progress the city had made, including tightening restrictions on wooden roofing on new homes, he told The Times in 1967 that the bulk of homes still had shake or shingle roofs. The battalion commander of the Fire Department's mountain patrol said they couldn't eliminate all brush from slopes without causing erosion and landslides, and some homeowners were resistant to removing flammable vegetation: 'They like it for its scenic value.'
As L.A.'s slopes filled with audacious mid-century modern steel and glass mansions and even a UFO-style octagon resting on a 30-foot pole, a national 1968 report by the American Society of Planning Officials identified 'the subdivision of hilly areas' as a growing problem. Planners were under pressure, the report said, from developers trying to cut costs to modify subdivision controls with lower standards for hillside areas than flat land. If the controls were not modified, subdividers simply leveled the hills.
The problem was particularly acute in L.A.: Two-thirds of the city's new homes were being built on hillside lots, according to a city official. All were potentially vulnerable to landslides.
The failure to provide access to subdivisions from more than one entrance, the L.A. County engineering department said in a report, 'greatly endangers public safety.'
Foothills residents often resisted efforts to widen narrow, winding streets. In 1970, as new housing developments were planned across the Santa Monica Mountains, homeowner associations objected to a city master plan that would widen and extend existing canyon roads linking Sunset Boulevard and Mulholland Drive. L.A.'s city traffic engineer, Sam Taylor, argued that fire and emergency personnel must have alternative road access in case other roads were blocked.
'Either the mountains should not be developed,' Taylor said, 'or we should provide streets to take care of the thousands of new homes.'
The 1970 Clampitt and Wright fires merged to burn 435,000 acres from Newhall to Malibu, killing 10 people and destroying 403 homes. The 1978 Mandeville Canyon fire destroyed more than 230 homes, killed three people and injured at least 50. In 1993, the Old Topanga fire burned 18,000 acres in Malibu, killed three people and destroyed 388 structures, prompting the writer and urban theorist Mike Davis to write his seminal 1995 essay, 'The Case for Letting Malibu Burn.'
''Safety' for the Malibu and Laguna coasts as well as hundreds of other luxury enclaves and gated hilltop suburbs is becoming one of the state's major social expenditures, although — unlike welfare or immigration — it is almost never debated in terms of trade-offs or alternatives,' Davis argued in 'Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster.'
People continued to move into fire-prone foothills and valleys. Between 1990 and 2020, the number of homes in the metro Los Angeles region's wildland-urban interface, where human development meets undeveloped wildland, swelled from 1.4 million to 2 million — a growth rate of 44%, according to David Helmers, a geospatial data scientist in the Silvis Lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In 2008, California significantly strengthened its building code, requiring developers of new homes in high fire-risk areas to use fire-resistant building materials, enclose eaves to stop them from trapping sparks and insert mesh screens over vents to prevent embers from getting into homes.
Experts in fire mitigation said the new building code was a huge step forward — except that it did not apply to existing development.
'We're hamstrung,' said Michael Gollner, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at UC Berkeley who studies fire risk. 'Most things are already built, and they're built to old codes, they're built with old land-use planning decisions, so they're close together and not built in a resilient, fire-resistant way. It's very hard to make changes after the fact.'
The blazes got more intense. The 2009 Station fire became the largest in L.A. County history, charring 250 square miles, destroying more than 200 structures and killing two county firefighters. The 2018 Woolsey fire destroyed more than 1,600 structures, killed three people and forced more than 295,000 to evacuate.
In 2018, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a 19,000-home development in Tejon Ranch along Interstate 5 despite concerns that the land was within 'high' and 'very high' fire hazard severity zones. Backers say they can mitigate fire risk.
In 2020, the state Legislature passed a bill requiring households in fire-prone areas to clear anything flammable, such as vegetation or wooden fences, from within 5 feet of their home. But the rule is still not enforced.
Many homeowners — who sought homes surrounded by nature — resisted stripping their land of shrubs and trees.
Yaroslavsky, the former Los Angeles County supervisor, said he didn't like to speculate on what L.A. officials could have done better, but it was important to learn from mistakes.
'It's one thing to make a mistake or misjudge something or be ignorant,' he said. 'It's another thing not to learn from the consequences of that lack of knowledge.'
Looking back over more than a century of development, many blame L.A. leaders' relentless pursuit of growth. Char Miller, a professor of environmental history at Pomona College and author of 'Burn Scars,' a history of U.S. wildfire suppression, said new development was the 'spark plug' for many of the region's fires.
'We've created this dilemma by policy,' Miller said. 'Every city council, every town hall, every planning zoning and architectural commission greenlights and rubber-stamps development because development is growth, and growth builds an economy.'
For Pyne, California's 'unholy mingling of built and natural landscapes' ultimately undermined any fire protection. But he noted that fires were caused not only by people moving into wildland areas. In Mediterranean Europe, fires are breaking out in Greece, Portugal and Spain as people move out of rural areas and small farms go feral.
Some argue that turning ranchland into public parks and conservation areas have exacerbated fire risk. According to Crystal Kolden, director of the Fire Resilience Center at UC Merced, vast swaths of the Santa Monica Mountains were ranched until the 1960s: The establishment of Topanga State Park in the 1960s and Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in 1978 meant that cattle no longer grazed on shrubs, controlling flammable brush and preventing the spread of intense fires.
Even as governments introduced new fire protection measures, Pyne said, they could not seem to do so fast enough to meet the escalating threat from land-use planning decisions and climate change.
'You have to build to survive a blizzard of sparks,' Pyne said. 'Fire is going to come as long as the winds are able to blow.'
After the Jan. 7 fires caused an estimated $250 billion in property damage, some make the case for a retreat: 'I don't care what you build back into the Palisades,' said Miller, who has suggested L.A. follow the city of Monrovia and float bonds to purchase lots from willing sellers. 'You're building back to burn.'
Others have proposed L.A. pause rebuilding to consider stricter construction guidelines, such as mandating even more fire-resistant materials and installing fire shutters on every home.
But the human impulse to rebuild, like the fires, is relentless.
Days after swaths of Pacific Palisades and Altadena were destroyed, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued executive orders to expedite rebuilding by relaxing environmental and regulatory obstacles.
Times editorial library director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Who Is Jimmy Kimmel's First Wife, Gina & How Many Kids Do They Have?
Who Is Jimmy Kimmel's First Wife, Gina & How Many Kids Do They Have?

Yahoo

time21-05-2025

  • Yahoo

Who Is Jimmy Kimmel's First Wife, Gina & How Many Kids Do They Have?

Netizens are eager to learn more about Jimmy Kimmel's first wife, and the timeline of their relationship. The former couple had been married before Kimmel made it big as a talk show host. Thus, details about his relationship with his former wife remain largely unknown. Kimmel is currently married to Molly McNearney. Here's everything we know about Jimmy Kimmel's first wife, how many kids they have, and more. Jimmy Kimmel was married to Gina Maddy. Kimmel and Maddy were college sweethearts who first met when they were both attending the Arizona State University. After a few years of dating, the couple tied the knot in 1988. In a 2017 interview with Vulture, Kimmel shared how the young couple struggled to make ends meet during the early years of the their marriage. He was a radio host at the time and had to move homes several times. Despite spending over a decade together, the marriage fell apart, leading to the couple's divorce in 2002. The pair cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for the split. The exact cause behind why they parted ways remains unclear. Shortly after his divorce, Kimmel dated comedian Sarah Silverman for several years. In 2009, Kimmel began a relationship with Molly McNearney, who served as a co-head writer for Kimmel's talk show Jimmy Kimmel Live. The pair married in July 2013 and have been together ever since. As per , Gina Maddy is a costume designer. Maddy has previously worked in the costume department of the television movies Party Like the Queen of France (2012) and Party Like the Rich and Famous (2012). Maddy currently runs a vintage inspired loungewear line called Maddy James. Jimmy Kimmel and Gina Maddy are parents to two kids together. Their first daughter Katherine 'Katie' Kimmel was born on August 28, 1991, in Tampa, Florida. Katie is an artist who received her BFA from The School of Art Institute of Chicago in 2015. In September 2021, she tied the knot with her partner Will Logsdon, shortly after her 30th birthday. On September 19, 1993, Kimmel and Maddy welcomed their second child, son Kevin Kimmel. Kevin has pursued a career in television as production assistant, which allows him to spend more time with his father. Additionally, Kimmel is also a father to Jane and Billy, both of whom he had with his current wife, Molly McNearney. Originally reported by Namrata Ghosh on ComingSoon. The post Who Is Jimmy Kimmel's First Wife, Gina & How Many Kids Do They Have? appeared first on Mandatory.

‘A Pale View of Hills' Review: The Supple Ambiguities of Kazuo Ishiguro's Novel Stiffen and Seize Up in an Unsatisfying Adaptation
‘A Pale View of Hills' Review: The Supple Ambiguities of Kazuo Ishiguro's Novel Stiffen and Seize Up in an Unsatisfying Adaptation

Yahoo

time21-05-2025

  • Yahoo

‘A Pale View of Hills' Review: The Supple Ambiguities of Kazuo Ishiguro's Novel Stiffen and Seize Up in an Unsatisfying Adaptation

Kazuo Ishiguro's 1982 debut novel 'A Pale View of Hills' is an elegant, slippery examination of lives caught between identities both national and existential: Its tale-within-a-tale of two Japanese women living eerily overlapping lives in post-war Nagasaki, as related to the mixed-race daughter of one of them 30 years later, is rife with deliberate, subtly uncanny inconsistencies that speak of immigrant trauma and disassociation. Such lithe literary conceits turn to heavier twists in Kei Ishikawa's ambitious but ungainly adaptation, which mostly follows the letter of Ishiguro's work, but misses its haunting, haunted spirit. Attractively and accessibly presented, this bilingual Japanese-British production aims squarely for crossover arthouse appeal, and with the Ishiguro imprimatur — the Nobel laureate takes an executive producer credit — should secure broader global distribution than any of Ishikawa's previous work. Viewers unfamiliar with the novel, however, may be left perplexed by key development in this dual-timeline period piece, which strands proceedings somewhere between ghost story and elusive, unreliable memory piece; even those more au fait with the material may well query some of Ishikawa's storytelling choices. On more prosaic fronts, too, the film is patchy, with multiple subplots drifting erratically in and out of view, and an uneven quartet of central performances. More from Variety 'Eagles of the Republic' Review: An Egyptian Movie Star Is Forced to Make a Propaganda Film in Tarik Saleh's Catchy but Muddled Age of Autocracy Thriller 'The Disappearance of Josef Mengele' Review: A Post-War Study of the Nazis' 'Angel of Death' Lacks Dimension 'Fuori' Review: Jailtime Revives a Middle-Aged Writer's Mojo in Mario Martone's Uninvolving Literary Biopic Ishiguro's novel was narrated firsthand by the character who bridges both its timelines. The melancholic Etsuko appears in 1952 Nagasaki as a timid, dutiful housewife (played by 'Our Little Sister' star Suzu Hirose) pregnant with her first child, and 30 years later, in Britain's genteel home counties, as a solitary widow (played by Yoh Yoshida) preparing to move from a house filled with pained memories. In between there has been a second marriage, a second pregnancy, a seismic emigration and more than one bereavement. Our access to Etsuko's inner life is limited, however, as her story is filtered through the perspective of her younger daughter Niki (Camilla Aiko), an aspiring journalist who has grown up entirely in Britain. Visiting her mother in 1982 with the intention of writing a family memoir of sorts, Niki struggles to square her westernized upbringing with a Japanese history and heritage that her mother is loath to talk about. Etsuko's reticence is partly rooted in grief: The elephant in the room between them is the recent suicide of Keiko, Etsuko's Japanese-born elder daughter and Niki's half-sister, who never adjusted, culturally or psychologically, to her new environment after emigrating with her mother and British stepfather. Keiko is never directly seen on screen, though there may be an analog of sorts for her childhood self in the film's 1950s-set section, where the young Etsuko — lonely and brusquely neglected by her workaholic husband Jiro (Kouhei Matsushita) — befriends single mother Sachiko (Fumi Nikaido, recently seen in FX's 'Shōgun' series) and her sullen, withdrawn pre-teen daughter Mariko. Sachiko is a glamorous, modern-minded social outcast, marginalized both for her rejection of Japanese patriarchy and the scars of her and Mariko's radiation exposure following the 1945 Nagasaki bombings. (The stigma of the latter is such that Etsuko maintains a lie to Jiro that she was not in Nagasaki at the time.) But she's planning her escape, having attached herself to an American soldier willing to sweep her and Mariko back to the States. As the two women bond, the meek Etsuko begins to wonder if this life of traditional domestic servitude is really what she was made for. Though we are never party to her early years of motherhood, nor the transition between her first and second husbands, the mirroring between these unseen, imminent life changes and Sachiko's situation grows ever clearer — as the women themselves even begin to resemble each other in costume and comportment. Is Sachiko merely a model for Etsuko to emulate, a phantom projection of what her future could be, or the older Etsuko's distanced reflection of her past? DP Piotr Niemyjski's heightened depiction of midcentury Nagasaki — sometimes a postcard vision of serene pastels, sometimes luridly bathed in saturated sunset hues — suggests some embellishment of reality, but Ishikawa never finds a narratively satisfying way to present ambiguities that can shimmer more nebulously on the page, building to a reveal that feels overwrought and rug-pulling. Back in Blighty, shot in drabber tones outside a flash of red maple foliage in Etsuko's lovingly maintained Japanese-style garden, the drama is more straightforward, but stilted and inert nonetheless. The script musters scant interest in Niki's career ambitions and romantic complications, and her halting conversations with her mother keep chasing a climactic point of mutual understanding that never arrives — a poignant impasse, perhaps, but a difficult one to structure a film around. There's more interest in the past, and in Hirose and Nikaido's delicate performances as two women living parallel lives in full view of each other. But 'A Pale View of Hills' commendably resists nostalgia, as it brittly sympathizes with immigrant identities unsettled in any place or any era. Best of Variety The Best Albums of the Decade

Gloria Steinem and Leymah Gbowee, activists and close friends, are working on a picture book

time21-05-2025

Gloria Steinem and Leymah Gbowee, activists and close friends, are working on a picture book

NEW YORK -- Two giants of the women's rights movement, Gloria Steinem and Nobel laureate Leymah Gbowee, have teamed up for a picture book with the mission of inspiring young people to change the world. 'Rise, Girl, Rise: Our Sister-Friend Journey. Together for All' will be published next February, Scholastic Inc. announced Wednesday. Illustrated by Kah Yangni, it draws upon the close bond between Steinem and Gbowee, the Nobel Peace Prize winner from Libya. 'I am so proud to collaborate with my longtime friend and sister activist Leymah Gbowee,' Steinem said in a statement. ''Rise, Girl, Rise' is for anyone who cares deeply about being part of a promising future.' Gbowee said in a statement that 'Gloria Steinem and I have traveled many roads together, physically, and through our individual actions. This special book is our gift to the trailblazers of tomorrow, who are finding power and joy in their friendships today.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store