GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 19 19, 3:03 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: August 20 19, 2:24 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21510
Location: Chicago
tlombard wrote:
One correction here which may be a bit pedantic but whatever. They are not building retention ponds in place of the building being torn down, they are basically just removing everything from the lot so that it will just overgrow with grass and weeds like other vacant lots that aren't developed. The idea being that the newly exposed dirt and plant like will absorb water from storms and heavy rains and relieve some of the burden from the sewer system where a building or parking lot or whatever would just funnel the water to the system quicker.


I admittedly did not read the full article, but, how is this any different from the normal razing of abandoned buildings? What does it have to do with water management at all, other than as a temporary benefit of no longer having a building there? Is this water management angle just a pretext to speed demolition of these lots?

And should that area become more desirable to development in the future, don't you have to build on those same lots? Where does the rainwater go then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 2:58 pm 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23951
Location: Thinking of the Children
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. I didn't say it but the extra cost to develop would come if the developer was forced to reduce the peak runoff to less than the natural conditions as compared to just natural conditions. That's what got me going in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 2:59 pm 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23951
Location: Thinking of the Children
G. Keenan wrote:
tlombard wrote:
One correction here which may be a bit pedantic but whatever. They are not building retention ponds in place of the building being torn down, they are basically just removing everything from the lot so that it will just overgrow with grass and weeds like other vacant lots that aren't developed. The idea being that the newly exposed dirt and plant like will absorb water from storms and heavy rains and relieve some of the burden from the sewer system where a building or parking lot or whatever would just funnel the water to the system quicker.


I admittedly did not read the full article, but, how is this any different from the normal razing of abandoned buildings? What does it have to do with water management at all, other than as a temporary benefit of no longer having a building there? Is this water management angle just a pretext to speed demolition of these lots?

And should that area become more desirable to development in the future, don't you have to build on those same lots? Where does the rainwater go then?

I'd imagine that those lots would be treated the same as other lots in the City where the post-developed peak runoff rates would be required to be less than or equal to the pre-developed peak runoff rates which is pretty typical in most cities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 3:00 pm 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23951
Location: Thinking of the Children
Sorry I derailed the thread.

Nothing to see here, back to gentrification talk....

Ready? GO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 3:05 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21510
Location: Chicago
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
tlombard wrote:
One correction here which may be a bit pedantic but whatever. They are not building retention ponds in place of the building being torn down, they are basically just removing everything from the lot so that it will just overgrow with grass and weeds like other vacant lots that aren't developed. The idea being that the newly exposed dirt and plant like will absorb water from storms and heavy rains and relieve some of the burden from the sewer system where a building or parking lot or whatever would just funnel the water to the system quicker.


I admittedly did not read the full article, but, how is this any different from the normal razing of abandoned buildings? What does it have to do with water management at all, other than as a temporary benefit of no longer having a building there? Is this water management angle just a pretext to speed demolition of these lots?

And should that area become more desirable to development in the future, don't you have to build on those same lots? Where does the rainwater go then?

I'd imagine that those lots would be treated the same as other lots in the City where the post-developed peak runoff rates would be required to be less than or equal to the pre-developed peak runoff rates which is pretty typical in most cities.


How is that even possible? Where once you had dirt and grass you now have the footprint of a building. I guess you could put a green roof on the new building, a cistern underneath it, etc. What do builders typically do to meet that requirement?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 3:14 pm 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23951
Location: Thinking of the Children
G. Keenan wrote:
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
tlombard wrote:
One correction here which may be a bit pedantic but whatever. They are not building retention ponds in place of the building being torn down, they are basically just removing everything from the lot so that it will just overgrow with grass and weeds like other vacant lots that aren't developed. The idea being that the newly exposed dirt and plant like will absorb water from storms and heavy rains and relieve some of the burden from the sewer system where a building or parking lot or whatever would just funnel the water to the system quicker.


I admittedly did not read the full article, but, how is this any different from the normal razing of abandoned buildings? What does it have to do with water management at all, other than as a temporary benefit of no longer having a building there? Is this water management angle just a pretext to speed demolition of these lots?

And should that area become more desirable to development in the future, don't you have to build on those same lots? Where does the rainwater go then?

I'd imagine that those lots would be treated the same as other lots in the City where the post-developed peak runoff rates would be required to be less than or equal to the pre-developed peak runoff rates which is pretty typical in most cities.


How is that even possible? Where once you had dirt and grass you now have the footprint of a building. I guess you could put a green roof on the new building, a cistern underneath it, etc. What do builders typically do to meet that requirement?

Build detention ponds/underground storage to detain water and discharge it at a rate no greater than the undeveloped site discharged water.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 3:19 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21510
Location: Chicago
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
tlombard wrote:
One correction here which may be a bit pedantic but whatever. They are not building retention ponds in place of the building being torn down, they are basically just removing everything from the lot so that it will just overgrow with grass and weeds like other vacant lots that aren't developed. The idea being that the newly exposed dirt and plant like will absorb water from storms and heavy rains and relieve some of the burden from the sewer system where a building or parking lot or whatever would just funnel the water to the system quicker.


I admittedly did not read the full article, but, how is this any different from the normal razing of abandoned buildings? What does it have to do with water management at all, other than as a temporary benefit of no longer having a building there? Is this water management angle just a pretext to speed demolition of these lots?

And should that area become more desirable to development in the future, don't you have to build on those same lots? Where does the rainwater go then?

I'd imagine that those lots would be treated the same as other lots in the City where the post-developed peak runoff rates would be required to be less than or equal to the pre-developed peak runoff rates which is pretty typical in most cities.


How is that even possible? Where once you had dirt and grass you now have the footprint of a building. I guess you could put a green roof on the new building, a cistern underneath it, etc. What do builders typically do to meet that requirement?

Build detention ponds/underground storage to detain water and discharge it at a rate no greater than the undeveloped site discharged water.


Interesting. We must not have that building code here. I see new buildings going up all the time and they don't seem to be including any kind of underground water retention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 3:26 pm 
Online
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23951
Location: Thinking of the Children
A lot of big cities do regional detention where, in lieu of building detention, developers pay a fee to the City which is usually determined by size/impervious area. The stormwater runoff is routed to massive ponds that can be used as water features in addition to detention and are maintained by the City or some regional authority.

Or, in some cases, the City grew up in an era before this requirement and now all their old pipes are undersized and frequently flow above capacity causing the streets to flood.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 21 19, 8:53 am 
Online
Everday Unicorn
User avatar

Joined: April 21 06, 10:14 am
Posts: 34755
Location: Austin, TX
Yeah, the new development would either have stormwater detention ponds/culverts, or the developer would be required to add to improve the sewer lines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 21 19, 9:06 am 
Online
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 36889
Location: Huis Clos
This is very relevant imo

https://www.metrostl.com/2019/08/09/benign-neglect/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gashouse and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group