Article about St. Louis gentrification

Chat about non-baseball topics. No political discussions!
User avatar
G. Keenan
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
Posts: 21728
Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by G. Keenan »

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?
AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
Posts: 24499
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

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.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
Posts: 24499
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

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.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
Posts: 24499
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

Sorry I derailed the thread.

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

Ready? GO!
User avatar
G. Keenan
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
Posts: 21728
Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by G. Keenan »

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?
AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
Posts: 24499
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

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.
User avatar
G. Keenan
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
Posts: 21728
Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by G. Keenan »

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.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
Posts: 24499
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

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.
User avatar
heyzeus
Everday Unicorn
Posts: 35343
Joined: April 21 06, 10:14 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by heyzeus »

Yeah, the new development would either have stormwater detention ponds/culverts, or the developer would be required to add to improve the sewer lines.
User avatar
lukethedrifter
darjeeling sipping elite
Posts: 37361
Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Location: Huis Clos

Re: Article about St. Louis gentrification

Post by lukethedrifter »

Post Reply