“We interrupt the sky-is-falling rhetoric on the state’s new stormwater regulations for a few facts…..”
Quite a lead-in to an interesting counter-point response. No doubt controversial for the development community, but alot of good points to consider.
Check it out here – http://articles.centermd.org/?p=433
Very interesting stuff. Some of my initial thoughts:
Aren’t they concerned over redevelopment sites? If so, do the numbers really work the same for the decrease in construction costs for sustainable drainage systems over traditional on redevelopment sites? Usually to get treatment you need drainage systems with a higher land take which would affect redevelopments more than green sites.
Building on that, are the costs actually that high for drainage installations on redevelopment sites? Or is it the loss of land that hurts the bottom line? In London high density developments on brown land is outrageously expensive. The costs of my surface drainage design (be it green or not) is usually such a small percentage of build that I could double it and still be rounding to the same percentile. It’s when I tell a developer that they need to move/reduce a building size in order to get a bit of green drainage in that I get told off for impacting the costs.
And finally, if it is important then they should do it. If redevelopment sites are impacting water quality and flood risk to an area then the regulations should change! Almost all of the construction that happens in the UK is on sites that would classify as redevelopment under the proposed regulations and currently 1 in 6 homes in the UK are at risk from flooding. Maintaining the status quo on redevelopment here would only make things worse in the long run.
Pingback: Redevelopment and ESD – What is it like elsewhere? « Sustainable Stormwater Management