Is the "ugly collection of riprap" part of a required storm drainage basin? If so, isn't there some way to manage stormwater other than the creation of a "nuisance?"
Yes, the stormwater basin was required. There are other ways to manage stormwater (such as using pervious pavement so the water doesn't run off, and creating "rain gardens" to absorb stormwater in landscaping), but they are much more complicated to implement, and the construction of collection basins is the default method.
Stormwater basins are hardly the only necessary nuisance associated with commercial development. For example, trash dumpsters are also necessary nuisances. City codes require that permanent trash collection areas (in new construction) be screened from public view (ASIDE: most businesses also lock their dumpsters or dumpster enclosures to avoid having them filled with offsite trash).
This church's stormwater detention basin is more unattractive than most, probably as an unfortunate result of missed or ineffective communication during planning and construction. I hope (for the sake of the congregation and the neighbors) that over time it will start to blend in better with its surroundings (the rocks will weather and plants will start to grow in the riprap).
I object to these basins, which have become increasingly evident in our city in the last few years, due to the fact that 1) they ARE ugly, 2) they take up land that might be better utilized in another way, and 3) they tend to attract mosquitoes -- and we seem to foster the mosquito population quite well enough without any augmentation.
Whether you personally like it or not, stormwater management is required at new developments almost everywhere in the U.S. now -- for some very good reasons. Much of the rain that falls on forests and grasslands soaks into the soil and is taken up by plants, but when natural landscapes are replaced with rooftops and parking lots, runoff volume increases and the water is rapidly dumped into storm sewers, ditches, and streams, carrying with it the motor oil and other pollutants washed off the parking lots and roofs. The results include increased flooding and poor water quality. Stormwater detention basins are an engineering solution to help prevent these problems -- they help reduce peak (flood) flows to streams and they prevent excess sediment and contaminants from reaching streams and lakes.
Don't blame stormwater detention basins for the increased mosquito populations we've had in recent years. The main culprit seems to be the arrival in North American of the Asian tiger mosquito. As described in this Washington Post article, these mosquitoes have become a nuisance and possible public-health threat throughout the eastern US. Unlike native mosquitoes, their eggs can survive outside of water, and the larvae need only tiny amounts of water to survive. They breed in flowerpots, tires, old soda cans, dog dishes, and clogged rain gutters. They bite more often than regular mosquitoes, and they are active in broad daylight. I believe it's only a coincidence that these nasty insects showed up at about the same time that stormwater detention basis started to be required.
I object to these basins, which have become increasingly evident in our city in the last few years, due to the fact that 1) they ARE ugly, 2) they take up land that might be better utilized in another way, and 3) they tend to attract mosquitoes -- and we seem to foster the mosquito population quite well enough without any augmentation.
If you want new development, you've got to take the "bad" (i.e. storm basins) with the "good" (new shopping centers, stores, etc.). Remember the "Great Mud Deluge" a few years ago? When all that mud from Bald Ridge flowed into the Pine Ridge offices and down into the intersection of Lafayette and Illinois Ave? That happened because Revis didn't install the proper storm water management system when he raped the ridge. (Was he ever billed for the cleanup, intersection and offices?) That "ugly" storm water basin at the corner of Tulane and Illinois prevents the intersection from being flooded every time we have a deluge (which would be nice at the moment). So I'd rather have the basin than 3 feet of water in the intersection. Besides, I think it's rather fun to watch the geese landing in the pond at certain times of the day. BTW... good post Ms. Smith!
There is another solution for the required and unsightly detention/retention basin requirement.
In many areas the required feature can be installed underground....under the parking lot for example. This method is used frequently in my part of the country especially where land costs are very high.
Underground detention/retention, however, is very costly and, as usual, the increased costs are ultimately paid by the citizen/consumer in most cases.
There is another solution for the required and unsightly detention/retention basin requirement.
In many areas the required feature can be installed underground....under the parking lot for example. This method is used frequently in my part of the country especially where land costs are very high.
Underground detention/retention, however, is very costly and, as usual, the increased costs are ultimately paid by the citizen/consumer in most cases.
I like your idea. Maybe someone from the planning commision is listening
Underground detention/retention, however, is very costly and, as usual, the increased costs are ultimately paid by the citizen/consumer in most cases.
In this case they would just pass the plate I guess.
I would have reservations on building an underground catch basin. I mean it would have to be built like a bridge or maybe better just to hold the weight of the cars that werer parked on it. I guess we will just have to live with the "ugly " thing until nature takes its course and throws a cover of mossy oak on it.
With regard to detention basins, there are lots of alternatives other than the 'eye sores' like the one at Home Depot and those previously referenced in earlier posts. A couple of weeks ago City staff and others interested participated in a video tele-seminar on urban stormwater design. Examples shown in the seminar not only performed the typical storm water detention function but also assisted in water purification and were an asthetic amenity to the surrounding property. I understand that the Developers Forum group at the Chamber is about to tackle the storm water detention issue.
Actually Super Bee the underground designs are made up of corrugated steel or concrete culverts designed for the weight of the proposed traffic.......they're similar to those you see being installed under highways. The system really works well and when properly designed are acceptable to most municipalities around the country.
A good example, IMHO, of creative storm water management can be found at the Oak Ridge Corporate Center/SAIC office complex. The attractive pond feature behind the buildings with the fountain is actually the storm water management system. It retains most of the runoff from the parking lots and the roof drains from both facilities......and now, a portion of the Bristol Apartments as well. It is obviously more expensive to make the storm water management system an amenity to the property, but worth the effort if quality is your goal.
This is my first post.......and I'm stikin' to it!
...and a fine first post it is. Welcome, Cowboy!