quick question: does no more min lot sizes mean no min home sizes? I feel like min lot/min residence sizes are an important protection to ensure that slumlords aren't cramming people into closets--as well as more broadly to protect the right of people to live with comfort and dignity.
I think stormwater runoff concerns are generally unserious. Any large and dense city should have a robust drainage system, and if it doesn't, the concerns over street flooding or sewer backflow a few times per year pale in comparison to the environmental damage inflicted by sprawl. Especially auto-centric sprawl, which covers more area with impervious surfaces (roads) than simply building dense housing. There's a reason that everyone in Houston has a yard, but storm runoff is still a problem.
There are typically separate codes for stormwater that stipulate maximum flows which can come off a property under certain assumptions about storms that would likely still be maintained. Moving toward this denser housing would be a net positive for a larger area since it would decrease the amount of parking and roads that are necessary for a population although it could slightly increase flooding within developments without adequate planning.
quick question: does no more min lot sizes mean no min home sizes? I feel like min lot/min residence sizes are an important protection to ensure that slumlords aren't cramming people into closets--as well as more broadly to protect the right of people to live with comfort and dignity.
occupiable space minimums and lot sizes are usually separate parts of the code
lot size minimums are often written to explicitly require yards
deleted by creator
I think stormwater runoff concerns are generally unserious. Any large and dense city should have a robust drainage system, and if it doesn't, the concerns over street flooding or sewer backflow a few times per year pale in comparison to the environmental damage inflicted by sprawl. Especially auto-centric sprawl, which covers more area with impervious surfaces (roads) than simply building dense housing. There's a reason that everyone in Houston has a yard, but storm runoff is still a problem.
There are typically separate codes for stormwater that stipulate maximum flows which can come off a property under certain assumptions about storms that would likely still be maintained. Moving toward this denser housing would be a net positive for a larger area since it would decrease the amount of parking and roads that are necessary for a population although it could slightly increase flooding within developments without adequate planning.
It's more meant to force the development of suburbs over dense urban mixed purpose properties
isn't it more for setback? unit sizes are (relatively) independent of building sizes
Hums softly & tugs earlobe