going through the tax maps of my county, i came across several well-located lots zoned R-1 that were unfortunately designated as Flood Plain lots.
My question: Does a lot being a Flood Plain have any possibility of being built on? Of course the structure would have to be elevated about the flood line... would these be a process of convincing my local government to grant me access?
I have seen houses built on flood plains (not by me mind you-but where I went to college, the town was expanding and they started building on the flood plains)...I know people that bought there were required to purchase flood insurance, which is extremely expensive...and where I gre up people built houses on the James River, which flooded quite a bit, they were required to build on stilts and inside "builtpims" were made to be removeable-such as kitchen cabinets. I saw one house though that instead of building on stilts, they built the basement out of concrete block, and put doors that were removeable so that in the case of a flood, the doors were removed and water flowed through the basement, which was waterproof.
But in my personal opinion, building on a flood plain is just asking for trouble...more trouble than it is worth.
i've seen construction on the flood plain here be very successful. many houses are built where it is known that the site will flood every year. you just design that assumption into the project.
yes, it costs more - both at the front end/construction and over the life of the project: cleanup, insurance, etc. it's not exactly an extreme lifestyle, living in the flood plain, but it has its inconveniences.
a friend of mine designed/built his house in the early 90s in a neighborhood that floods every other year or so. he loves to tell stories of rowing to his house, etc, and i don't think he'd switch for anything.
most of the comments above are right on. note that there is a difference between the lines of annual flooding, 50yr, 100yr, and 500yr flooding. (we had a 100yr flood in 1997.)
As I was flipping channels between football games, I caught something about developers building on land that is prone to fires. Couldn't catch much detail because I watched the end of it, but this seems just as ridiculous as allowing to build on areas prone to flooding.
Why do we only respond after something happens (in general now), when we KNOW its going to happen at some point. Especially when we know we can save lives, resources, money, etc. just by thinking ahead.
"Sorry, the riser on that stair is 1/4" too high so you might trip and sprain your ankles. We can't allow that. But I am allowing you to build on land that will most likely burn every 10 years, flood once every 50 years, and might be destroyed by a hurricane every 10 years or so. You have insurance right?"
the use of '##-year storm' is misleading in many ways. first-the calculations of probable frequency is based on out dated meteorology. second- they are indication of probability, so it is possible to have two five-hundred year storms in one year. third- back to the first point, climate change is changing the frequency and intensity of storms to more frequent and more intense.
other issues of dealing with flood-plains is that they are often under juridiction of the state or federal gov't, not just local towns.
beyond raising the structure up on stilts/flow-through/floating base, is that the environmental impact of all site development on the flood plain have lots of regulations that upland sites don't have to follow... so a great civil engineer and landscape architect are critical. you may also have to do an environmental impact report that will add thousands of dollars to the permit process.
then there is the flood insurance issue- with out insurance you may not be able to get a financing.
so buy a house boat and just dock it at the site...
"so buy a house boat and just dock it at the site"
I like that last sentence. Its actually very similar to the attitude that I have with these kind of issues. It does seem like a lot of work to build a structure that can "withstand" (read: mitigate major damage) natural forces. So why all that hard work? From what I understand, a lot of fresh water flood plains are also natural wetlands and unique beneficial ecosystems too.
I know everyone is tired of analogies to the medical profession, but I think applies very well here. To me, its like excessively smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods all the time, and then going to the doctor to find you have huge health problems which requires major surgeries. When all that time you could've avoided it in the first place. Of course all of it is "covered" under insurance anyway so he'll get the surgery and live, while driving the cost of health insurance higher for all those that can't afford regular checkups that could've prevented their own problems just by going to the doctor regularly.
Of course the difference is that the gov't shouldn't/can't have control over someone's eating/drinking/smoking habits - for the most part. But what land we can build on?
in my neighboorhood in Cincinnati a developer built two subdivisions on a very well known floodplain. Was selling $1million houses to out of towners who didnt know anybetter. Every spring their houses would flood. We would watch it happen and laugh at them
I guess the developer was sucking the right dick in city council so that he could build on the flood plains
It does seem like a lot of work to build a structure that can "withstand" (read: mitigate major damage) natural forces.
Philarch, we do that everyday, in almost every single place we build. You may not think of it as such, but the massive amount of research, development, engineering, and cost of upkeep that goes into making the average home in, say, Wisconsin actually inhabitable to humans for half of the year is just the same kind of work. Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Mr. Jones in the cheese state double-insulates all his low-e windows, fills his attic up with a solid foot of fiberglass batt insulation all around, pours fuel into his home for 6 months and extra into his car when he can no longer bike or walk to work; Mrs. Robinson over in the golden state pours a concrete slab, floats it over sand, foregoes a basement, builds with wood, and remembers her moment connections.
It takes massive amounts of engineering and human ingenuity to live almost every place on earth. From moving mountains and flattening ground, to taming heat and cold, to running power lines all over the earth, to building on stilts in a flood plain. No matter where you live, you are going to come up against the fact that you need to learn how to coexist peacefully with nature in a compromise--both losing as little as possible--or you might as well just kill yourself.
...Or move to the mediterannean and live in a natural rock fissure.
In context of that post, when I say natural forces, I am talking about disasters.
I am talking about disaster Prone areas - areas that are basically guaranteed to have a disaster event. Disasters that can take people's lives or leave them homeless among other unpleasant things. There is a vast middle ground between that natural rock fissure in the mediterannean (which does sound tempting by the way if I don't kill myself) and that beautiful piece of land that also happens to be perfect for wildfires.
You make it sound like they build out there FOR the human ingenuity and compromising with nature peacefully which I am also all for. Actually, it is driven purely because 1.Developers are allowed to and 2. People will buy them.
We are talking about two totally different things here. If you disagree, I think this is a good topic for debate. But lets leave the condescending tone out of it.
From what I know about the history of human beings, it has been common to build on flood plains, primarily because settlements needed a source of water so often built near a river. But several hundred years ago we had no choice but to work with nature. Nowadays, as people have already said, mankind has an attitude that any force of nature can be overcome, by intelligence, technology or force of will.
New Orleans feel victim to flooding partly becuase the coastline had been 'reclaimed' and there was no floodplain to deal with the high water. Large parts of England were underwater this summer, partly because flood plains had been built upon, the rivers had been channelled in concrete, so they burst their banks more vigorously downstream.
There is a definite need for an overview, by local committees or governments, for a grand strategy to work with the forces of nature. People have been saying that for over 40 years, but will anyone ever listen?!
In my experience, it's a totally local decision as to how they regulate. The neighborhood near where I live is dominated by 100 Year FP and the City has been handing out building permits like SKittles on Halloween. Most houses are not visibly designed for flood (except for --I kid you not--a log cabin on stilts. Hilarious!) So I have no idea whether the designs take flood into consideration.
Here's the tricky part: a small part of this neighborhood was annexed by the County some years ago, and (what luck) my first big renovation/addition was on an 1830s house in that area. Had a very very good contractor, client was well-respected realtor in town, etc. The point being, none of us was trying to pull a fast one. County objected to first set of drawings due to the fact that we were changing the footprint. Mind you, the line sort of seemed to touch the back porch of the house, but very hard to tell because it's a USGS map with a friggin crayon line on it.
Anyhoo, we changed design (client asking WTF because all his neighbors have added on with no prob) County approved with no comment. Then while we were WELL into construction, County issued a Stop-Work and the fun began.
When we finally had our date in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the County people totally got caught with their pants down--they had not reviewed the second set of drawings at all, just stamped and sent back. Since the reasoning behind the rule made so little sense, we all just moved forward when they approved. Then, it turns out, someone in a semi-related department got nosey (literally showed up on the job site with no invitation more than once) and rang the alarm bells (we think)
When my builder explained to the Board that we were renovating and putting a small above-ground addition onto a building with 12+ inch LOAD BEARING brick walls, there really wasn't any issue about the 100 year flood taking the building down the river. I loved how he said it: "I'd never build something like this if I didn't know it had legs." And sturdy legs indeed. So one of the elder board members asked the County people how many 100 year floods had come up in the 160+ years that the house had been there. Answer: zero.
So, we were right, County was wrong (and issued apologies--sweet)
HOWEVER: Client, builder, designer (me) all ate $$ in the meantime. AND they essentially told us to put up a low sham ceiling and call the addition uninhabitable space (a very nicely trimmed out sunroom) for inspection.
A great lesson in the ass-backwards ways in which rules are applied. There are a few more of these houses on the County side, and they are historically significant, not to mention just cool old buildings. My sense is that the other owners are not going to touch them because of this mess. It's a pity, because we did a lot of restoration work that will ensure the house is there for at least another century and a half.
So: get the info up front, in writing, times 10 before you build anything more substantial than a catbox. And you may still run into trouble!
Nov 14, 07 2:39 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
residential design / build on flood plain lots?
going through the tax maps of my county, i came across several well-located lots zoned R-1 that were unfortunately designated as Flood Plain lots.
My question: Does a lot being a Flood Plain have any possibility of being built on? Of course the structure would have to be elevated about the flood line... would these be a process of convincing my local government to grant me access?
Any examples or experience?
I have seen houses built on flood plains (not by me mind you-but where I went to college, the town was expanding and they started building on the flood plains)...I know people that bought there were required to purchase flood insurance, which is extremely expensive...and where I gre up people built houses on the James River, which flooded quite a bit, they were required to build on stilts and inside "builtpims" were made to be removeable-such as kitchen cabinets. I saw one house though that instead of building on stilts, they built the basement out of concrete block, and put doors that were removeable so that in the case of a flood, the doors were removed and water flowed through the basement, which was waterproof.
But in my personal opinion, building on a flood plain is just asking for trouble...more trouble than it is worth.
sorry-meant "built-ins"...having some typing trouble today
research "flow through construction"...
i've seen construction on the flood plain here be very successful. many houses are built where it is known that the site will flood every year. you just design that assumption into the project.
yes, it costs more - both at the front end/construction and over the life of the project: cleanup, insurance, etc. it's not exactly an extreme lifestyle, living in the flood plain, but it has its inconveniences.
a friend of mine designed/built his house in the early 90s in a neighborhood that floods every other year or so. he loves to tell stories of rowing to his house, etc, and i don't think he'd switch for anything.
most of the comments above are right on. note that there is a difference between the lines of annual flooding, 50yr, 100yr, and 500yr flooding. (we had a 100yr flood in 1997.)
We do a lot of work with developers who are always looking at the flood plain development on our little island.
Get yourself a good engineer, get familliar with flood plain calculations, build with sacrificial floors (undercroft parking).
Good guidance with Welsh Gov Technical Advice Note 15
TAN 15 pdf
As I was flipping channels between football games, I caught something about developers building on land that is prone to fires. Couldn't catch much detail because I watched the end of it, but this seems just as ridiculous as allowing to build on areas prone to flooding.
Why do we only respond after something happens (in general now), when we KNOW its going to happen at some point. Especially when we know we can save lives, resources, money, etc. just by thinking ahead.
"Sorry, the riser on that stair is 1/4" too high so you might trip and sprain your ankles. We can't allow that. But I am allowing you to build on land that will most likely burn every 10 years, flood once every 50 years, and might be destroyed by a hurricane every 10 years or so. You have insurance right?"
the use of '##-year storm' is misleading in many ways. first-the calculations of probable frequency is based on out dated meteorology. second- they are indication of probability, so it is possible to have two five-hundred year storms in one year. third- back to the first point, climate change is changing the frequency and intensity of storms to more frequent and more intense.
other issues of dealing with flood-plains is that they are often under juridiction of the state or federal gov't, not just local towns.
beyond raising the structure up on stilts/flow-through/floating base, is that the environmental impact of all site development on the flood plain have lots of regulations that upland sites don't have to follow... so a great civil engineer and landscape architect are critical. you may also have to do an environmental impact report that will add thousands of dollars to the permit process.
then there is the flood insurance issue- with out insurance you may not be able to get a financing.
so buy a house boat and just dock it at the site...
"so buy a house boat and just dock it at the site"
I like that last sentence. Its actually very similar to the attitude that I have with these kind of issues. It does seem like a lot of work to build a structure that can "withstand" (read: mitigate major damage) natural forces. So why all that hard work? From what I understand, a lot of fresh water flood plains are also natural wetlands and unique beneficial ecosystems too.
I know everyone is tired of analogies to the medical profession, but I think applies very well here. To me, its like excessively smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods all the time, and then going to the doctor to find you have huge health problems which requires major surgeries. When all that time you could've avoided it in the first place. Of course all of it is "covered" under insurance anyway so he'll get the surgery and live, while driving the cost of health insurance higher for all those that can't afford regular checkups that could've prevented their own problems just by going to the doctor regularly.
Of course the difference is that the gov't shouldn't/can't have control over someone's eating/drinking/smoking habits - for the most part. But what land we can build on?
in my neighboorhood in Cincinnati a developer built two subdivisions on a very well known floodplain. Was selling $1million houses to out of towners who didnt know anybetter. Every spring their houses would flood. We would watch it happen and laugh at them
I guess the developer was sucking the right dick in city council so that he could build on the flood plains
didnt help that one of the guys who lived in one of these houses had an old GT40
that thing could get covered in H2O pretty quickly
Well apparently the problem is that in some places developers don't even need to suck....
Philarch, we do that everyday, in almost every single place we build. You may not think of it as such, but the massive amount of research, development, engineering, and cost of upkeep that goes into making the average home in, say, Wisconsin actually inhabitable to humans for half of the year is just the same kind of work. Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Mr. Jones in the cheese state double-insulates all his low-e windows, fills his attic up with a solid foot of fiberglass batt insulation all around, pours fuel into his home for 6 months and extra into his car when he can no longer bike or walk to work; Mrs. Robinson over in the golden state pours a concrete slab, floats it over sand, foregoes a basement, builds with wood, and remembers her moment connections.
It takes massive amounts of engineering and human ingenuity to live almost every place on earth. From moving mountains and flattening ground, to taming heat and cold, to running power lines all over the earth, to building on stilts in a flood plain. No matter where you live, you are going to come up against the fact that you need to learn how to coexist peacefully with nature in a compromise--both losing as little as possible--or you might as well just kill yourself.
...Or move to the mediterannean and live in a natural rock fissure.
To the original poster, if you look at the
End of Boxes thread there is a link to an article about a home in a floodplane
Myriam
In context of that post, when I say natural forces, I am talking about disasters.
I am talking about disaster Prone areas - areas that are basically guaranteed to have a disaster event. Disasters that can take people's lives or leave them homeless among other unpleasant things. There is a vast middle ground between that natural rock fissure in the mediterannean (which does sound tempting by the way if I don't kill myself) and that beautiful piece of land that also happens to be perfect for wildfires.
You make it sound like they build out there FOR the human ingenuity and compromising with nature peacefully which I am also all for. Actually, it is driven purely because 1.Developers are allowed to and 2. People will buy them.
We are talking about two totally different things here. If you disagree, I think this is a good topic for debate. But lets leave the condescending tone out of it.
From what I know about the history of human beings, it has been common to build on flood plains, primarily because settlements needed a source of water so often built near a river. But several hundred years ago we had no choice but to work with nature. Nowadays, as people have already said, mankind has an attitude that any force of nature can be overcome, by intelligence, technology or force of will.
New Orleans feel victim to flooding partly becuase the coastline had been 'reclaimed' and there was no floodplain to deal with the high water. Large parts of England were underwater this summer, partly because flood plains had been built upon, the rivers had been channelled in concrete, so they burst their banks more vigorously downstream.
There is a definite need for an overview, by local committees or governments, for a grand strategy to work with the forces of nature. People have been saying that for over 40 years, but will anyone ever listen?!
check out this recent story in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/travel/escapes/09away.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In my experience, it's a totally local decision as to how they regulate. The neighborhood near where I live is dominated by 100 Year FP and the City has been handing out building permits like SKittles on Halloween. Most houses are not visibly designed for flood (except for --I kid you not--a log cabin on stilts. Hilarious!) So I have no idea whether the designs take flood into consideration.
Here's the tricky part: a small part of this neighborhood was annexed by the County some years ago, and (what luck) my first big renovation/addition was on an 1830s house in that area. Had a very very good contractor, client was well-respected realtor in town, etc. The point being, none of us was trying to pull a fast one. County objected to first set of drawings due to the fact that we were changing the footprint. Mind you, the line sort of seemed to touch the back porch of the house, but very hard to tell because it's a USGS map with a friggin crayon line on it.
Anyhoo, we changed design (client asking WTF because all his neighbors have added on with no prob) County approved with no comment. Then while we were WELL into construction, County issued a Stop-Work and the fun began.
When we finally had our date in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the County people totally got caught with their pants down--they had not reviewed the second set of drawings at all, just stamped and sent back. Since the reasoning behind the rule made so little sense, we all just moved forward when they approved. Then, it turns out, someone in a semi-related department got nosey (literally showed up on the job site with no invitation more than once) and rang the alarm bells (we think)
When my builder explained to the Board that we were renovating and putting a small above-ground addition onto a building with 12+ inch LOAD BEARING brick walls, there really wasn't any issue about the 100 year flood taking the building down the river. I loved how he said it: "I'd never build something like this if I didn't know it had legs." And sturdy legs indeed. So one of the elder board members asked the County people how many 100 year floods had come up in the 160+ years that the house had been there. Answer: zero.
So, we were right, County was wrong (and issued apologies--sweet)
HOWEVER: Client, builder, designer (me) all ate $$ in the meantime. AND they essentially told us to put up a low sham ceiling and call the addition uninhabitable space (a very nicely trimmed out sunroom) for inspection.
A great lesson in the ass-backwards ways in which rules are applied. There are a few more of these houses on the County side, and they are historically significant, not to mention just cool old buildings. My sense is that the other owners are not going to touch them because of this mess. It's a pity, because we did a lot of restoration work that will ensure the house is there for at least another century and a half.
So: get the info up front, in writing, times 10 before you build anything more substantial than a catbox. And you may still run into trouble!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.