4 ms·

Some people oppose solar panels (and wind farms) purely for aesthetic reasons. Buildings with flat roofs render this a non-issue, but then the lack of a sloped

by cxr 3y ago

Some people oppose solar panels (and wind farms) purely for aesthetic reasons. Buildings with flat roofs render this a non-issue, but then the lack of a sloped roof means you have to deal with water runoff. I wonder why we don't do roofs in the shaped of a mostly flattened V or W, comprising one or two shallow troughs, which would also ameliorate the need for gutters all the way around. I know sawtooth roofs are a thing, but it doesn't address the aesthetic problem.

papercrane 3y ago
Most flat roofs aren't really flat. They're built with a slight slope, I think it's a 2% slope, or 1/4" for every 12", towards a drain.
epistasis 3y ago
I object to lots of aesthetic issues on buildings around me. How can I use my objections to force the building owners to do what I want rather than what they want? Is there a way, or does it only work for things like solar and wind power?
- nativeit 3y ago
  Become a landlord, live the dream.
- cxr 3y ago
  Why have you posted this as a reply to me? Do you think you're going to get an answer from me to the questions you're asking—and the people you have an issue with? I would have rather not had my comment here at all if I knew it was going to get this kind of obnoxious "response".
  - epistasis 3y ago
    I certainly did not mean to be obnoxious to and I offer my apologies for annoying you. You seem open to the discussion of aesthetic concerns, but perhaps not the premise that these concerns only seem to matter for solar? Or was it merely the way I made my point? I didn't mean this comment to target you, but the idea of aesthetic concerns being a blocker for buildings, but rereading I could see that it might be ambiguous.
    - cxr 3y ago
      It's a great example of someone thoughtlessly dumping energy into a system in a way that (a) frustrates the people working towards the same thing you are and (b) leaves those you oppose unscathed. I.e. not just annoyingly unproductive but outright counterproductive. > You seem open to the discussion of aesthetic concerns I am not. That's why the questions I asked were targeted at crafting a way to sidestep/neuter the aesthetics debate entirely and rendering opposition moot.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  I realize you jest, but this is not a difficult answer. If your objections are yours alone, then best to move to a very rural area with minimal zoning laws. If you find like minded individuals, join a HOA with these "issues".
  - itsoktocry 3y ago
    >If your objections are yours alone, then best to move to a very rural area with minimal zoning laws. If you don't like it, move? Seriously? You also have that option; move to a rural area and put up all the solar power you want. NIMBY laws can be a burden, but statements like the above make me realize why they have to continue to exist; people will drive you out of your home if you don't go along with their projects.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- solardev 3y ago
  I know this is only half-serious, but people will often try to use environmental review processes to stop development (both for conservation or just because they don't want something). Especially in California, where the California Environmental Quality Act has a lot of teeth: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-... Handbook: https://www.califaep.org/docs/2024_CEQA_Statute_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf https://www.califaep.org/docs/2024_CEQA_Statute_and_Guidelin... PDF pages 348, 50, and cases in the appendix discuss aesthetic impacts. Anybody can raise these objections about a development (usually during a public comment period), with or without merit, and if enough people do so over enough comments, it can really mire down a project. Even if all the concerns are ultimately dismissed, it forces the developer and agency to spend time evaluating and rebutting them, and sometimes developers will just give up out of frustration and move onto areas with less regulation.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Aha, so the answer is that once something has happened, it's fine. But if a change is proposed, it can be stopped, or at a minimum much more costly and delayed. What an odd and counterproductive thing for an "environmental" law to do when the very status quo is what must to be changed to protect the environment.
    - solardev 3y ago
      Its intent was to place guardrails/checks and balances around new development that could potentially damage fragile ecosystems. (It's still used this way a lot) In actual use, though, it's often also (mis-)applied and weaponized by NIMBYs who just hate changes of any sort. Affirmative (as opposed to preventative) environmental laws also exist, such as the solar subsidies discussed in the article, CAFE (fuel economy) mandates, etc. They're just different. Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, lol, just point out that sometimes laws can be weaponized against their original intent.

by cxr 3y ago

papercrane 3y ago

Most flat roofs aren't really flat. They're built with a slight slope, I think it's a 2% slope, or 1/4" for every 12", towards a drain.

epistasis 3y ago

I object to lots of aesthetic issues on buildings around me. How can I use my objections to force the building owners to do what I want rather than what they want? Is there a way, or does it only work for things like solar and wind power?

nativeit 3y ago
Become a landlord, live the dream.
cxr 3y ago
Why have you posted this as a reply to me? Do you think you're going to get an answer from me to the questions you're asking—and the people you have an issue with? I would have rather not had my comment here at all if I knew it was going to get this kind of obnoxious "response".
- epistasis 3y ago
  I certainly did not mean to be obnoxious to and I offer my apologies for annoying you. You seem open to the discussion of aesthetic concerns, but perhaps not the premise that these concerns only seem to matter for solar? Or was it merely the way I made my point? I didn't mean this comment to target you, but the idea of aesthetic concerns being a blocker for buildings, but rereading I could see that it might be ambiguous.
  - cxr 3y ago
    It's a great example of someone thoughtlessly dumping energy into a system in a way that (a) frustrates the people working towards the same thing you are and (b) leaves those you oppose unscathed. I.e. not just annoyingly unproductive but outright counterproductive. > You seem open to the discussion of aesthetic concerns I am not. That's why the questions I asked were targeted at crafting a way to sidestep/neuter the aesthetics debate entirely and rendering opposition moot.
mlrtime 3y ago
I realize you jest, but this is not a difficult answer. If your objections are yours alone, then best to move to a very rural area with minimal zoning laws. If you find like minded individuals, join a HOA with these "issues".
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >If your objections are yours alone, then best to move to a very rural area with minimal zoning laws. If you don't like it, move? Seriously? You also have that option; move to a rural area and put up all the solar power you want. NIMBY laws can be a burden, but statements like the above make me realize why they have to continue to exist; people will drive you out of your home if you don't go along with their projects.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
solardev 3y ago
I know this is only half-serious, but people will often try to use environmental review processes to stop development (both for conservation or just because they don't want something). Especially in California, where the California Environmental Quality Act has a lot of teeth: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-... Handbook: https://www.califaep.org/docs/2024_CEQA_Statute_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf https://www.califaep.org/docs/2024_CEQA_Statute_and_Guidelin... PDF pages 348, 50, and cases in the appendix discuss aesthetic impacts. Anybody can raise these objections about a development (usually during a public comment period), with or without merit, and if enough people do so over enough comments, it can really mire down a project. Even if all the concerns are ultimately dismissed, it forces the developer and agency to spend time evaluating and rebutting them, and sometimes developers will just give up out of frustration and move onto areas with less regulation.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Aha, so the answer is that once something has happened, it's fine. But if a change is proposed, it can be stopped, or at a minimum much more costly and delayed. What an odd and counterproductive thing for an "environmental" law to do when the very status quo is what must to be changed to protect the environment.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Its intent was to place guardrails/checks and balances around new development that could potentially damage fragile ecosystems. (It's still used this way a lot) In actual use, though, it's often also (mis-)applied and weaponized by NIMBYs who just hate changes of any sort. Affirmative (as opposed to preventative) environmental laws also exist, such as the solar subsidies discussed in the article, CAFE (fuel economy) mandates, etc. They're just different. Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, lol, just point out that sometimes laws can be weaponized against their original intent.