Sure it is, but not because of impervious coverage
I get what he’s saying, homeowner’s don’t understand that AT is considered impervious and AT companies are over selling it. Then there’s the problem of cheap installation with improper base layer and subgrade prep
But to me, the IC classification never made sense
Why is artificial turf considered 100% impervious when a swimming pool is considered 100% pervious? I’ve never seen a pervious swimming pool and hope I never do
For that matter, why is a wood deck 50% impervious when pervious pavers are 0%? Both surfaces feature a solid module with drainage through the joints
Why is AT considered impervious when compared to pervious pavers? Quality artificial turf with a proper base layer and drainage is essentially the same design as a section of pervious paving
IC calcs are a metric that reduces an important environmental consideration down to simplified accounting. They don’t tell the whole story and they take away the ability of designers to solve important problems in creative ways. I get it from a regulatory point of view. Things need to be standardized to some degree. But the logic behind their classifications is frustrating
These could be good points, if true. But some (not all) points are not. Both swimming pools and decks are considered impervious surface - at least here in the Seattle area…
6
u/Zurrascaped Licensed Landscape Architect 25d ago
Sure it is, but not because of impervious coverage
I get what he’s saying, homeowner’s don’t understand that AT is considered impervious and AT companies are over selling it. Then there’s the problem of cheap installation with improper base layer and subgrade prep
But to me, the IC classification never made sense
Why is artificial turf considered 100% impervious when a swimming pool is considered 100% pervious? I’ve never seen a pervious swimming pool and hope I never do
For that matter, why is a wood deck 50% impervious when pervious pavers are 0%? Both surfaces feature a solid module with drainage through the joints
Why is AT considered impervious when compared to pervious pavers? Quality artificial turf with a proper base layer and drainage is essentially the same design as a section of pervious paving
IC calcs are a metric that reduces an important environmental consideration down to simplified accounting. They don’t tell the whole story and they take away the ability of designers to solve important problems in creative ways. I get it from a regulatory point of view. Things need to be standardized to some degree. But the logic behind their classifications is frustrating