Përmbytjet në Odense

i think they have to be combined. they can't exist alone; there is simply too much water, and there is not enough space in cities to only rely on infiltration devices.

the sustainable one looks prettier than the conventional. i would think that the sustainable requires more space than the conventional.

sustainable drainage: allows infiltration to the groundwater and looks nice. conventional drainage: directs excess water to a treatment plant, which is beneficial in the case of polluted urban/road runoff. it is easier to design for heavy rain events.

- need for space - good looking in the local environment - limited access to the public e.g. playing kids - storage possibilities when big rainfalls occur

a sustainable system is greener and cleaner.

the sustainable system is better suited to fluctuations in precipitation levels. conventional systems are designed for a maximum load that may be exceeded, leading to floods. moreover, the conventional system poses significant challenges for wastewater treatment plants that must adapt to these fluctuations. the sustainable system acts as a buffer—both for flooding and for the volume of wastewater that treatment plants must handle. the green areas that function as a sustainable drainage system also create better living environments in cities.

sustainable will provide a long-term solution for both the water problem and it will be good for the environment, plus it looks good. the conventional is cheap.

it provides the most recreational value and, on top of that, helps in the fight against global warming through co2 fixation in plantations.

the benefit of sustainable drainage is that you might be able to re-use the water (as groundwater) due to the natural filtration of hazardous components.

sustainable drainage utilizes rainwater, allowing for the creation of more interesting and greener urban areas.