Search This Blog

Sunday, March 17, 2024

How to Transition from Zoning to Urban Design

 I was recently asked the question in this title and thought I’d publish my answer.

INTRODUCTION

Urban design begins with mathematical relationships between the geometry of building mass and the two-dimensional quantities of building footprint, pavement, parking, and unpaved open space. They are combined and arranged to form a building site plan. Elevations are needed to define the building mass implied by the building footprint in the site plan. A collection of these plans defines the shelter anatomy of neighborhoods, districts, cities, and regions served by arteries of movement, open space, and life support. (Arteries of public open space are more of a dream than reality but their absence compromises the health of the anatomy in my opinion.)

It’s time to learn about the mathematical correlation required to understand and lead the shelter compositions we create within a randomly growing urban anatomy. We cannot lead without a more precise, comprehensive, and correlated mathematical language capable of the measurement, evaluation, debate, prediction, and planning required to guide our habitat toward a symbiotic relationship with its source of life.

There are only six building design categories when classification is based on the parking system planned or present. This classification makes shelter capacity measurement, evaluation, planning, and forecasting mathematically predictable. (Shelter capacity is gross building in sq. ft. divided by the buildable acres of the property.) I have mentioned these categories in many essays and request patience from those familiar with the topics as I repeat them here. They are: Buildings with surface parking lots around, but not under, the building on the same property (G1); Buildings with surface parking around and under the building on the same property (G2); Buildings with an adjacent parking garage on the same property (S1); Buildings with underground parking on the same property with or without supplemental surface parking (S2); Buildings with structure parking under the building on the same property with or without supplemental surface parking (S3); and Buildings with no parking required (NP).

Buildings are classified by design category in the attached Table of Contents. I’ve included the table to illustrate the range of forecast models currently available to measure, evaluate, predict, plan, and lead the formation of shelter within geographic limits defined to protect their source of life.

The master equations noted in the attached Table of Contents have been derived under separate cover for future evaluation. The forecast models shown greatly improve the models I included on a CD in my first book, Land Development Calculations, 2001 published by McGraw-Hill. I have had requests for the first edition CD from some who can no longer find it with a used book. As far as I know, the second edition still contains a more complicated CD and is available from both McGraw-Hill and Amazon.com.

I cannot provide copies of the first edition CD on request because: (1) It was prepared using an older version of Excel and I’m not sure it will still run. (I haven’t used it for years); and (2) The CD was often copied. As a result of this experience, I will only provide the new algorithm-based forecast models to an investor willing to place these inter-active models on a subscription based web site.

The gross building area options predicted per buildable acre by these models is based on optional design specification value entries. The results are a keystone consideration, since they define the shelter capacity, intensity, and revenue/income potential per acre. The type of activity planned or present within gross building area determines the economic potential of the shelter capacity options and intensities predicted per buildable acre. This potential revenue per acre can be compared to a city’s total annual expense per acre when its annual budget is divided by the taxable, buildable acres within its limits.

The relationship between a buildable acre and the gross building area present, planned, or predicted determines the shelter capacity of the acre. Occupant activity determines its revenue potential, and gross building area may be occupied by any permitted activity. A land use plan solely focused on compatible activity relationships leaves its economic future to chance since gross building area results are left to chance.

Economic development does not need to be a reaction to budget deficits. It can be part of a forward-thinking master planning effort when its decisions are mathematically driven. In other words, shelter capacity and activity must be mathematically correlated before economic potential can be more than hope that has never been a substitute for strategy.

It all begins with the choice of a building design category for a given land area and the optional values assigned to the design specification topics within its forecast model. Embedded algorithms correlate these values with the floor quantity options entered to produce a table of gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications. The activities that can be accommodated by these gross building area options have economic options and implications. It is in both the public and private sectors interest to correlate these shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options to produce economic results capable of consistently supporting a desirable quality of life within geographic limits that protect their source of life.

The gross building area capacity of a buildable acre is a function of the building design category chosen and a limited number of design specification topics and value options. This specification palette, however, produces a relatively infinite number of desirable and undesirable shelter capacity and intensity possibilities. Correlating these options to produce physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic security without threat to our source of life is the challenge we face on a planet that does not compromise with ignorance.

THE ANSWER

The transition from zoning to urban design will begin with the recognition that zoning has a mathematical foundation that must be distilled and correlated to become a successful leadership language. It has been a step in the right direction but urban design specifications are not like social regulations. They require mathematical correlation. I have often found that the currently absolute and incomplete zoning design regulations have simply led to contradiction and confusion. This appears to have contributed to the sprawl and excessive intensity we find in many of our cities.

Think of urban design as a mathematically correlated policy statement for each cell in an urban anatomy that cannot continue to randomly metastasize without consequence. This growth has been referred to as urban form, urban pattern, and urban composition, but these terms give the mistaken impression of organization. The only appropriate and accurate term has been “sprawl” enabled with legal annexation as an expedient solution for the growth we encourage with an inadequate understanding of the consequences.

Mathematical urban design decisions have physical, social, and economic implications that remain to be discovered through measurement, evaluation, and debate. The policy decisions adopted will be symbolized by the form, function, and appearance built on this foundation.

Walter M. Hosack: March, 2024





Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Hosack Blog Essay Index Updated 3.13.2024

 

Hosack Blog Essay Index Updated

Walter M. Hosack: updated 3.13.2024

Year/Mo/Order

www.wmhosack.blogspot.com

10.9.1

Replacing Density

10.9.2

The City is a Farm

10.10.1

Examining Architecture Part 1

10.10.2

The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance

10.10.3

The Limits of Shelter Capacity

10.11.1

The Variance Contradiction

10.12.1

Land Use Plans & Ponzi Schemes

11.1.1

Hidden Implications of Design Decisions

11.1.1

Strategy is Missing from Economic Development

11.2.1

A Tool for Containing Sprawl

11.4.1

Design Specifications & Shelter Intensity

11.4.2

Parking Lot Design Implications

11.5.1

Dwelling Unit Design Implications

11.6.1

Measuring Design Excellence - Sullivan & Wright

11.7.1

The Symbiotic City

11.8.1

Symbiotic Architecture

11.9.1

City Design for Economic Stability

11.10.1

Citizen Participation is not Leadership

11.10.2

City Design with Space

11.10.3

Design for Survival

11.10.4

Education

11.10.5

Education Preamble

11.10.6

Pitch and Catch

11.10.7

Predict Shelter Options within Limited Built Domain

11.10.8

Protecting the Planet

11.10.9

Talent and Leadership

11.11.1

A New Language for Architecture & City Design

11.11.2

Strategic & Tactical Architecture

11.12.1

Improving Arguments for Architecture & City Design

11.12.2

A Tool for Containing Sprawl

11.12.3

An Overlooked Threat to the Family of Man

11.12.4

Conceptual Design & Architectural Scope

11.12.5

Land is a Critical Design Element

11.12.6

The Public Benefit of Architecture

12.1.1

City Design Synopsis

12.1.2

City Design-Urban Design-Architecture

12.1.3

Context, Capacity & Intensity

12.1.4

Examining Architecture Part 2

12.1.5

Form Follows Invention

12.1.6

Logic & Knowledge in Design

12.1.7

Parking Variances - A Glimpse into the Future

12.1.8

Population and Intensity

12.1.9

Questions About City Planning & Architecture

12.1.10

Recalling Michelangelo

12.1.11

Shelter, Survival and Design

12.1.12

Sustainability

12.1.13

Vitruvius Revisited

12.2.1

A Common Imperative

12.2.2

Intensity is Measurement for Survival

12.2.3

The Problem w City Planning

12.2.4

What is Architecture?

12.3.1

Introduction to Intensity

12.3.2

Recalling Linnaeus

12.3.3

The Symbiotic Goal

12.4.1

John Muir & Architecture

12.4.2

Response to the Problems with City Planning

12.4.3

Taking the Pulse of Architecture

12.5.1

First Priority of Architecture

12.6.1

Architectural Education Dialogue Part 1

12.6.2

Architectural Education Dialogue Part 2

12.6.3

Architectural Education Dialogue Part 3

12.6.4

Core Issues Parts 1-2 Szymanik Inquiry

12.6.5

Five Categories of Architecture

12.6.6

Harnessing Architectural Curriculum Pt 1-2-3

12.6.7

The Other Architectural Puzzle CG1B

12.7.1

Criticism, Questions & Ideas

12.7.2

Relevance

12.7.3

Replacing the Floor Area Ratio

12.7.4

Seriously

12.7.5

The Significance of Gross Building Area

12.8.1

Searching for Answers

12.8.2

Shelter, Space & Intensity

12.9.1

Plan with Architectural Intensity

12.10.1

The Influence of Design Decisions

12.10.2

Quantifying Intuition

12.11

The Built Domain

13.1.1

Problem Solvers

13.1.2

The Many Faces of Architecture

13.3.1

Free Enterprise & Architecture

13.4.1

Symbiotic Knowledge

13.5.1

Sound Bytes from Architecture

13.6.1

Commentary - Part 1

13.6.2

Leadership & Design

13.9.1

The Design Decisions That Matter

13.9.2

The Greatest Invention

13.10.1

Repositioning

13.11.1

Fundamental Questions

14.1.1

Sustainability & First Ring Suburbs

14.1.2

To the Philippines & Malaysia

14.1.3

Traffic Lights

14.2.1

Scoundrels in Law

14.4.1

Tacit Knowledge

14.5.1

Reply to Tacit Knowledge Comment

14.11.1

A Plan Review

15.1.1

Lesson from the Duomo

15.1.2

Reconsidering Architecture

15.1.3

Two Questions with Follow-up

15.2.1

A Fork in the Road

15.2.2

Architectural Practice and Profession

15.2.3

Comments Worth Pondering

15.2.4

Survival

15.3.1

Design Leadership

15.3.2

Two Question Follow-up

16.7.1

Advertise The Science of City Design

16.7.2

Excerpts from The Science of City Design

16.7.3

The Science of City Design

16.8.1

City Planning & Design Basics

16.8.2

Repeating Success

16.9.1

Pop-up Urban Projects

16.9.2

Shaping the Future With Opinion

16.9.3

Urban Renewal

16.10.1

Removing the Blindfold from Economic Development

16.10.2

The Human Scale

16.11.1

Land Use & Urban Form

16.11.2

Power, Policy & Planning

16.12.1

Architecture, Agriculture & Planning

16.12.2

Graduating from The Floor Area Ratio

17.1.1

Restoring the Health of Cities

17.2.1

Arguing for a Science of City Design

17.2.2

Strategic Architecture

17.2.3

Surface Parking Limits on Shelter Capacity

17.2.4

The Concept

17.2.5

Updating a Comprehensive Plan

17.3.1

Adapting Our Cities to Reality

17.3.2

Improving the Influence City Planning & Design

17.4.1

Addendum to What is Architecture

17.4.2

Townhouse & Apartment Density Exposed

17.5.1

A Cautionary Comment

17.6.1

A Debate Over Architectural Beauty & Taste

17.7.1

Grenfell Tower

17.7.2

Replacing Density - Updated

17.7.3

Zoning Conflict & Opportunity

17.8.1

Competing to Consume

17.8.2

Core Area Restrictions on Shelter Capacity

17.8.3

The Future of Cities

17.8.4

Understanding a Building Footprint

17.9.1

Leading Shelter Capacity, Intensity and Context Results

17.9.2

The Future of Shelter

17.10.1

Comparing Shelter Des Decisions 11.4rev

17.10.2

G1.R1 Single-family Detached Home Dilemma

17.12.1

Reply to Architectural Criticism

18.1.1

An Expanded Role for Architecture

18.1.2

Architectural Capacity & Shelter Intensity within a Limited Built Domain

18.2.1

The Least a Smart City Should Know

18.3.1

Elected & Appointed City Planning & Design Decisions

18.3.2

Facing Reality on a Finite Planet

18.3.3

Open Space Metric

18.6.1

Learning to Lead the Formation of Cities

18.7.1

Visualizing the City

19.1.1

Correlating Economic & Real Estate Development

19.3.1

A Question from Kabul

19.3.2

Back Cover

19.4.1

Planning Our Presence

19.4.2

Response to Bill Gates re Land Consumption

19.5.1

Shelter Design Basics

19.6.1

A Collision of Architectural Opinion

19.6.2

Shelter Sprawl

19.8.1

Unstable Land Use Allocation

19.9.1

Larry Discussion

19.10.1

Benefit of Land Use-Urban Form Correlation

20.3.1

A Farmer Knows More

20.4.1

Density and Covid-19

20.4.2

Planning with Economic Development Homework

20.8.1

Zoning Design Specifications

20.10.1

Contributing Knowledge

20.12.1

Measuring the Intensity of Place

21.2.1

Design Decisions that Determine Apartment Density

21.3.1

Design Decisions that Determine Single-Family Detached Housing Density

21.3.2

Design Decisions that Determine Townhouse Density

21.4.1

Design Decisions that Determine Single-Family Subdivision Density

21.7.1

Land Use & Development Capacity Correlation

21.8.1

Shelter, Sprawl, and Survival

21.10.1

The Equations of Urban Design

21.12.1

Not Published - Architecture - Fine Art

22.2.1

Concerning Our Presence on the Planet

22.3.1

The Consequences of City Design Decisions

22.7.1

Urban Design

22.8.1

A Scientific Approach to Zoning Plan Review

22.9.1

Shelter Capacity

22.12.1

The Land We Take for Granted

22.12.2

Confronting Sprawl with an Adequate Language

23.1.1

Interpreting the Planet's Law of Limits

23.1.2

Zoning Plan Review

23.2.1

Annexation

23.2.2

The Public Policy - City Design Disconnect

23.2.3

The Implications of Shelter Capacity Design Decisions

23.4.1

The Decisions Needed

23.4.2

The Pattern of a Master Plan

23.5

Blog Directory

23.5.1

The Relationship between Genesis 1:28 and City Design

23.6

Making the Argument for Shelter Capacity Evaluation

23.6.1

Correlating the Decisions that Determine Density

23.7

Confronting Sprawl

23.8

A Glimpse into the Shelter Capacity Spectrum

23.9

Transitioning from Zoning to Urban Design

23.9.2

Principles of Shelter Capacity Evaluation for Urban Design

23.9.3

Sprawl

23.10.1

The Law of Limits

23.10.2

Our Challenge

23.11.1

The Shelter Decisions We Face

23.11.2

Response to Oana Bogden

23.11.3

Architecture and the Language of Physical Design

23.11.4

Choices and Decisions

23.12.1

Correlation

23.12.2

Zoning

23.12.3

The Shelter Capacity of Land

24.1.1

City Design for Economic Stability

24.1.2

Measuring, Evaluating, and Predicting the Shelter Capacity and Economic Potential of Land

24.2.1

The Decisions that Determine Density Impact

24.2.2

The Housing Shortage

 

 

 

*Essays in italics published after "Symbiotic Architecture" compilation of essays available from Amazon.com