Sound Bytes from Architecture (revised)

Architecture remains an artificial creation imposed on a natural world. 

Architectural design is presently learned from experience that reduces the odds of repeating success across the entire profession. 

Opinion will remain hypothesis for architectural design – until it can be supported and defended by a foundation of knowledge. 

Opinion is instinct, intuition and hypothesis. It can lead to knowledge but dies with talent and has difficulty repeating success. 

We travel through context and survive in buildings. An architect who is forced to sacrifice context for capacity introduces intensity that is not a public benefit. 

Intensity is the measurable context of place. A single place is created by architecture. A collection of places is created by chance. Improving the odds is the goal of city design. 

Architecture has spun-off entire professions until its success now shelters its greatest challenge. 

Architectural design that considers open space a “left-over” leaves random intensity and potential over-development in its wake 

A building has its roots in the land but it will not flower while it consumes resources and discharges waste without redeeming ecologic value. 

Modern architecture theorized that form was a product of function after misreading Louis Sullivan’s organic intent. Natural function became an obstacle and form followed invention while speculation responded with sprawl. 

The Symbiotic Period began when we saw a small blue planet surrounded by an atmosphere at risk – and infinite black punctured by points of light that have always led the way.  

The Natural Domain has become an environmental asset and the Built Domain has emerged as a threat to survival. 

The Built Domain continues to expand its presence and the intuitives among us sense the presence of a threat. 

Creativity responds to a voice that is heard by intuition, interpreted by logic, answered by imagination, and memorized by those seeking knowledge. 

Fine art is intuition and imagination organized with composition and expressed with talent that cannot be memorized.  

The design components of intensity can be identified, measured, evaluated, and forecast to improve future decisions that intend to shelter activity within a limited Built Domain. 

Design excellence is currently measured with the yardstick of opinion. If a convincing explanation of public benefit is an architectural objective, a new measurement system will be required. 

Excessive shelter intensity has often been a response to land ownership limitations and free enterprise objectives. 

Architectural design excellence is not a product. It is a collection of decisions represented by a product that will successfully serve both private and public interests when the options are more thoroughly understood. 

Shelter is an essential element of survival but it consumes our source of life with the appetite of free enterprise.

A parasite consumes its host. A symbiotic parasite achieves a state of mutual benefit that ensures its continued survival. We have the power to choose the path we wish to follow and have named the decisions adaptation.   

City design is an issue of intensity and survival that is beyond the present scope of architecture, but the shelter it builds will express the city design decisions we make. 

The goal is to shelter the activities of growing populations without threatening their source of life with sprawl, or their quality of life with excessive intensity. Architectural form, function, and appearance will express the level of success achieved within sustainable geographic limits. 

We’ve been given a mind and we’re expected to use it.

 

Symbiotic Knowledge

I am working on a series of equations involving design topics that combine to produce levels of shelter intensity among buildings, within neighborhoods, and throughout cities. The value assigned to each topic represents a design decision. An equation collects these decisions and predicts the intensity implied. Intensity in turn falls within a range beginning with sprawl and ending with over-development. When equations are not written and parameters are not assigned to each value, the outcome is completely unpredictable. This is where we are today as we promiscuously consume our source of life.

The key terms are equations, topics, and values. They are meant to support talent and improve its persuasive ability by focusing on site plan and building mass relationships that produce levels of intensity. Values assigned to topics within an equation represent architectural design decisions. Acceptable parameters represent city design decisions. Persuasive parameters will require an evaluation of the options. Parameter decisions will define desirable shelter intensity options within the limits of a Built Domain that protects its source of life, the Natural Domain.

At the present time equations do not exist. Random topics are scattered throughout zoning ordinances without mathematical coordination; and values are often copied from other ordinances or enacted from limited experience. The result has been over-development, sprawl, and economic decline with occasional success that is rarely attributed to the prevailing ordinance or plan.

We have been searching for additional knowledge and I believe it begins with intensity. We cannot live without shelter for all of our activities; but its expanding presence threatens our source of life. Restricting expansion for growing populations will increase the intensity of shelter provided and threaten the quality of life introduced. It is a design problem requiring decisions that cannot be addressed with the current tools and research available, in my opinion.  

Improvement will begin with an understanding of the topics, relationships, and optional decisions defined by the equations of intensity. I hope this will contribute to a Symbiotic Period of design. It will be required to adapt once again to the voice heard by intuition, answered by imagination, and memorized by those seeking knowledge.

Balance

If you can see the land or sea beyond your pavement, look around you. This is our source of life. Even a small yard and a single tree contributes to its integration and our benefit. It is a Natural Domain challenged by a Built Domain of Shelter, Movement, and Life Support. The Built Domain has led us to believe we live in a separate world; but the reality is that we are competing with the planet and neither domain is free from a universe beyond our comprehension.

We are not free to compete without consequence since the evolution of a threat to the planet will not prevail. The results consume and pollute the land and sea, not to mention the atmosphere, which I think all recognize as our source of life. Among us, a completely free market is free to cannibalize vulnerable populations. This is not Darwinian evolution and improvement of the species. It is predatory competition disguised as evolution that consumes the planet based on a Ponzi concept of growth. It will eventually lead to extinction. The course must be adjusted with the responsibility we often choose to ignore. Competition with five fouls to give only applies to sport and war.

A building has its roots in the land and will not flower until its functions are in harmony with the planet’s ecologic functions. Until then it will remain a parasite consuming our source of life. This means that a building and its occupants must recognize the sovereignty of the planet and contribute to its health and welfare. This is the question before architecture and it must expand its knowledge, skills, and correlation with others before it can begin to address a question that is part of our evolutionary responsibility. The challenge is to design cities and shelter that represent a new period of symbiotic awareness on an evolutionary path we are expected to define.

Architectural Equations & Strategic Design Decisions

I believe that shelter is a threat to the planet more fundamental than the effect of climate change. Shelter is a cause that consumes resources, discharges waste, and is home to many activities and much equipment that lacks redeeming ecologic value.

All shelter can be divided into six generic design categories.  Each category is differentiated by the parking system present or planned. This makes it possible to write equations for gross building area potential (development capacity) based on a given parking system. It does not solve our symbiotic problem, but it lays the foundation for shelter capacity evaluation within sustainable limits.

Solving the symbiotic problem without addressing the sustainable shelter issue is not possible. Sprawl will simply consume the solutions.

Architectural equations define the relationship of design topics within a parking design category. I’ve called the potential options development capacity (gross building area per buildable acre) alternatives. These alternatives are influenced by the values entered in a design category equation, and each set of values defines a level of intensity. Choosing a design category and set of topic values represents an intensity decision. These are the strategic decisions needed to shelter growing populations within geographic limits that do not threaten their source and quality of life.

Intensity is the gross building and pavement area present or planned per buildable acre. It is a function of the design category and topic values chosen. The topics in an equation can also be measured at existing locations to evaluate their combined implications. Topic research can produce a language of architectural intensity and urban composition that is unquestionably in the public interest. City planning and zoning have made an attempt; but they have had arbitrary results in my opinion.  Their language and regulations are simply not based on an understanding of design categories, topic values, and architectural equations. These are the tools that can lead individual shelter contributions toward successful city design objectives with a symbiotic goal.

It’s not enough to govern land use separation and building design detail. Land use allocation and shelter intensity decisions are inseparable elements of urban form and must be correlated to protect the physical, social, psychological, economic, and environmental “welfare” of populations within sustainable geographic limits. Unfortunately, some elements of urban form have been overlooked and others have been arbitrarily combined to produce misallocation, over-development, and sprawl in many cases. This lack of correlation has not laid the foundation for a symbiotic future and has led to my belief that any effort to protect the public health and safety which overlooks welfare is a recipe for misery and extinction.

Development capacity (architectural mass or gross building area), pavement area, and project opens space area can be defined by the values entered in an intensity equation. These values are the mathematical recipe behind shelter composition and appearance.  Research has not correlated design categories and topic values with their intensity implications, but intensity has an undeniable impact on our quality of life. This oversight has occurred because category equations have not been published to define topic relationships and talent has been treated as fine art.

The equations of architecture can be used to guide shelter research, build knowledge, repeat success, strengthen talent, defend opinion, and justify claims of benefit; but this will require measurement and evaluation of existing conditions that produce levels of shelter intensity. When knowledge is compiled, strategic advice will be sought to shape the quality of life for growing populations within sustainable geographic limits.

Louis Sullivan’s poetry noted that form follows function in the Natural Domain. In the Built Domain of the future, architectural form must follow symbiotic function to survive in a limited field that is not overgrown with intensity.

Problem Solvers

In the essay below, I do not mean to say that architects do not solve problems. I hope it becomes clear that I am talking about the level of problem solving involved. In my opinion, the level is adequate to serve but not to lead and this is the “problem”. Architects do not presently define leadership goals. They achieve leadership objectives. A better architectural vocabulary is needed to address shelter goals within urban form at a scale that is unquestionably in the public interest. Architects have the resources in their files to begin the research and build the knowledge, but the challenge has never been issued.

I have long felt: (1) That there is a leadership vacuum where urban sprawl and core congestion are concerned; (2) That this is a threat to survival since sprawl consumes our source of life and congestion (intensity) degrades our quality of life; (3) That inattention stems from an inadequate architectural vocabulary capable of recognizing and expressing the “problem”; (4) That an inadequate vocabulary leads to inarticulate city planning solutions; (5) That our present vocabulary cannot efficiently and comprehensively correlate two-dimensional land use separation with three-dimensional intensity; (6) That a lack of correlation leads to promiscuous annexation blindly seeking economic stability; (7) That land is our source of life, not to mention water; (8) That asphalt paving is the largest remaining oil spill on the face of the planet; (9) That municipal land use allocation must be correlated with development capacity and intensity within limited geographic areas; and (10) That development capacity can be mathematically measured, forecast, evaluated, limited, and correlated with many other city planning objectives.

We are all problem solvers. Architects do not have a monopoly. The “problem” is often a lack of anticipation. It overlooks the question and substitutes assumption.

The question is how to provide shelter for growing populations within a limited Built Domain that does not threaten its source and quality of life? The strategy will require a new leadership vocabulary. Fortunately, the many faces of architecture have a surprisingly limited mathematical anatomy, and common concerns may begin to coalesce around sustainable solutions for a symbiotic future. 

ESSAY 

As Claudio Velez, AIA has pointed out, there are many "problems" in life. The challenge is to organize and prioritize the hierarchy. I understand that architecture is a design problem to be solved, but the word "problem" has created confusion. It is too general. Architects do not define leadership problems. They achieve leadership objectives by correlating tasks and activities to solve project design "problems". The solutions represent solitary accomplishments with unconvincing social contribution in many cases.

Architects coordinate tasks and activities to achieve an objective called a“problem”, but a building is often only part of the problem. It is a step on the road to a client goal. In fact, architects are part of the client’s problem until their work is complete. 

The architectural problem is that a building benefits an owner and occupant but can be considered an intrusion that threatens the public health, safety, and welfare. Architecture is on the wrong side of the equation and the imposition of building codes, zoning codes, and public review are evidence for my claim. 

It does not need to be this way. Medicine has a public and private face. The same is true for law, engineering, accounting, and so on. These professions have recognized that public benefit accrues from improvement in private practice and have effectively explained this to government. Their institutions include goals, strategies, and research involving public benefit. Private practice focuses on the skills and detail needed to deliver that benefit by achieving a project objective. It took a lot of military organization to succeed at Normandy, but the tasks and activities were part of a management objective. The objective was part of a planning strategy to achieve a leadership goal. Architects must join the general staff and build the knowledge required to earn the position.  

A building is an objective. Shelter for the activities of growing populations in a geographically limited Built Domain is a leadership goal intended to protect their source and quality of life. A planning strategy is needed and we are missing the architectural language required. 

If architecture seeks to improve the demand and public esteem for its knowledge, this issue offers an opportunity. We cannot survive without shelter, but we can consume our source of life with buildings. Architecture can decide to lead or follow, but most will agree that the problem must be solved and that the goal is a worthy public priority. I happen to believe that architects are ideally suited to correlate this monumental effort - if they can reorganize their priorities. If not, they will follow others who lack much of the intuitive preparation that must be translated. 

I’ve written about this on many occasions and published two editions of a book and software that offer the tools and language needed to proceed. I sound like a salesman when I mention this however, so I will keep it to a minimum. Equations were embedded in the software provided. I’m working on a second book that includes derivation of the ten equations at the heart of this effort. They represent the knowledge I have to offer. The book will attempt to explain the intent and conceptual foundation for others who may be interested in continuing the effort. An equation is a good definition but an inefficient interpreter of concept and intent.  

On this note, I’d like to close with a quote from the fourth chapter of this work in progress: 

“Land has development capacity that can be expressed in terms of its gross building area GBA potential per acre. Capacity is a function of the parking design category being considered and the values entered in its related design specification template. Capacity options are produced by changing the values entered in the template. A decision to adopt a set of specification values represents a decision to limit the GBA capacity of land and create a level of intensity.  

Buildings shelter activity and are the nucleus of cellular urban growth. We refer to these cells as lots, parcels, property, real estate, and so on. Each Shelter Division cell includes building mass, pavement, and project open space that is connected by a Movement Division, integrated by a Life Support Division, and surrounded by an Open Space Division. The Open Space Division includes agriculture, public open space, and undeveloped land. (Remember: Project and parking open space are contained within each cell.) The Built Environment is currently a threat to the Natural Domain because it is not contained within the sustainable geographic limits of a Built Domain.  

We refer to an “urban cell” as a project. A collection of cells is called a neighborhood, district, village, city, or region depending on the quantity. At any scale however, these cells are not natural and are currently sprawling across the face of the planet without restraint. 

A “shelter cell” contains design specification topics in various quantities related to the parking category involved. Parking choices and quantity relationships determine the gross building area capacity of land and the building mass that emerges from the cell. The relationship of topics and quantities within a cell is defined by development capacity equations. The challenge is to contain these cells and use development capacity equations to design shelter capacity for growing populations within them. In fact, the objective of all forecast equations is to predict either the gross building area GBA capacity of a given land area (cell), or the buildable land area BLA options (cellular options) that can satisfy a given gross building area GBA objective. All other related information such as, but not limited to, population, traffic generation, cost, revenue, expense, and return on investment is based on these gross building area and land area predictions. 

Land area combines with land use and building capacity to produce intensity. Intensity directly affects our physical, social, psychological, economic, and environmental quality of life. The land use allocation of activity and intensity cannot be considered independently. They must be correlated to survive within a limited Built Domain by wisely using the land available.” 

Copyright: Walter M. Hosack, 2013. All rights reserved

 

In the end, there is only one design “problem” that matters. How do we use the land and its resources so that we do not consume our source of life in the pursuit of food, water, and shelter for growing populations? I use the word “land” loosely in this context, since it includes the sea and all environmental resources we currently deplete and despoil with an outdated definition of “survival”. 

PS: 

The note from Michael Malinowski, AIA regarding recent research confirms what many have suspected for a long time. Architectural priorities do not match client priorities. I would argue that the architectural priority list needs expansion as well, since it is not clear that architecture protects the public interest from client abuse. In my opinion, practice improvement (architecture) and public service (city design) are worthy objectives along the road to a professional goal of public benefit.

The Built Domain

I have written a number of essays over the years and have created a set of forecast models to predict the development capacity of land using a number of generic design scenarios, but essays can be lost and models conceal equations that represent knowledge.  

I plan to publish these essays and equations under the title, The Built Domain. The equations will be applicable to both U.S. and metric systems of measurement, which solves one of my problems. They will also relate to a vastly simplified forecasting system that focuses on gross building area as the common currency of architecture and city planning. 

In the process I have written an Introduction that represents my best effort to explain why this is relevant, in as few words as possible, and am posting it here for your review. I would appreciate any comments you may have but reserve the right to ignore them all. Designers everywhere should understand my attempt at humor.

 

The Built Domain 

The planet was a gift that we have subdivided until it is now in pieces. We have placed a hair net of property lines over its face and still fight for control. We have continued with consumption and pollution that should make wise men pause, since we are protected by a thin film of atmosphere on unstable land surrounded by fragile, turbulent seas; and our decisions are placing it all at risk in a universe of silent judgment.  

Subdivision continues to promote the illusion that we own the planet, but we dominate with power that pales in comparison to the forces we challenge with ignorance. All land is now claimed and we continue to subdivide, but the net is irrelevant when we stop to consider our source of life. It is simply a device to mark territory that a wolf does with ease. The struggle to survive is identical since we both live under the same conditions, but we have discovered a way to separate ourselves and conceal the consequences with political, legal, and economic abstractions. These have altered our perception of survival, but Instinct and intuition are producing an awareness of danger. Our decisions have created momentum that will challenge our ability to adapt once again; but domination will not solve the riddle of symbiotic survival on a planet that continuously evaluates our behavior.

Since we have been able to roam freely, we have assumed that the land, sea, and air have been ours to claim, inhabit, consume, and pollute; but is the case? I happen to agree with John Muir that the Natural Domain must be protected until we improve our ability to preserve it as our source of life. If you agree, the challenge is to define the Built Domain that is left for us. 

Our ability to shelter growing populations within a limited Built Domain will be a function of our land use allocation and intensity decisions; our ability to live with these decisions; and the demands these decisions place on our planet and its limited resources.  

Land Use Allocation 

Think of land use allocation within the Built Domain as fields on a farm, activity as the crops planted in each field, and intensity as the bushels per acre produced by each crop. Income is a function of field areas, crops, bushels per acre, and value per bushel.  

In city planning terms, fields are represented by land use allocation. Crops are land use activities. The square feet of shelter present, planned, or permitted per acre of activity is intensity. Intensity is a decision to limit development capacity. Income is a function of the revenue potential per square foot of activity introduced.  

A city defines fields and plants crops with a land use plan. Yield is influenced by the development capacity permitted. A city rarely correlates land use areas, activities, and capacity with its revenue, expense, and intensity implications; and it has great difficulty adjusting allocation imbalance to changing conditions and declining revenue. When annexation is not an option the problem is compounded. The revenue produced by annexation for the wrong activities and intensities, however, may have no better chance of off-setting the city’s operating, maintenance, and improvement expense over time. In these cases, annexation can delay the inevitable with new money that will not meet its future expense while consuming our source of life with sprawl. When annexation cannot meet its future expense, sprawl symbolizes a Ponzi scheme that leaves decay in its wake. The result is hardly the highest and best use of a city’s land area. In other words, a city is a farm that rarely correlates its crops and yield with the income needed to support a desirable quality of life over an extended period of time. 

Land use allocation and intensity can be correlated to produce adequate income for a desired quality of life within limits; but it requires new tools, applications, information, and awareness. If you accept that we must learn to live within geographic limits to protect our source of life, then you may also agree that we must begin to understand development capacity and intensity within these limits.  

Development Capacity 

I have mentioned that intensity is a design decision to limit development capacity. The challenge is to forecast capacity and limit intensity. The goal is to live within limits without sacrificing our quality of life. This will depend on our ability to accurately predict development capacity options with equations and values that can also be measured at existing locations to understand the intensity implied by these values. 

Intensity is the relationship of building mass and pavement to project open space on a given buildable land area. It is an increment of land development capacity and is a function of the parking system chosen and design specification values entered in the system’s design specification template.  

Building mass is volume that remains when building appearance is ignored. Gross building area within the volume can be tailored to suit any activity and is the common currency of architecture. It is also a prerequisite for survival. When you can accurately and efficiently predict the capacity of land to accommodate gross building area, you will be able to shelter population activities within limited geographic areas; but will have to learn more about the implications of intensity, revenue, and expense to our quality of life.  

Intensity 

Architectural intensity has been a condition without an adequate definition, but it will determine our ability to survive within sustainable geographic limits while protecting our quality of life.

Intensity is created by the relationship of four fundamental architectural components. These relationships are defined by the following equation. The logic leading up to this equation is summarized in Table I.1 and discussed in detail in my essay, “Quantifying Intuition“.  

INT = (f/S) * (TDA/BLA)  

When:

INT= intensity

f= the number of building floors present, planned, or permitted

S= the percentage of buildable land area devoted to project open space

TDA= the sum of gross building area GBA and pavement PVT in sq. ft. or sq. meters

BLA= the buildable land area present or proposed in sq. ft. or sq. meters 

NOTE:

The INT result can be a rather large number when high-rise buildings are considered. Dividing the INT result by 10 or 100 is one option. The low end of the intensity spectrum under these circumstances can become a very small fraction, however. The choice is one of preference. The only condition is consistency. 

The challenge is to predict the total development capacity of land TDA, including its gross building area potential GBA; to limit capacity with project open space S and building height (f) regulations that produce levels of intensity; and to correlate intensity with activity and context to produce economic stability and a desirable quality of life within sustainable geographic limits.  

 

Conclusion 

The equations to be presented can forecast development capacity for land areas of any size. Capacity is a relatively unlimited spectrum of opportunity until parking systems are chosen and design specification decisions are made. These decisions limit capacity and produce intensity. The result is gross building area GBA per acre. 

When intensity is aggregated across project areas, the result is urban form and space. Architectural design tailors urban form one project at a time with context, occupancy, engineering, and appearance decisions. 

When you consider our symbiotic imperative, the implications of these decisions become dramatic. We must shelter growing populations within sustainable geographic limits to protect our source and quality of life. It begins with the city design of urban form; but this is only part of the symbiotic puzzle. Truly “organic” shelter must be served by symbiotic systems of movement, open space, and life support. When successful, urban form will grow from symbiotic function and organic architecture will symbolize sustainable decisions based on symbiotic knowledge.

 

I am confident that shelter is intuitively recognized as a survival issue. It is simply a more abstract topic than medicine. After all, we only began seeing the anatomy of our patient with the advent of satellite photography -- and that awesome image from the Moon. It’s time to start treating the sprawl we have observed before the patient is consumed by disease. It’s hard for me to imagine that we cannot recognize responsibility now that we have seen the gift we have been given.

The Influence of Design Decisions

Twentieth century architecture pointed to our symbiotic imperative with two famous phrases: “form follows function” and “organic architecture”. They both meant that a flower grows from its roots in the land and blooms when in harmony with a universe of forces beyond its comprehension, in my opinion. Architecture has roots in the land, but only symbiotic human decisions can make it bloom in harmony with the planet's sovereign power.

Five decisions determine the development capacity of land to shelter activity when surface parking is the preferred storage solution. Architects often take these decisions for granted because they learn to evaluate options and make decisions intuitively; but this impedes the accumulation of knowledge since it depends on talent that cannot be taught. It can only be improved.

These decisions involve five primary variables that affect gross building area GBA potential on a given buildable land area BLA when surface parking around, but not under, the building is contemplated (G1 design category).

I’ll explain these topics by beginning with an equation derived in “Replacing Density”. It stated that:

GBA = f*(CORE) / (1+ (fs/a))

 

Key:

f = Number of building floors

CORE = BLA – (S+M)

BLA = Buildable land area in sq. ft.

S= Project open space as a % of BLA

M = Misc. pavement as % of BLA that includes loading area & pavement beyond parking lot area

s = Average area per parking space in sq. ft., including landscaping, within the parking lot perimeter

a = GBA sq. ft. permitted per parking space provided

 

This can be reduced to a universal equation with five variables when the equation is unwrapped.

 

Given: GBA = f*(CORE) / (1+ (fs/a))

 

GBA*(1+ (fs/a)) = f*(CORE)

Since CORE = BLA-(S+M)

GBA*(1+ (fs/a)) = f*(BLA-(S+M))

GBA = (f*(BLA-(S+M))) / (1+ (fs/a))

When BLA=1,

Equation (1):  GBA = (f*(1-(S+M)) / (1+ (fs/a))   

NOTE: GBA is expressed as a fraction of BLA

The five variables in Equation (1) are (f), S, M, (s), and (a) and the values assigned represent shelter design decisions that set the stage for all decisions that follow. The values (f) and (a) are generally specified in a zoning ordinance, but the values S, M, and (s) are often overlooked. They are critical to successful leadership, however; and their omission is the easiest way to explain why zoning has been able to separate incompatible land uses but unable to avoid over-development and sprawl. Any regulation that omits one or more of these five elements for the G1 design category simply encourages arbitrary debate over isolated detail. Equation (1) shows that all five are needed in the equation and that results are produced by their interaction. The next five tables are examples of this interaction.

Table 1 illustrates the GBA options produced by Equation (1) when project open space S is a variable along the x-axis; building height is a variable along the y-axis; and the values (a), (s), and M are held constant. GBA options are expressed as percentages of BLA and the option range is stated as a percentage of BLA in the upper right hand corner of the table. In this case, the range is 30.1% and begins with GBA=1.4% BLA when (f) =1 and S=90%. Some of these options are undesirable, but research is still not available to support intuition with knowledge.

Tables 2-4 repeat the exercise with different variables along the x-axis. Table 2 illustrates GBA options when the average parking lot area provided per parking space (s) varies. The GBA range noted is 14.2% and begins with GBA=1.15% when (f) =1 and (s) =900 sq. ft. of total parking lot area per parking space.

Table 3 illustrates GBA options when the parking space requirement per thousand sq. ft. of GBA (alt-a) varies along the x-axis. The GBA range noted is 192.4% of BLA and begins with GBA=7.6% when (f) =1 and (alt-a) =20 parking spaces required per thousand sq. ft. of GBA.

Table 4 illustrates GBA options when the miscellaneous pavement percentage M varies along the x-axis. The GBA range noted is 12.3% of BLA and begins with GBA=12.9% when (f) =1 and M=25% BLA.

Table 5 is the primary battlefield of zoning. It presents GBA options when project open space S varies along the x-axis and parking requirements (a) vary along the y-axis. The number of building floors is constant at f=5 for this example. The greatest development capacity potential GBA can be found in the S.1, or 10% open space, column. This GBA capacity can be increased further by requesting a variance to the parking requirement (a) that applies. For instance, a variance from 5 to 4 parking spaces per thousand sq. ft. of GBA would produce a 9% increase in GBA potential in the S.1 column.

The ten percent open space in Table 5 is not desirable, nor is 375 sq. ft. of parking lot area per space, and a parking requirement of 4 spaces per thousand is not enough to support some land use activities. I make this point because I’m not trying to advocate individual design specification values. I’m trying to explain how they interact. When one or more is omitted it is impossible to accurately predict development capacity with Equation (1); and I have already pointed out that three are often overlooked in zoning ordinances and the other two are considered independently. In other words, it is impossible to plan and lead shelter for growing populations within sustainable geographic limits when these equations are not understood. This in turn makes it impossible to protect the Natural Domain from sprawl and the Built Domain from excessive intensity because special interest arguments often trump public uncertainty.

At the present time my guess is that most zoning ordinances do not regulate project open space S, miscellaneous pavement M, and/or minimum parking lot area per space (s). Even if they did, their requirements in isolation can be contradictory when not correlated.


In addition, zoning requirements are rarely based on a land use plan with self-imposed geographic limits; or a massing plan for the urban form of shelter that is correlated with its physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications. In other words, city planning has separated incompatible land use activities, but it has done it with sprawl that threatens our source of life.

Architects take the five variables in Equation (1) for granted. They use intuition to correlate these elements with design sketches. He or she cannot complete a project without considering these five variables; but the graphic methods of solution have limited the options that could be evaluated, and their mathematical foundation has been overlooked by an emphasis on “talent”. This has limited the accumulation of knowledge.

Table 6 summarizes the results in Tables 1 -5, but these results only illustrate how Equation (1) works. They do not represent recommendations. All results are expressed as a multiple of the buildable land area BLA available.

It should be fairly obvious from the results that building height (f) influences development capacity GBA, but that the surface parking requirement (a) is the most influential. A closer look at Table 3 will explain this more fully. If you look at the (f-1) row, the development capacity GBA varies from 7.6% to 40% of BLA depending on the parking requirement (a). This is a range of 32.4%. The two-story range is 64.7%. The five-story range is 161.8%. All of these ranges are a function of a variable parking requirement (a) within a constant building height (f) row, and they all exceed the development capacity ranges available in the other tables. In other words, modifying the value (a) has the greatest potential to increase development capacity GBA for the G1 design category. It’s not hard to understand the number of variance requests from parking requirements (a) when looking at the potential GBA range in Table 6, but keep all of the tables in mind. It is not only (a) that influences development capacity, and design leadership must have all five reins under control to prevent a run-away.

Design begins with the correlation of relationships in Equation (1). This defines the context format for architecture and city design when the G1 design category is considered. Buildings emerge from a context format and symbolize our progress toward shelter for growing populations within symbiotic limits that do not threaten our source and quality of life.

Intensity and over-development become a problem because project open space S, miscellaneous pavement M, and minimum parking lot area per parking space (s) are rarely specified or correlated in zoning ordinances. The omission inadvertently emphasizes building mass and pavement. The public is compressed in a right-of-way of increasing traffic and pollution. Storm sewer capacity is threatened by excessive impervious cover, and the list goes on. The battle is often fought within Tables 1-5 when surface parking is involved, and many real estate investors / building owners / speculators would prefer choices in the left-hand column of each, but this is a recipe for excessive intensity that will not protect our quality of life.

Architects will have a lot to offer when they decide to quantify intuition, demand context, and accumulate knowledge to defend design decisions that benefit the public interest.

POSTSCRIPT

In the end it’s all about gross building area GBA potential on a given buildable land area BLA because GBA can be used to shelter any activity. For instance, if you divide the gross area of an existing apartment building by the number of dwelling units present the result will be an average gross dwelling unit area ADU statistic. If you divide the GBA forecast for another buildable land area by the same ADU, its dwelling unit capacity can be predicted, assuming the same dwelling unit mix and areas. The critical piece of information is the development capacity GBA of land, and it can be forecast.

Single family homes are no different. Gross building area shelters a specific activity on a given land area. The GBA capacity of a residential lot is a function of the five variables in Equation (1). Gross building area is the universal currency. It is simply tailored to meet the needs of a specific activity. I’ll have more to say about this in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quantifying Intuition

Intuition is telling many that we can’t continue to consume, pollute, and disrupt the land and resources of the Natural Domain without consequences. When the built environment includes agriculture, I’ve referred to the combination as a Built Domain that must not consume our source of life - the Natural Domain. When population grows within a limited Built Domain however, shelter intensity must increase based on the development capacity of land because sprawl is not an option. This means we must be able to efficiently and comprehensively predict shelter capacity options and evaluate the impact of shelter intensity on our quality of life.  In other words, intuition is telling me that we must protect our source of life from sprawl and our quality of life from excessive intensity within sustainable geographic limits.

I have focused on the prediction of shelter intensity options with templates related to generic building design categories to quantify the evaluation of options within sustainable geographic limits. These building categories are part of a classification system for the Shelter Division of the Built Domain. Choices within the classification system lead to a specific forecast model. The values entered for each template topic in a forecast model are used by the model’s embedded equations to predict gross building area GBA options in its planning forecast panel. These GBA alternatives represent potential levels of intensity for a given buildable land area. Table 2 illustrates the specification template and forecast panel format of a typical model.

Forecast models can be used to evaluate the development capacity of land areas in a city, but first let me explain the term. Development capacity is the gross building area GBA that can be constructed under the conditions specified in a design specification template. Changing one or more values in a template changes the GBA forecast. The GBA produced by a set of template values has also been referred to as a level of intensity. This means that design specification templates can be used to correlate land use allocation with intensity. This knowledge can be used to predict anything that is a function of gross building area intensity such as, but not limited to, population, traffic, construction cost, and return on investment; not to mention municipal revenue and expense.

Urban economic stability is a function of land use allocation, shelter intensity, building condition, and prosperous activity. This combination also affects a city’s physical, social, psychological, and environmental quality of life. Even if you don’t agree that our source of life can be consumed by the sprawl we build, this may persuade you to more seriously consider the impact of intensity on a quality of life that begins with the economic stability present.

In other words, shelter intensity is the relationship of building mass and pavement to open space. It is a condition that can be measured, predicted, and has lifestyle implications. In my opinion, it is one key to protecting our quality of life within sustainable geographic limits; but many are required. For instance, acceptable levels of shelter intensity must be supported by organic functions before we can consider them part of a symbiotic survival solution.

The term “organic” began with the paraphrase “form follows function” from the poetry of Louis Sullivan. “Organic” was a Frank Lloyd Wright translation that referred to building style, space, appearance, and landscape integration; but this was not Sullivan’s intent in my opinion. Sullivan meant that a flower blooms from organic function that is programmed by design from a power beyond comprehension, and that building design must attempt to emulate this example. Building appearance has yet to bloom from organic function, and this is the design challenge architecture, city planning, engineering, and science have been given. The fact that this must occur within sustainable geographic limits introduces the issue of development capacity and shelter intensity.

I was able to forecast the development capacity of land (gross building area potential per acre) long before I was able to calibrate the intensity options represented with a standard measurement system. In fact, I’ve made a number of attempts that were too complicated to explain or too simple to consistently lead many efforts toward common objectives. This is my best effort to date, but it only addresses shelter intensity. Organic architecture is still a dream that began with fine art when domination began to threaten global survival and coexistence became a common concern for many. It continues to remind us of the goal that must be won.

Intensity design represents the context format for organic architectural functions. In other words, the urban form of shelter is produced by intensity design that must eventually be served by organic systems.  Shelter intensity represents my effort to begin quantifying context intuition, and it begins with the following assumptions. The result is an intensity equation and a method of intensity measurement that can help us index research and build knowledge for succeeding generations. In the end organic functions will improve our chances of survival and intensity context will make life worth living.

ASSUMPTIONS:

1)   Increasing building height (f) increases intensity INT on the same land area.

2)   Increasing gross building area GBA increases intensity on the same land area.

3)   Increasing parking, loading, and miscellaneous pavement PVT increases intensity on the same land area.

4)   Increasing a project open space percentage S decreases intensity on a given land area.

Based on these assumptions, intensity increases when the number of building floors (f) increase and project open space S remains constant on the same land area. Intensity declines when project open space increases and building height remains constant. In other words, f/S represents a partial index of intensity. This explains the relation of building height and project open space to intensity but does not explain the relationship of gross building area and pavement.

Gross building area and pavement combine to produce total development area TDA. Intensity increases when total development area increases and the buildable land area BLA remains constant. Intensity declines when the buildable land area increases and the total development area remains constant. In other words, TDA/BLA also represents a partial index of intensity.

To think of intensity as simply a function of building height overlooks the effect of building mass, pavement, and project open space. Intensity is a function of all four. Any equation that predicts intensity INT therefore must show that intensity on a given land area increases with building height (f) and total development area TDA. It must also show that intensity INT declines when project open space S and/or buildable land area BLA increase.

THEREFORE:

Multiplying (f/S) by (TDA/BLA) is a simple way of expressing these intensity INT relationships.

INT = (f/S) * (TDA/BLA)

The equation states that intensity INT increases with increasing f and TDA values. It declines with increasing S and BLA values. In other words, increasing building height (f) and/or total development area TDA increases the intensity INT on a given buildable land area BLA and project open space provision.

This equation illustrates the complexity of intensity when you realize that total development area potential TDA is equal to gross building area plus pavement; that both are a function of many values entered in the design specification template of a forecast model; that one or more values in a template can be changed to produce a new TDA forecast; and that many templates are needed to define the range of generic building design categories available. (See Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in “Planning with Architectural Intensity” for decision trees that lead to a specific forecast model. Each model includes a customized design specification template.)

To avoid confusion, I have referred to gross building area GBA options as “development capacity options” and to gross building area plus pavement options as “total development area options” TDA. In other words, TDA=GBA+PVT. Pavement area PVT is equal to the sum of parking, loading, and miscellaneous pavement areas.

Table 1 presents several generic intensity calculations to illustrate a range of intensity results. Table 2 illustrates how intensity is predicted in the forecast model CG1L when a full set of design specification values is entered.

CONCLUSION

Shelter intensity is similar to blood pressure, which is an analogy I’ve used in the past. Blood pressure is a benchmark that indicates the health of a complex set of anatomical relationships. Samuel von Basch is credited with the discovery of systolic blood pressure in 1881. Scipione Riva-Ricci introduced a more easily used version in 1896. Harvey Cushing modernized and popularized systolic measurement after visiting Ricci around 1900. Nikolai Korotkov added diastolic measurement in 1905.

Medical history is not the point, however, even though I’ve always found it amazing that medical progress of significant general benefit only began in the 20^th century. My point has been that von Basch developed a method of measurement  for intensity based on his intuitive belief that there was a relationship to illness. Diagnosis was correlated with measurement and knowledge accumulated over time to improve the credibility of prediction.

I am suggesting that shelter intensity is a similar topic related to the anatomy of our Built Domain. It can be measured and correlated with the evaluation of health, safety, and welfare that ensues. The knowledge gained will add to the credibility of planning and prediction based on measurement with leadership potential, and I hope it will help us learn to live within sustainable limits that do not threaten our source of life with sprawl and our quality of life with excessive intensity.