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.
