A QUESTION from KABUL

A QUESTION FROM KABUL

Originally addressed to the AIAKnowledgeNet

I am working as an Urban Planner in developing a City bus plan for Kabul city in Afghanistan, which includes both operational plan as well as a plan for necessary infrastructure (e.g. stations, terminals, depots, etc.).

I tried to search a specific standard for developing a land use plan for all these stations, but could not find any.

Can someone please recommend me a specific manual/ standard which could help me in identifying percent of green area, built-up area and paved area (for bus maneuver and parking).

I’ve condensed the question above. The complete text mentioned the following:

“Unfortunately the sites geometry are not specified yet, so we want to purpose a typical package with specified requirements and facilities.”

ANSWER

I'm glad you're searching for site plan ratios that relate to building design categories occupied by specific activity groups. These ratios define the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance planned or present. They also determine the amount of land we remove as a source of life.

If you enter values in the shaded boxes of Table 2.3, including the gross building area objective in cell A34, the embedded architectural algorithm and master equation will predict buildable land area options related to the floor quantity options entered in cells A44-A53. Examples of predictions are located in its Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module. The values shown are examples. They do not apply to your particular Activity Group (Bus Terminals). The table relates to the G1 Building Design Category, which includes all buildings served by surface parking and loading adjacent to, but not under, the building. You would have to tailor the values entered to your particular Activity Group. The result would be a forecast of buildable land area options. The problem is that the knowledge to accurately fill in the values is missing. This is where research and knowledge is required. If you send me the values you wish to enter in the shaded boxes, including floor quantity options, I will be happy to send you an Adobe copy of the forecast. This may help define your “typical package”. (This offer was only made, and is limited to, the unnamed source of this inquiry.)

If you know land area and wish to forecast development capacity, send me the values in the shaded boxes of Table 2.1. The embedded architectural algorithm and master equation will predict gross building area options for a given gross land area. The results are a function of the values entered, including floor quantity options. The accuracy of the forecast would again be a function of the acquired value knowledge you have regarding the topics addressed by the shaded boxes of Table 2.1. This is why I suggested that you measure existing project values and evaluate the results produced before you decide on the values you wish to enter.

The percentage of unpaved open space entered in cell F11 of Table 2.1 and in cell F10 of Table 2.3 is often overlooked but of particular importance. When it is subtracted from 100%, the remainder is the total impervious cover permitted on the site. Impervious cover should not exceed the storm sewer capacity that is, or will be, available. Sacrificing open space for the sake of shelter capacity on a given land area increases impervious cover. Flooding can result when the decision is repeated along the branch line of a storm sewer with limited capacity. Protecting storm sewer capacity is one justification for the presence of unpaved open space. Improving our quality of life within the urban pattern is another, but our present knowledge regarding the relationship of unpaved open space to our physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life is minimal at best and often subjective. Unpaved open space, however, is the missing artery in an urban anatomy of shelter capacity that is served by arteries of movement and life support. A sprinkling of isolated parks has attempted to substitute for the deficiency. 

The Language of Shelter Capacity

"The Conversation", Arnold Lahovsky c.1935

There are now two worlds on a single planet – the Built Domain and the Natural Domain. The challenge is to prevent the Built Domain from consuming its source of life with annexation and sprawl that provides shelter for population growth. This means that we need a language that can accurately predict gross building area options per acre. I say this because gross building area is shelter capacity per acre that may be occupied by any activity; and the proportional presence of activity within a limited municipal land area determines its economic stability, social benefit, and potential for symbiotic correlation with the Natural Domain.

There are only six habitable building design categories on the planet when classification is not based on building appearance and internal occupant activity. This limited number makes gross building area and shelter capacity prediction feasible for every acre of land based on the building design category chosen. The shelter capacity of each category is determined by design specification value decisions. These topics are listed in a category’s design specification template. These values are correlated with an architectural algorithm and used by a category master equation to produce gross building area and shelter capacity options per acre. Changing one or more values in the category template produces a new set of predictions. This becomes significant when we realize that the ability to accurately predict gross building area alternatives and shelter capacity options per acre for any activity will determine our ability to correlate a growing presence with a planet that is no longer a world without end.

I have completed my work and will be publishing my fourth and final book on this subject. The first two included a CD that contained spreadsheet forecasting models, but the category classification system and internal mathematics are now outdated. My fourth book will not contain a CD because the previous versions were extensively copied. I now hope to place these improved models in the cloud for access on a subscription basis. These models can predict hundreds of options in the time it would take to sketch one. The mathematical correlation involved can eliminate regulatory contradiction papered over with arbitrary variance approvals. This has the potential to improve evaluation, focus decisions, and eliminate the promiscuous, arbitrary consumption of our Natural Domain when accurate correlation is missing.

Excessive shelter intensity is an internal urban threat that compromises our health, safety, and quality of life. The external threat is sprawl. It continues to consume our source of life. Both can be addressed with the language of shelter capacity, but there is a more fundamental policy issue. It is symbiotic survival. Excessive shelter will threaten our quality of life with excessive intensity and the natural balance that we instinctively know is required. Shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance can now be measured with the language of shelter capacity. This is the language needed to accurately assess the shelter options available to Homo sapiens and the decisions needed to protect a human presence that depends on symbiotic solutions for sustainability.