The spaces surrounding building mass in a project include varying amounts of service pavement, social pavement, and unpaved landscape open space. The spaces combine with building mass to form the physical intensity of the places we traverse. The intensity present produces a spectrum of emotional response that ranges from phobia through ambivalence to inspiration. The levels of stress created have not been correlated with the levels of intensity introduced, however; because the intensity of place has remained a perception without calibration. Density and the floor area ratio are the closest we have come to methods of measurement, but both have failed to completely hold the reins of leadership required. They are symptoms that result from more fundamental decisions. These decisions are the quantity choices that combine to form the intensity of mass and space that we find in our neighborhoods, districts, cities, and regions.
Dimensions have been used to measure building mass and space, but their
percentage equivalents have often been overlooked as the project recipe
involved. These quantities measure the intensity of place while dimensions are
limited to the shape and size of the land available. I’d like to begin
explaining myself by introducing Table 1. It itemizes the topics whose
quantities are currently correlated by trial and error to produce the shelter capacity
and intensity implied by illustrated site plans.
Table 1 applies to all buildings served by a grade parking lot around but
not under the structure when gross land area is given. The measurements entered
in the gray cells of Column G are those of the project entitled Bradenton
Office. They are the traditional square foot measurements of architecture and subtraction
is used to define a new area I’ve referred to as “shelter area remaining” in
cell G17. It is composed of impervious cover in cell G19 and unpaved open space
in cell G20. The amount of impervious cover available in G19 is found by
subtracting the amount of unpaved open space in cell G11 from the buildable
land area available in cell G10. It also represents the storm sewer runoff
capacity required. The corresponding percentages in Column F track the quantity
allocations measured in Column G. These percentages represent a project recipe that
could be applied to a land area of any size.
The objective of the first seven gray boxes in Column G of the Core
Module of Table 1 is to identify all miscellaneous pavements that reduce the
impervious cover remaining for parking lot and building footprint area. The sum
of these miscellaneous impervious areas is located in cell G30. It is
subtracted from the impervious area available in cell G19 to find the impervious
area remaining in cell G33. This is the core area that is available for surface
parking and building footprint area.
The Bradenton footprint consumed 21,667 square feet of its core area as
noted in cell C46. The three floors noted in cell A46 transformed the footprint
into 65,000 square feet of gross building area as noted in cell B46. The
remaining 109,330 square feet of core area was used for the parking lot measured
in cell D46. Two-hundred and sixty parking spaces were provided in this area for
an average of 420.5 square feet per space as calculated in cell A35. The
parking space quantity provided was equal to a provision of one space for every
250 gross square feet of building area as calculated in cell A36.
Gross building area in this context is a generalized measurement referred
to as building mass. Mass is equal to floor plan area times floor quantity when
floor plan area is defined by a simplified building perimeter that ignores architectural
articulation. The result is an indication of building volume, or mass that encloses
all detail and combines with pavement to form impervious cover. It is offset by
the unpaved landscape open space quantity provided.
The implications of the massing just measured are calculated by the
equations in cells F43–J43 of the Implications Module. The first of these
equations explains that the specification values entered in the gray cells of
Table 1 combine to produce 12,428 square feet of shelter area per buildable
acre. This is referred to as shelter capacity. The second explains that the
shelter capacity calculated represents an intensity of 0.752 in cell G46. The
third explains that the 3 story height produces an intrusion value of 0.6, and
the fourth explains that the sum of intensity and intrusion produces a
dominance value of 1.352. This is the point where evaluation can begin based on
an objective classification system for the place or places created.
The project I chose for this example is located on a street with low
pedestrian and vehicular volumes. If the volumes were greater, the intensity of
0.752 could have been multiplied by a factor greater than 1 for each mode and
level of adjacent traffic. In fact, the basic intensity value could be
multiplied by a number of related factors such as sound pressure level and air
quality to refine the sophistication of the measurement.
I do not intend to offer an evaluation of the measurements presented. My
objective is to demonstrate that it is possible to classify the places we
create for evaluation, knowledge accumulation, and leadership consistency.
Conclusions will always remain in the realm of opinion, but there are few
verdicts that do not rest on this foundation. The challenge is to give them
greater credibility with the method of knowledge formation employed.
The values entered in the gray boxes of Table 1 were primarily square
foot areas. The values calculated in the white cells of Col. G were also square
foot areas based on the equations in Col. H. These areas had their percentage
equivalents calculated by equations that were not displayed to avoid confusion.
These percentages are the keys to much greater planning and urban design potential
that I will explain with Table 2.
Table 1 presented the capacity and intensity implications of one set of
project measurements related to a given land area and three story building.
Table 2 uses the same given land area, but illustrates the options that can be predicted
when percentage values replace the square foot measurements entered in the gray
cells of Table 1. These percentages are entered in the Table 2 gray cells of
Col. F. Their square foot implications are forecast in Col. G by the equations
in Col. H.
The master equation entered in cell B39 of Table 2 applies to Building Design
Category G1 and has been added to predict gross building area options for the
floor quantity options entered in cells A44-A53. The ability to accurately
predict gross building area options in cells B44-B53 will become increasingly
important as we attempt to coordinate shelter capacity with intensity in
geographic areas that are limited to protect our source of life. I will show in
Tables 3 and 4 that the gray box specifications in Table 2 can easily be modified
to evaluate shelter capacity options for a limited land area based on the
intensity and quality of life desired.
The master equation in cell B39 of Table 2 applies to Building Design Category
G1 and indicates the pivotal points of shelter capacity discussion when gross
land area is given. The core area in this equation is a function of the values
entered in the gray cells of Col. F. It is found in cell G33 and will adjust
whenever one of its constituent values is modified. The second and third
factors in the discussion are parking related and entered in cells A35 and A36.
The value in cell A36 is a zoning regulation that varies with the land use
activity involved. The value in cell A35 reflects the total parking lot area that
will be provided per space. It is discretionary above a minimum standard and indicates
the extent of landscaping that will be included with the parking spaces
provided within the parking lot perimeter. The fourth factor in the discussion
is floor quantity. Options are entered in cells A44-A53 and related gross
building area alternatives are calculated in cells B44-B53 by the master
equation in cell B39. Related building footprint and parking design implications
are predicted in the remaining columns of the Planning Forecast Panel.
The existing Bradenton Office project is classified by the data on line
46 of Table 2, but the table illustrates that an unlimited number of shelter
capacity options were available during the planning stage since the
calculations will change whenever one or more of the gray cell specifications
is modified. Rapid calculation of these options will become increasingly helpful
as we attempt to balance the shelter demand of growing populations with the
quality of life produced by the increasing intensity required to avoid the
sprawling consumption of land. Tables 3 and 4 have been created to illustrate
how these options can be created with a few keystrokes.
I haven’t changed the land area under consideration in Table 3 in order
to facilitate comparison with Tables 1 and 2, but have adjusted the three remaining
points of primary discussion. The amount of unpaved open space planned in cell
F11 has been reduced to 25%. The amount of parking lot area per space has been
reduced to 400 in cell A35 (This means that little landscape area will be
provided within the parking lot perimeter), and the parking requirement in cell
A36 has been reduced to one space for every 300 square feet of gross building
area. The result is an increase in gross building area potential from 65,000
square feet to 97,435 square feet and an increase in shelter capacity from
12,428 square feet to 18,630 square feet per acre when the same three story
floor quantity is considered. Intensity increases from 0.752 to 1.397, however;
and dominance increases from 1.044 to 1.997.
I don’t mean to imply that the intensity increase above is desirable. I
am simply trying to illustrate the efficiency of land use evaluation that can
be produced with a standard classification and measurement system for the
Shelter Division of our Built Domain. For instance, Table 4 can be produced with
a few keystrokes if the previous intensities are considered too high.
The open space value in cell F11 of Table 2 has been revised to 50% in
Table 4. This single change means that intensity has dropped to 0.444 from
0.752, but three-story gross building area potential has also dropped to 46,398
square feet from 65,000 square feet because more unpaved open space is being
provided. In fact, Table 4 predicts that the 65,000 square feet of gross
building area in Table 2 cannot be reached with a ten-story building when the
unpaved open space increases from 39.5% to 50% and all other specification
values remain the same.
The Bradenton Office first appeared on pg. 219 of my book Land Development
Calculations published in 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, but the
measurements were disorganized compared to those in the attached tables. It
also contained no shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, or dominance
measurements and no master equation. The measurements in this essay document
what we know intuitively. This is a suburban office building with more than
average unpaved open space allocation and a modest three–story building height.
The picture tells you that some attention has been paid to the grading and
plant material added along the street frontage, and additional open space
remains to the rear along a stream and its floodplain, but it will win no architectural
design awards.
It will take thousands of these project measurements and evaluations to
build a library of knowledge that can successfully lead real estate development
toward shelter for the activities of growing populations on land areas that do
not sprawl to threaten our quality and source of life.
There is much to learn about the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance of the places we create, and sprawl reveals our current lack of knowledge and leadership ability. When rigorously classified, there are only six building design categories providing shelter for activity across the planet, and a limited number of master equations that control the capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance they produce. If you would like to learn more, and become one of the knowledge-builders, please see my book, Equations of Urban Design, published in 2020 on Amazon.com.
