Confronting Sprawl with an Adequate Language

 

City planners, architects, urban designers, landscape architects, zoning specialists, and many others concerned with the use of land have been preoccupied with the compatibility of adjacent activity and the oppression, disease, and crime stimulated by the overcrowding of buildings and populations within municipal land areas for quite some time. This has produced a series of independent stipulations within zoning ordinances that lack the mathematical correlation needed to form a successful leadership language. The extensive number of variances granted to often conflicting stipulations serves to prove the point. Sprawl symbolizes the leadership confusion. Fortunately, sprawl is slowly being recognized as a symptom of disease. The microscopic cause is a growing population’s need for shelter on a planet with limited resources. The cure will depend on our agreement with this observation and our ability to identify the shelter options available. This will require a new leadership language with vastly improved diagnostic potential.

It may be a surprise to learn that there are only six shelter options available when classification is based on the parking solution employed rather than the style applied, and this makes shelter capacity prediction for limited land areas feasible. It also helps to recognize that: (1) shelter is simply gross building area that may be occupied by any activity when it conforms to local building code requirements; (2) shelter quantity for any and all activity is a function of the gross building area that is placed on a given land area; (3) gross building area per acre is shelter capacity; (4) shelter capacity can be increased with floor quantity options that are one of a number of initial decisions that must be correlated; (5) shelter capacity options represent levels of measurable intensity; (6) current intensity levels are accidentally created with design stipulations that remain incomplete and uncorrelated; (7) intensity management with comprehensive, correlated design value decisions is needed to shelter growing populations within geographic limits prescribed to protect their quality and source of life; (8) intensity management topics apply to all buildings; and (9) the social activity within a building does not determine the physical intensity introduced but it may magnify the impact.

Building classification by style has distracted us from these fundamental observations for centuries. I’ve written about these six building design categories many times, and repeat them here simply as a reminder. They are: (1) G1 buildings with grade parking around, but not under, the building;(2) G2 buildings with grade parking around and under the building; (3) S1 buildings with adjacent parking structure on the same premise; (4) S2 buildings served by underground parking structures; (5) S3 buildings with parking structures above grade under the building; (6) NP buildings with no parking required. I have also included a set of shelter capacity and property demand forecast models for independent parking garages (PG) in a book I will mention at the end of this essay even though I don’t consider them buildings for human habitation unless dictated by an emergency.

My emphasis on parking rather than building style and appearance stems from my effort to accurately forecast the gross building area capacity of an acre of land when floor quantity options are correlated with the other pivotal decisions involved. These are the options for growing populations that we are expected to balance within limited geographic areas to share the planet with all that depend on it for survival. It is a deceptively simple proposition. It is complicated by the number of opinions, variables and decisions that must be correlated. Our mistake has been to overlook some of these decision topics and consider the remainder independently.

Shelter capacity forecasting depends on the simple subtraction of design specification values. They are entered in the shaded cells of a forecast model related to a chosen building design category and given land area. This subtraction proceeds from the given land area to the core area remaining for building and parking area. Subtraction is performed by an embedded algorithm that correlates all values entered to arrive at the core area remaining. A master equation related to the building design category calculates a range of gross building area options for the land area given, topic values entered, and range of floor quantity options introduced. A change to one or more of these values changes the gross building area predictions calculated by the forecast model. These are the shelter capacity options available for the land area given based on the design specification values entered. The intensity represented by each prediction is calculated with a separate equation noted in the model.

The forecast model format and its mathematical foundation introduce a comprehensive, correlated leadership language that can also be used to accurately measure existing physical conditions. The evaluation measured and recorded can then be used to lead future design specification decisions toward intensity levels and relationships that improve our ability to shelter growing populations within geographic limits. We cannot do this without a language that has the potential to lead with fundamental, comprehensive shelter design specifications. These decisions can no longer be left to the discretion of a marketplace that will consume land without limits because they cannot predict the consequences. It is now possible to predict the options available and evaluate the consequences implied with the organized measurement, evaluation, and documentation needed to build knowledge long before appearance becomes an issue.

TABLE 1

I have included Table 1 in many essays and am repeating it here as an example of a complete, correlated set of design specification topics and values for the G1 Building Design Category. I am also repeating text from an earlier essay to amplify its message.

There are 26 shaded cells in Table 1 for the G1.L1 forecast model. Each shaded value entered in a cell is correlated by an algorithm, and master equation in cell J47, to produce the gross building area options in cells B44-B53. I mention this to make the point that regulating each shaded value independently is a hopeless exercise without the leadership potential needed to produce total average revenue per acre equal to or exceeding a city’s average expense per acre without annexation or budget reductions over time.

The shaded cells in Table 1 are not intended to replace an entire zoning ordinance. They are intended to replace independent design specification topics with the correlation needed to lead shelter capacity toward its intended intensity and occupancy goals. (See “The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance”)

Gross building area prediction is the first objective in Table 1. The other predictions in the Forecast Panel add initial detail needed by a designer. The Implications Panel measures the consequences of the values entered in the Design Specification Template. The final intensity and dominance columns of the Implications Panel measure the results produced by the correlated shaded cell values, and resulting gross building area predictions, to make evaluation and knowledge accumulation feasible.

It should be obvious that language and knowledge is limited by the vocabulary available. Shelter intensity has been a term without adequate definition ever since its presence was recognized with instinct, intuition, awareness, and observation. Density and the Floor Area Ratio have been easy to measure but they have missed many of the controlling topics that must be correlated to provide the shelter massing and intensity leadership that forms a pattern for our quality of life. Current zoning stipulations have simply led to variance appeals and sprawling annexation patterns in search of a mirage called “physical, social, and economic balance”.

EXCERPTS FROM “LAND USE and DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY CORRELATION” (with modifications)

“I’ll close by including Table 1 as an example of an urban design forecast model that applies to all buildings served by an adjacent parking lot on the same premise. It is called the G1 Building Design Category and is the most common category used to shelter activity in many parts of the world -- when parking is required.

The gray cells in Table 1 indicate design specification topic locations. The values entered are mathematically correlated for use by the master equation in cell J47. A change to one or more of the design specification values entered will modify the results produced. The point is that these specification values are not independent and isolated. They represent combinations that must be correlated -- and illustrate the interactive relationship of building design decisions.

The ten floor quantity options entered in gray cells A44-A53 complete a set of design specification options. The master equation in cell J47 predicts their gross building area implications in cells B44-B53. The Planning Forecast Panel predicts further design implications using the equations on line 43. The shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance impact of these options is calculated with the equations on line 43 of the Implications Module. I am not providing an evaluation of these impact measurements since this is a hypothetical example; but measurement, evaluation, and accumulated knowledge is the leadership promise offered by this system of building classification, design specification, planning prediction, implication measurement, and evaluation.

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

The public revenue implications of the gross building area forecast in Table 1 is easiest to explain by looking at the options predicted in cells B44-B53. If $10 of revenue were expected per sq. ft. of gross building area, the total annual revenue would range from $48,843 to $73,511 depending on the floor quantity chosen. Since the buildable land area noted in cell F10 is 100% of the gross land area given in cell F3, the total revenue projections would be divided by 5.230 acres to find the revenue potential per acre provided by the city’s inventory. This would range from $9,339 to $14,055 per acre. A simple comparison with the city’s annual expense per acre would indicate the contribution or subsidy implications of the land and building options contemplated.

The results that evolve from fundamental design specification decisions have been overlooked for centuries; and overdevelopment and oppression are not easily overcome when economic hardship is claimed -- until the examples become too extreme to ignore during the debate that ensues. The Implications Module in Table 1 illustrates one method of measuring the impact of gross building mass and composition on our quality of life within the urban fabric we create. When these measurements are combined with the financial evaluation mentioned in the paragraph above, it will become easier for a city to evaluate the combined impact of its shelter design decisions. A city that understands these implications for every parcel within its jurisdiction is a city that is prepared to evaluate the land use and urban design decisions that will affect its future.

The acres in a city’s inventory are a primary source of its revenue, but all do not produce the income needed to equal a city’s average expense per acre. If a city does not understand the economic implications of land use and shelter capacity allocation, it will continue pursuing random economic development projects without the comprehensive strategy needed to lead its physical decisions to foreseeable financial improvement in a revenue and expense equation that determines its quality of life and the demands it places on its limited source of life.”

CONCLUSION

“I hope I have shown that it is entirely possible to mathematically correlate land consumption with gross building area capacity, activity, economic potential, and quality of life within limited geographic areas when the leadership topics for each building design category classification are comprehensively defined and correlated with the algorithms, value decisions, and master equations required. The goal is to define a limited Built Domain without wandering consumption. I think we all understand at some level of comprehension that limits are required. It remains to define them and the path required with a language that can lead us to consistent results.

I have contributed the conceptual framework and technical information needed to continue this discussion in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It is available on Amazon.com but the title may have been an unfortunate choice since the book is not consumed with equations. They are simply the foundation on which the conceptual, predictive, measurement, and evaluation format is based. I have also published over 190 essays regarding this topic at my blog www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. It has been visited by over 32,000 readers.

There is a lot of work to be done to reach the only goal that matters. Symbiotic survival is not an option. It is a mandate that will not be met until our habitat ceases to be a threat to ourselves and its source of life – the Natural Domain.”

Escape to Mars will simply prolong our mistaken assumptions regarding land ownership prerogatives, shelter capacity, and population growth.

Walter M. Hosack: December, 2022

The Land We Take For Granted

 Ancient wisdom has taught us that this is a world without end and that populations should be fruitful and multiply in the face of many threats to their existence. This has led us to believe that we are free to consume unlimited land area for the shelter and agriculture we need to protect a multiplying population from the threat of an unstable environment.

Apollo 11 has proven to all but the chronically cynical that the Earth’s geography is not a land without end; that its water supply is limited; and its atmosphere is a thin veil of protection that can be easily contaminated by the activity of expanding populations. Those with imagination could also see from the photographs transmitted that our growing microscopic presence was creating a Built Domain that was consuming the face of a limited Natural Domain that is our source of life. This has been as difficult to comprehend without satellite photography as the microscopic cause of bubonic plague in the Middle Ages and the geologic change that has occurred over millennia.

In a word, Apollo 11 told us that the Earth is not a geographic world without limits for all present. The pictures, however, have not told us that we are the only species on Earth with the capacity to anticipate the consequences of excess and diagnose the illness. The history of all other life on Earth simply stands in mute testimony to the consequences of inadequate adaptation to the unwritten limits implied.

I’ve chosen shelter sprawl to give substance to this sermon since I believe it is subconsciously accepted as a symptom of disease without a cure at the present time. It is currently treated with land use plans, zoning remedies, building codes, and legal principles that have attempted to reconcile the fundamental conflict between the concepts of growth and the limits of land area. Unfortunately, sprawling growth has consistently been permitted to consume agriculture and both continue to convert and consume the land of the Natural Domain that is our source of life.

If urban, suburban, and agricultural expansion were geographically limited to preserve the Natural Domain, the only remaining solution for growth would be redevelopment and increased vertical shelter solutions within these limits and they would not necessarily improve the quality of life provided. The correlation of shelter capacity, growth, activity, and economic potential within geographic limits is currently beyond the scope of our isolated and often conflicting planning, building, and zoning efforts. In fact, the correlation of land consumption with gross building area capacity per acre, activity, economic potential, and quality of life has been left to the decisions of a marketplace concerned with the profit potential of an individual project. This has been the default approach because public leadership has not had the language required to improve the common benefit associated with these decisions. Annexation has been the default solution to increase the land area available and eliminate public economic deficits when vacant land has been available. Decline has threatened when it isn’t. As a result, the concept of “balance” has been a constantly sought mirage consuming the land with repeated annexation on its Ponzi-like path to an economic mirage without the equations needed to solve the problem.

It is entirely possible to mathematically correlate land consumption with gross building area capacity, activity, economic potential, and quality of life within limited geographic areas when the leadership topics and values for a surprisingly limited classification of building design categories are comprehensively defined and correlated with the algorithms and master equations required. The results can define a limited Built Domain that is not defined by wandering consumption that is a disease attempting to reconcile opinion without adequate language and knowledge. I think we all understand at some level of comprehension that limits are required. It remains to define them and the path required with a language that can lead us to consistent results.

The measurements and predictions of gross building area for any number of buildable acres is based on the values entered in the shaded boxes of a forecast model. Each model pertains to a given building design category and master equation. The gross building area that can be provided per buildable acre and floor quantity selection represents the shelter capacity of the land area. Since shelter capacity can be occupied by any activity, this is the first step needed to determine its activity capacity, population capacity, revenue potential, traffic generation, construction cost, infrastructure demand, and so on.

Up until now I have mentioned individual land areas that are often referred to as lots, parcels, or project areas for shelter construction. The Built Domain is an organism that contains countless numbers of these cells¹, and our work will not be done until we can lead the growth of all cells toward a symbiotic anatomy that ceases to be a threat to ourselves and our source of life – the Natural Domain. There is a lot of work to be done to reach this goal with the relational databases, information management systems, and integrated master equations required.

The forecast models, algorithms, and equations mentioned in precious essays are simply a strand in a web has not been correlated.² We can predict the weather more accurately than we can predict the shelter capacity of land and the population capacity of the planet when excess is limited, but we may be starting to realize that everyone is subject to the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits. These forecast models permit anyone to predict the shelter capacity options for land so that we can learn to live within limits designed to protect our quality of life within a Built Domain limited to protect our source of life. 

I have contributed the conceptual framework and technical information needed to continue this discussion in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It is available on Amazon.com but the title may have been an unfortunate choice since the book is not consumed with equations. They are simply the foundation on which the language format of shelter capacity measurement, prediction, evaluation, and leadership is based. I have also published over 190 essays regarding this topic at my blog www.wmhosack.blogspot.com for those who may be interested in contributing to this work.

I included earlier software on the CD’s included with my first two books, but the copyright was ignored on too many occasions. This earlier software was not based on the derivation of master equations and is now quite outdated. I may provide the new software used for “Equations” on a subscription basis in the future if there is sufficient interest and the spirit moves me.

Walter M. Hosack: December, 2022

1 - Shelter cells are present in the Urban and Rural Phyla of the Built Domain and are served by arterial cells in the Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions of these phyla.

2 - A separate set of forecast models and master equations has been created to predict the buildable land area needed to accommodate a given building design category and gross building area objective.

Land Use Planning, Zoning & Economic Development

 
Shelter capacity is the gross building area present or planned per acre of buildable land area. It can be occupied by any activity and is created by multiplying floor plan area times floor quantity. The relationship of building mass and activity to location became regulated by local city planning and zoning ordinances after excessive shelter intensity became recognized as a physical, social, and economic threat to the public, health, safety, and welfare. Attempts to measure intensity focused on the concept of density in residential areas and on the floor area ratio in non-residential areas. These separate measurements were the first indication that occupant activity, location, and physical intensity were being confused, because there is only one measurement for the intensity imposed by building mass in a neighborhood. Occupant activity and location are independent issues. They may magnify massing intensity but are not the root decisions that determine the magnitude of its presence. This is why I have pointed out that gross building area may be occupied by any activity. The scope of this activity is limited by the gross building area available. Massing intensity, therefore, is first a function of the gross building area per buildable acre planned or present. (I won’t complicate this axiom with its specific equation or with mention of the building design categories and design specification topics that combine to produce massing intensity options.) Massing, or shelter, intensity can be magnified by occupant activity. It can also be influenced by the quantity of pavement, movement, and life support that serves it in a designated location. This is physical intensity. It is ameliorated by the amount of unpaved open space planned or present on the premise and in the surrounding area.

A master plan is a two-dimensional map created to separate incompatible activity in a city. Its intent is defined by the regulations in a zoning ordinance. These decisions alone represent a continuing source of disagreement in some circles, but the preoccupation with relationships has distracted attention from the fundamental issue. A city’s ability to support itself is a function of the taxable potential of its land use areas, and some of these areas must be subsidized by others. The revenue potential of each area, or zone, is a function of the average revenue received per sq. ft. of occupant activity times the gross building area present. In other words, the relationship of activity to intensity within a zone determines a large portion of its revenue potential, and a city is obligated to match its annual cost of operation, maintenance, capital improvement, and debt service per acre with the average revenue it receives per acre from all zones.  A city that does not understand the revenue potential of its zones will continue its efforts to balance an equation it does not understand and cannot compute. The inevitable result has been sprawl and excessive intensity built with an inadequate understanding of shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and revenue relationships. This is occurring on land areas that growing populations cannot expect to continue consuming indefinitely and survive.

I have contributed the conceptual framework and technical information needed to continue this discussion in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It is available on Amazon.com but the title may have been an unfortunate choice since the book is not consumed with equations. They are simply the foundation on which the conceptual, predictive, and measurement format is based. I have also published over 190 essays regarding this topic at my blog www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. It has been visited by over 32,000 readers. About half-way through this blogging effort I also realized that I could publish essays on Linked-In.

There is a lot of work to be done to reach the only goal that matters. Symbiotic survival is not an option. It is a mandate that will not be met until our habitat ceases to be a threat to ourselves and its source of life - the Natural Domain.

IN OTHER WORDS

The activity located within gross building area produces profit per sq. ft. and revenue per acre occupied. Profit per sq. ft. is of interest to the private sector. Revenue per acre is of interest to the public sector. Profit is carefully considered. Revenue is minimized by profit-making decisions, but indicates the ability of municipal land to support essential public services. There are many revenue options that are a function of the gross building area design specification decisions adopted. These determine the use of land for shelter capacity and intensity, but cities have been preoccupied with the compatibility of land use activity. They have lacked the tools and information needed to compute the full potential of the land involved –- and of all land within their boundaries. As a result, they cannot begin to consider the contribution of land and its shelter capacity to any comprehensive strategy for economic stability, let alone survival. This extremely limited perspective and random use of land development potential for shelter capacity has led to the sprawl and excessive intensity we currently create in a blind search for “balance”. Unfortunately, the current result is a city that struggles to produce the revenue it needs to shelter the activities of growing populations without sprawl and excessive intensity. 

In other words, the ability to predict the gross building area potential of a city's land area combines with the occupant activity permitted to determine its economic potential to protect the health, safety, and quality of life of its population. In more provocative words, a city that permits shelter capacity to be a private sector decision abandons the productive potential of its land area to support a growing population within sustainable limits.

Walter M. Hosack: September, 2022  

A Scientific Approach to Zoning Plan Review

 I have mentioned on many occasions that shelter

falls into six primary building design categories that are distinguished by their method of parking provision. These categories are part of a Shelter Division that is served by Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions in the Urban and Rural Phyla of a Built Domain that we call cities, villages, townships, regions, conurbations and so on. I have also mentioned that the Built Domain is a parasite in the world of a Natural Domain it consumes based on a misguided concept of entitlement. This consumption occurs within a universe it examines in order to claim. The universe looks back at a microscopic catalyst in this congeries and considers it only a threat to itself.

The shelter constructed by the catalyst within the Built Domain symbolizes the problems we face. It is not a complicated proposition. Populations grow but cannot survive on the planet, let alone the universe, without shelter from an unstable environment. Population growth is an irreconcilable issue at the moment, but the shelter density, building height, and sprawl it constructs add concrete form to a philosophical argument whose dimensions can only be seen from space.

I’m sure awareness has been with us for centuries among those who have suffered from excessive density and unhealthy, unsafe living conditions; but public awareness and determination to improve has only emerged with the adoption of land use plans that separate incompatible activity (such as homes from oil refineries) and zoning ordinances that attempt to moderate the physical intensity that emerges to shelter activity. We have invented terms like “sprawl” and “intensity” to indicate the opposite ends of the shelter capacity spectrum, but have not been able to define these terms with the mathematical precision needed to consistently lead us away from the extremes implied by the terms. In fact, sprawl is simply a level of intensity in a spectrum whose extremes can threaten our source of life at one end (sprawl) and our quality of life at the other (intensity).

I have shown you how to measure and predict the spectrum of development capacity and intensity options that shelter the activities of growing populations. You will have to do the hard work of evaluation to understand the implications of these measurements. The knowledge acquired can lead us away from the decisions that threaten our future on a planet that does not compromise with ignorance.

THE PAST

I have been preoccupied with the ability to predict shelter capacity options for a given land area in the past, but a solution only solves a single client’s challenge. It ignores the organism that this cell combines to create on a planet with limited capacity. I would like to explain in this essay that the best way to build the knowledge needed to lead the evolution of this organism is to enter the city planning offices of government with the same tools I have discussed in the past; but with a different emphasis, since the primary problem concerns a community’s ability to lead many client decisions toward common objectives.

THE EMPHASIS

A site plan represents a treasure trove of information when you look beyond appearance to see it as a collection of separate topic and item quantity decisions. These combine to form building cover, pavement cover, unpaved open space, unbuildable area, and floor quantity on a given land area. The first four topics must equal 100% of the land area involved. The fifth is used to increase the gross building area potential of the site, which is often referred to as building mass. These topics and items have been considered independently and their correlated relationships have not been understood. This has often produced conflict that must be resolved with a variance hearing. I have demonstrated in the past, however, that these relationships can be correlated with spreadsheet algorithms and master equations that pertain to a universe of six building design categories.

Table 1 is a spreadsheet forecast model containing correlated design specification values, a master equation, a planning forecast panel, and an implications module that pertains to the G1 Building Design Category when gross land area is given. (The G1 shelter classification pertains to all buildings that use grade parking lots around, but not under, the building to serve their parking demand.) I have used this example on a number of occasions with the private sector in mind, but I intend to explain its potential for public leadership in this discussion.

When the values in the shaded cells of Table 1 are entered by a public authority, they represent zoning ordinance regulations that pertain to a specified land use activity that occupies, or intends to occupy, a G1 building. When these values are entered by an applicant in the same format, they represent a request for quantity allocation as part of his/her plan submittal. The values are processed by the algorithm and master equation to produce a gross building area result in both scenarios. If the applicant’s gross building area request exceeds the city’s standards for the area and activity involved, the city’s topics, items, and values are exposed for examination and the correlation gives them credibility. Potential adjustments to optional values can be evaluated with a few keystrokes around the same table. The result will either be design refinement or reconciliation with a public variance hearing. In both scenarios, the intention is to encourage the results to be based on improving evaluation and justification for the values entered and debate encountered.

The spreadsheet format gives a city leadership potential because its topics and items are comprehensive and mathematically correlated to produce what they intend. Keep in mind that gross building area can be occupied by any permitted activity and given any architectural appearance. This means that the topic and item values entered in a forecast model represent underlying decisions that influence the gross building area mass and appearance that will emerge from, and symbolize these decisions.

Gross building area divided by the buildable acres involved represents shelter capacity. It is a function of the design specifications values entered in the shaded cells of a forecast model and the land area given. The shelter capacity result determines the level of intensity, intrusion, and dominance planned or present for the land area given. These rather abstract leadership measurements are eventually symbolized by the project form and appearance that emerges. It is a critical distinction when considering the capacity of land to accommodate the presence of shelter for growing populations on a planet with limited resources.

Table 1 illustrates that the gross building area forecast in Col. A of the Planning Forecast Panel is a correlated function of the specification values entered in its shaded cells. A change to one or more of these values will produce a revised prediction. The implications of these values are calculated in the Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module of the forecast model. Interpretation of these implications will take time as evaluation and knowledge accumulates, however. At the present time we simply don’t understand the physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance measurements; and many of the possibilities are undesirable. The adjustment of shelter design specification values will have a more solid leadership foundation as knowledge accumulates based on the evaluation of their correlated implications.

THE FORECAST MODEL

Gross land area is given in cell F3 of Table 1. The ensuing 14 shaded cells request values that are subtracted to determine the core land area remaining for building and parking cover in cells F33 and G33. There will always be private sector attempts to minimize these values to increase the core area remaining for building footprint and parking lot area. This is particularly true when the intensity implications are poorly understood. For instance, the total unpaved open space quantity in cells F11 and G11 is particularly vulnerable. Unpaved open space reduction in a project area can increase impervious cover. This can increase development capacity and runoff demand on storm sewer capacity that was not anticipated in the original design calculations. The risk is flooding as excess runoff accumulates. The relationship between impervious cover and unpaved open space in cities has extensive additional implications that we only understand with intuition and experience at the present time. A consistent shelter capacity and intensity measurement system is the tool needed to expand evaluation, knowledge acquisition, and scientific correlation.

The shaded cells A35 and A36 in Table 1 request parking lot design data. There will always be attempts to minimize the value in cell A35 and maximize the value in cell A36 in order to reduce the parking lot area required. This increases the building footprint area remaining in the core area but comes at the expense of parking quantity and maneuverability. I wrote an essay entitled, “Surface Parking Limits on Shelter Capacity” in 2017 to explain the values (a) and (s) requested in cells A35 and A36 of Table 1. I don’t think it has received much attention. My guess is that we still rely on intuition and experience to address this frequent topic of debate; but it is not an issue with independent implications.

The land consumed by parking reduces the land available for shelter capacity. If we wish to conserve the land available, we must begin to understand the correlation required among design specification values that apply to all topics and items in a building design category specification. The shaded values in Table 1 illustrate those that apply to the G1 Building Design Category when gross land area is given. The values do not represent conclusions. They are simply provided to illustrate the integrated measurement and correlation needed to calculate their implications. Evaluation of implications based on a common measurement system is the promise represented by the measurement system, and it can produce shared knowledge.

A column of floor quantity options has been entered in shaded cells A44-A55 to complete the information needed by the master equation in cell B39. This equation is used to calculate the gross building area options in Column B of the Planning Forecast Panel. Zoning often limits the floor quantities that can be considered, but there will often be attempts to increase this quantity without a clear understanding of its capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications. These implications are calculated by the subordinate equations on line 43 of the Implications Module. They are the results we only understand with intuition at the present time; but I repeat at the risk of becoming tedious, that consistent measurement will make it possible to build knowledge.

A designer would be tempted to by-pass the shaded cells in Table 1 and simply estimate the core area available in cells F33 and G33. If it were estimated, these 14 shaded value measurements would be ignored and three values would remain for definition. These values are noted in the master equation located in cell B39 and concern the floor quantity (f) planned or permitted and the designated parking requirements (a) and (s) in cells A35 and A36. These decisions would complete the information required to predict gross building area potential in col. B of the Planning Forecast Panel. This is a short cut to gross building area prediction; but by-passing measurement of the shaded cells in Col. F of the Land and Core Modules would increase risk and hamstring future evaluation of the project and its relationship to others. The shortcut, therefore, might reduce cost but not produce the information needed to build knowledge over time.

THE FUTURE

The organism we call a city cannot be diagnosed, let alone led, until we understand the constituent parts of a cell we call a site plan; the implications of the quantities assigned to this cellular content; and the shelter aggregations it combines to form. Random growth will continue to sprawl like a parasitic disease until we are able to lead each cell to form an organism that will not survive without leadership diagnosis and symbiotic direction.

The permanent shelter provided in a city is gross building area. I’ve mentioned that gross building area divided by the buildable acres involved is shelter capacity. Intensity is shelter capacity times the total impervious cover percentage in a site plan divided by 10,000. The intensity of shelter capacity combines with the movement, open space, and life support systems that serve it to produce our reaction to the Built Domain that surrounds us.

The activity we conduct within the shelter we create is a critical but secondary issue. Gross building area can be occupied by any activity. If gross building area capacity is inadequate, cannot be provided, or is condemned, productive activity becomes a moot issue. It is imperative then, that a city balance habitable capacity and condition with activity to capture the revenue needed to ensure an affordable quality of life that is not compromised with excessive intensity. Unfortunately, it is not prepared to do so with the relational databases, algorithms, master equations, and accumulated knowledge it needs to provide shelter design leadership that can contribute to our symbiotic future.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

I have presented new tools, equations, and forecast models that predict shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance for any land area and building design category in my book, The Equations of Urban Design, 2020. I have also presented the database structures and relationships required to build knowledge concerning land use activity and intensity options in an essay contained in my book, Symbiotic Architecture, 2020. The essay is one from a collection in the book and is entitled, “The Least a Smart City Should Know”, 2018. The books are available on Amazon.com.

The equations in the first book I’ve mentioned above represent a culmination of the work I began with the books, Land Development Calculations, editions 1 and 2, published by The McGraw-Hill Companies in 2001 and 2010. The database structures in the essay published in 2018 should be pursued by those cities wishing to accumulate the knowledge needed to persuade others regarding their shelter capacity decisions. It will represent pure research and it is my hope that the knowledge acquired will contribute to a new science and practice of urban design supported by a land use plan and zoning ordinance that can contribute to our symbiotic future.

URBAN DESIGN & ZONING

 Zoning was our first attempt to legislate urban design standards related to a land use plan. The plan was intended to separate incompatible, unhealthy, and unsafe activity, but was a two-dimensional effort to address a three-dimensional problem. This included excessive building and pavement intensity that prevented adequate light, air, and ventilation at street level. Zoning addressed the issue with independent parking, floor quantity, and setback regulations for specified activity groups. This is a limited list of the regulations attempted because the key word in the sentence is “independent”. This independence produced design leadership contradiction that obstructed its mission to correlate the physical design objectives involved. The result has been repeated attempts to correlate regulatory contradiction with variance requests ever since, but the need for exception proves the often conflicting nature of the regulations. The result has been sprawl seeking profit rather than growth based on physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic correlation within sustainable geographic limits.

The urban design stage is set by the shelter capacity provided for activity within a Built Domain served by movement, open space, and life support systems. The relationship between shelter capacity and activity determines the revenue produced per acre of project area, but cities have not been able to accurately predict the capacity of land on gross building area per acre, forecast its revenue potential, or measure its intensity implications with a complete list of correlated topics and values. This has severely limited their ability to coordinate the use and capacity of their land with its revenue potential and contribution to their economic stability. To reiterate, the missing link has been an accurate ability to measure, evaluate, and predict the shelter capacity of land, since the square feet introduced may be occupied by any activity; and the combination determines the revenue potential of the acres consumed. Municipal accounting reflects this limitation. It reacts to past expense with an annual budget for ensuing years, but is not guided by a consciously calculated plan for future land, building, and activity adjustment that has an accurately predicted capacity to improve its revenue receipts.
The challenge facing urban design is identification and correlation of the topics and values needed to guide all ensuing land use activity decisions toward the shelter capacity, physical intensity, economic stability, and quality of life needed to sustain growing populations within limited geographic areas defined to protect their source of life.

INTRODUCTION

Shelter capacity per acre may be occupied by any activity. Regulations control building construction and activity location but do not contradict this axiom. The relationship between building capacity and activity determines the revenue produced per acre of buildable site plan area, but cities have not been able to consistently and accurately predict the gross building area capacity of land, correlate its revenue potential, or measure its intensity implications with a complete list of correlated topics and values. This has severely limited their ability to correlate the use and capacity of land with its revenue potential and contribution to economic stability. Municipal accounting reflects this limitation. It reacts to past expense with an annual budget for ensuing years, but is not guided by a plan for future land, building, and activity intensity that has the capacity to improve a city’s financial future.

As an example, a city can easily divide its annual budget by its taxable, buildable acres to determine its cost per acre to function. It does not know the revenue it is receiving per square foot of each activity present per acre however, and it is safe to say that some of these acres are being subsidized by the revenue received from other activities. Without this baseline information, a city cannot begin to consider the land use (activity) acres and gross building area per acre (intensity) relationships needed to improve its revenue (yield) from the land available. In other words, a city is a farm that must improve its ability to evaluate and predict the economic implications of its crop and field allocation. Sprawl will continue to threaten its source of life until a city is able to alter its course with consciously correlated shelter capacity and activity decisions that promise economic stability over time. Only then can it begin to shelter growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect its quality and source of life.

BUILDING DESIGN CATEGORIES

The master equations of urban design sit at the end of spreadsheet template questionnaires that are related to a building design category. The templates contain topics that request values related to the category. We are fortunate that only six shelter categories exist when classification is based on the parking system employed rather than the form and style of the building façade. They are: (1) Buildings with grade parking around, but not under, the building (G1); (2) Buildings with grade parking around and under the building (G2); (3) Buildings with an adjacent parking structure on the same premise (S1); (4) Buildings with an underground parking structure on the same premise (S2); (5) Buildings with a parking structure under the building on the same premise (S3); and (6) Buildings with no parking required (NP). Parking is the distinguishing building characteristic that is correlated with other fundamental design topic decisions to determine the shelter capacity of a given buildable land area.
Building classification by parking system has been chosen because building form and appearance cannot be used to predict the gross building area capacity of a buildable land area; and this square foot prediction is needed to determine the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance that will be defined by activity and determine the economic productivity of the acres involved.
All building category templates itemize the pivotal topics that determine gross building area potential when values are assigned. These values are correlated in the spreadsheet for use by the category’s master equation. The equation predicts gross building area options for the building design category it represents based on a series of floor quantity alternatives that are also entered in the spreadsheet. The gross building area options predicted represent the development capacity of land in square feet per buildable acre given or calculated under the conditions specified. These predictions have intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications that can be measured, and many of these results will prove undesirable given more careful evaluation. I’m including a brief spreadsheet example at the end of this discussion to illustrate this explanation.

When shelter capacity predictions are multiplied by the revenue potential of a given activity per square foot, the result indicates the potential yield from the gross building area and acres under consideration. It is hard to imagine a consciously and continuously balanced urban economy in a limited geographic domain without a better understanding of the fundamental urban design values and relationships on each lot that will determine our physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life.
It should be obvious at this point that the acres within a city represent its capital. The activity and intensity planned for these acres defines the allocation of this capital within a portfolio that must be continuously monitored to produce the revenue needed to maintain and improve a desired quality of life over time. This is not accounting, financial planning, or real estate investment in the traditional sense. It is urban design evaluation and leadership that affects the formation of cities and their quality of life on a planet that does not compromise with ignorance.

A BRIEF EXAMPLE

We call the cellular unit of urban growth a lot, parcel, or project area. Each cell used for shelter contains topics whose values determine its capacity to accommodate activity, but the accurate calculation of shelter capacity and its intensity implications represent missing leadership tools that limit our ability to use land wisely. This has produced the arbitrary pattern we call sprawl. Our ability to plan, manage, and lead the provision of shelter to improve our quality of life in a limited Built Domain will advance when we begin to understand the cellular content that must be correlated to define the shelter capacity, and intensity of occupant activity that will combine to produce economic stability in a limited urban area.
Table 1 is included as an example of the potential involved when the shelter capacity of land can be accurately forecast. The header in this table notes that gross land area is given, gross building area options are to be found, and the G1 building design category is represented.
The shaded cells in the Land Module identify the values that must be given and subtracted to determine the remaining shelter area available in cell G17.

The first seven shaded cells in the Core Module ask for values that will be subtracted to find the remaining land area for building cover and parking area in cell G33.
The values entered in shaded cells A35 and A36 are used to calculate the parking lot area that will be subtracted to find the area remaining for building footprint in the core area.
At this point all values required by the master equation in cell B39 have been defined, except for floor quantity (f). These values are entered as a series of options in shaded cells A44-A53. The master equation correlates these values with all other shaded values to find the gross building area options in cells B44-B53.

All ensuing predictions and implications calculated on lines 44-53 of the Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module of Table 1 are a function of the gross building area predictions in cells B44-
B53.

By the way, the unique characteristic of the G1 Building Design Category can be seen by comparing columns B, C, and D in the Planning Forecast Panel. Increasing floor quantity increases gross building area potential but it must be served by an increasing parking lot area in the constant core area calculated. This means that the available building cover area in the core area declines to make room for the increasing parking lot area, but the smaller building cover area is multiplied by an increasing floor quantity. The result is an increase in gross building area that declines with each floor added because the available building cover area in the limited core area declines in response to the increase in parking area required. This simply confirms what every architect understands but can’t accurately calculate without the algorithm and master equation in Table 1.

OBSERVATIONS

The shelter capacity implications calculated in cells F44-F53 of Table 1 explain how well the capacity of land to shelter activity has been used per acre consumed. This is a critical statistic that has the intensity implications calculated in cells G44-G53.

At this point, I can only tell you that the entire forecast is based on the set of specification values entered, including the 30% unpaved open space value entered in cell F11; and that a change to one or more of these values will change the entire forecast. I have no research to claim that these results are acceptable or unacceptable for any of the different activities that may be considered for occupancy. At the present time these implications are like blood pressure readings with no research frame of reference. It is not hard to visualize, however, that planning and zoning research could produce correlated design specification parameters capable of producing prescribed results for each activity group considering G1 Building Design Category occupancy.

Unfortunately, land is considered a commodity that can be bought and sold with little attention to the fact that it is a source of life. We have convinced ourselves that we own the land and convert portions to shelter served by movement, open space, and life support systems that have become a competing Built Domain. We will not win this contest with the Natural Domain but cannot survive without shelter. It means there must be reconciliation, and the first step is to build the ability to accurately forecast the capacity of land to accommodate shelter for activity, since this cannot be allowed to threaten our source of life or produce excessive intensity that threatens our health, safety, and welfare.

This discussion has introduced a brief explanation of the mathematics involved, but the prediction of implications has been limited to the physical implications referred to as shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance. There are many other possibilities, but I lack the data to make a convincing argument. Column K in Table 2 shows, for instance, the revenue potential options that would apply per acre if the gross building area options in cells B44-B53 of Table 1 were multiplied by $1.00 of revenue per gross building square foot and divided by the 1.738 acres consumed. A comparison of these yield alternatives to a city’s cost of administration, maintenance, improvement, and debt service per acre would indicate its potential contribution to the city’s economic stability. If this comparative knowledge existed across all activities, lots, and acres within city limits, the data would produce a more informed picture of the relationship between a city’s land use allocation, its financial stability, and its economic potential.

The symbiotic challenge goes far beyond a city’s economy, but it begins with the land. This example helps to explain the pivotal importance of gross building area, shelter capacity, and intensity prediction to survival in limited geographic areas defined to protect our source of life.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

I have presented new tools, equation derivations, and forecast models to predict shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance for any land area in my book, The Equations of Urban Design, 2020; and have presented the database structures and relationships required to build knowledge concerning the revenue productivity of land use activity and intensity options in an essay contained in my book, Symbiotic Architecture, 2020. The essay is one from a collection in the book and is entitled, “The Least a Smart City Should Know”, 2018. I self-published the two books on Amazon.com where they can now be found.

The equations in the first book I’ve mentioned above represent a culmination of the work I began with the books, Land Development Calculations, editions 1 and 2, published by The McGraw-Hill Companies in 2001 and 2010. The database structures in the essay published in 2018 should be pursued by those wishing to accumulate the knowledge we will need to persuade others that we must learn to shelter growing populations on geographically limited land areas that are planned to protect both our quality and source of life. It will represent pure research and it is my hope that the knowledge acquired will contribute to a new science of urban design.

 

The Consequences of City Design Decisions

 

The acres in a city’s inventory are a primary source
of its revenue, but not all produce the income needed to equal a city’s average expense per acre. If a city does not understand the economic implications of land use activity and development capacity allocation, it will continue pursuing random projects without the comprehensive strategy needed to lead its physical decisions to foreseeable financial improvement in a revenue and expense equation that determines its quality of life.

Annexation increases the taxable acres within a city’s expanded corporate limits and gives the impression of relief from immediate budget deficiencies. This provides new money to meet current obligations when land is available, but the new revenue from the acres consumed can prove inadequate to meet increasing expense per acre as the city’s infrastructure ages. Repeated annexation ensues with hope as a strategy and sprawl as a result that has no better understanding of the revenue implied per acre of activity and its relationship to the city’s total annual expense per acre. The problem is exacerbated when a city has no land to annex and decline increases as redevelopment for greater revenue meets extensive opposition.

I’m sure there are exceptions to the absolutes I’ve written in the previous paragraph, but I hope they serve to raise the following questions that can lead to an improved awareness of the knowledge we must create and the tools we need to begin addressing a problem that is not limited to a city’s annual accounting summaries and independent silos of professional knowledge.

THE QUESTIONS

Question 1: What does the taxable land in a city’s inventory yield in average revenue per acre?

Answer: A city knows its taxable acres per lot or parcel and the answer is as simple as dividing its total annual revenue by the total number of these acres.

Question 2: What does it cost a city to operate, maintain, improve, and finance a desirable quality of life per taxable acre?

Answer: A city knows its total annual expense including debt service. The answer is as simple as dividing this expense by the taxable acres served.

Question 3: Is a city’s annual expense producing a desirable quality of life?

Answer: This question is complicated by the presence of conflicting opinion. A municipal budget must balance each year, but this is no indication of the physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life being provided. In fact, it may include painful budget cuts. Improvement is often a function of the revenue available from the taxable acres and activity present or planned for each parcel within its corporate limits. I doubt that many cities have the relational databases required to understand the relationship of land use activity to land development capacity, intensity and revenue potential to support the quality of life present or desired.

Question 4: What is the revenue yield per taxable acre of activity within a city?

Answer: A city knows the acres occupied and the activity present in most cases, but it rarely knows the total real estate tax, income tax, and other revenue provided by each activity on the acres occupied. The information is contained in separate silos to protect a concept of privacy that prevents the correlation of essential urban economic data. If it could be correlated, it would be a simple matter to divide total activity revenue by the acres occupied to determine its yield per acre; the relationship of activity yield to the city’s annual expense per acre; and the balance of activity, capacity, intensity, and yield needed within municipal boundaries to provide the average revenue per acre needed.

Since a city does not know the yield per acre that can be expected from shelter capacity, intensity, and activity alternatives, the entire process of land use allocation for economic stability depends on a guessing game of annexation and sprawl that seeks elusive balance in the face of inexorable population growth. In other words, a city is like a farmer who cannot estimate the yield he/she can expect from field and crop allocation on land within his/her boundaries.

Question 5: In urban terms, what is a “crop” and what is a “field”?

Answer: A crop is a land use activity that can be specifically identified by standard industrial classification code or grouped by similarity in a zoning code. These zoning groups are referred to as districts rather than fields, and a district may include areas that are placed in more than one city location. Since the economic productivity of district areas may differ by location, each isolated area within a zoning district category is a field that requires a secondary designation to distinguish it from another. This can be as simple as a relational address database that correlates each “field” to its constituent census blocks, tracts, parcel numbers, street addresses, zoning designation and so on. From an urban perspective, information collected by one index that is not related to others is knowledge drowning in a common sea.

Question 6: What is shelter capacity, intensity, and yield?

Answer: Shelter capacity is also referred to as development capacity. It is the gross building area in sq. ft. that is, or can be, placed on an acre of buildable land area. It is a function of the building design category chosen and design specifications adopted.

Intensity is a measure of the capacity introduced per acre, and excessive amounts can produce an undesirable quality of life. Capacity and intensity are important considerations because they define the shelter available to accommodate activity within a given land area.

Yield is the public revenue received per square foot of activity and per acre of land occupied. The mix of capacity, intensity, and activity on acres within a city’s incorporated boundaries determines the financial stability of its land use allocation portfolio. It is a missing store of information per activity that severely limits our ability to balance land use activity, shelter capacity, and intensity with the revenue potential needed to achieve a desired quality of life within sustainable geographic limits.

Question 7: How is the Gross Building Area Capacity of a Given Land Area Predicted?

Answer: I’d like to refer you to Table 1. It shows that the gross building area predictions in Column B of the Planning Forecast Panel are a function of the building design category chosen, the land area given, the 26 mathematically correlated values entered in its shaded boxes, and the equation in cell B39. A change to one or more of these shaded values will change the equation’s gross building area predictions in Column B of the Planning Forecast Panel.

At this point, I’ll simply say that gross building area capacity calculation is not as simple as increasing floor quantity or reducing parking space and setback requirements; even though these are common variance requests that seek to increase the profitability of a given land area. They occur because the correlation required for adequate urban design leadership is not understood.

Question 8: What is a building design category?

Answer: I have written about this extensively, so I’ll try to keep it brief. Shelter is provided for activity by using one or more of six primary building categories around the world. These categories are distinguished by their method of parking provision: (G.1) Buildings with grade parking around but not under the building on the same premise; (G.2) Buildings with grade parking around and under the building on the same premise; (S.1) Buildings with structure parking adjacent to the building on the same premise; (S.2) Buildings with underground parking on the same premise; (S.3) Buildings with structure parking beneath the building on the same premise; (NP) Buildings with no parking provided or required. Buildings with structure parking may include supplemental grade parking lots, but this is not their primary source of parking capacity and classification.

Question 9: What makes development capacity significant?

Answer: I’ve also referred to “development capacity” as “shelter capacity” to distinguish this essential element of survival from the systems of movement, open space, and life support that we build to serve it. We use shelter to protect activity, and the capacity of shelter combines with the value of occupant activity to produce public and private revenue and expense per acre. It also produces physical intensity, intrusion, and dominance that can compromise our quality of life when excessively introduced within the urban pattern.

Our ability to predict gross building area options per acre gives us control over the revenue potential of land and the intensity implied. I can make this claim because gross building area can be occupied by any permitted activity, and various occupant activities produce various levels of revenue per sq. ft. of gross building area capacity. In other words, the allocation of acres, activity and shelter capacity within a city determines its present or planned average revenue per acre, and this average yield must equal a city’s total annual cost to operate per acre. Budget cuts result when this simple equation does not balance and the debate over decline begins.

The challenge is to correlate the revenue produced by shelter capacity and activity with the physical intensity, intrusion, and dominance implied; since these physical, social, and economic implications aggregate across a city’s project acres to produce the revenue and quality of life available. Our current inability to correlate shelter capacity, activity and intensity with its revenue potential and quality of life implications has led to the guesswork and Ponzi solutions we call sprawl, but it is possible to see the future more clearly. I’ll use Table 1 and the G1 Building Design Category to explain in more detail.

TABLE 1

The first objective in Table 1 is to define the buildable land area available. This is calculated using the variables entered in shaded cells F3-F6 and F8. The answer calculated from these entries can be found in cells F10 and G10.

The second objective is to define the shelter land area that remains after an unpaved open space quantity is subtracted from the buildable land area available. The variable percentage chosen has been entered in cell F11 and its quantity equivalent has been calculated in cell G11. The impervious cover area remaining after this subtraction is calculated in cell F12 and G12. This is the land area remaining for building cover, parking cover, and pavement. The optional shared open space percentages in cells F13 and F14 would only be greater than zero when a portion of the total open space entered in cell F11 is shared as common open space serving more than one independent project area. In this example there is no common open space and the buildable land area calculated in cell G10 is equal to the remaining shelter area calculated in cell G17. The impervious cover area available in cell G12 also remains the same in cell G19.

The third objective is to calculate the core project area that will remain for building cover and parking lot area after all other pavement and miscellaneous building cover is subtracted. The design variables entered in cells F23-F29 are subtracted from the shelter area impervious cover found in cell G19 to define the core area remaining in cells F33 and G33 for building and parking cover.

The fourth objective is to define the gross building area permitted, planned or present per parking space in cell A36; and the estimated average parking lot area per space in cell A35 that is allocated or present to serve the space, its circulation drive, and its associated landscape area.

The fifth objective is to define the range of floor quantity options under consideration in cells A44-A53.

The sixth objective is to calculate the range of gross building area options that can be built in the core area remaining. These areas are calculated in cells B44-B53 using the equation in cell B39. It is related to the G1 Building Design Category chosen and predicts the gross building area potential of any given land area based on the variables entered in its shaded cells. A change to one or more of these variables will immediately change the results calculated.

In essence, the equation explains that G1 gross building area increases with floor quantity, and its parking lot area must increase to serve the larger building. Since core land area is the area remaining for building footprint and parking lot after all other present or proposed open space and pavement areas have been subtracted, parking lot area can only increase within this core area when building footprint area declines. However, a smaller building footprint can produce greater gross building area when floor quantity increases. These relationships are shown in the Planning Forecast Panel of Table 1. The gross building area predictions in cells B44-B53 increase at a decreasing rate as floor quantity increases in cells A44-A53; and building footprint area declines in cells C44-C53 to make room in the core area for the increasing parking lot area shown in cells D44-D53. This lot increase is needed to accommodate the increasing parking spaces calculated in cells E44-E53. In other words, the equation in cell B39 and the data in the Planning Forecast Panel of Table 1 describe the fundamental characteristics of the G1 building design category. The characteristics don’t change, but the results forecast will change whenever one or more of the variables entered in the shaded cells of Table 1 are revised.

The seventh objective is to define the implications of the results calculated in the Planning Forecast Panel of Table 1. The implications of the gross building area forecast in Column B are calculated in Column F of the Implications Module by dividing the buildable acres calculated in cell G10 into the gross building area predictions of Column B in the Planning Forecast Panel. Column F simply explains that the shelter capacity of land in sq. ft. per buildable acre increases with floor quantity at a decreasing rate when all other design specification values in Table 1 remain constant.

Capacity options are converted to intensity options in Column G with the equation in cell G43 of the Implications Module. The column shows that intensity increases with capacity in Column G, but there has been no research to determine the implications of these measurements. It is similar to the lack of knowledge that existed with the first blood pressure measurements.

The increasing floor quantity in cells A44-A53 is converted to a column of intrusion implications with the equation in cell H43. Capacity, intensity and intrusion are converted to a column of project dominance implications with the equation in cell J43. The result is a four-part method of capacity and intensity measurement that can be used to index and evaluate our relationship to the places we create and the shelter that surrounds them.

In other words, the allocation of shelter capacity, activity, and intensity per buildable, taxable acre within a city’s municipal boundaries determines the revenue potential of its land use allocation long before appearance becomes an issue. They are the topics and quantities in a recipe that must be correlated to have a chance of producing a desirable result.

Land use allocation, therefore, is not simply a quest to separate a city’s incompatible activities. It is a financial balancing act that is expected to define, monitor, and adjust the yield from each acre while ensuring that the physical intensity, intrusion, and dominance introduced for the sake of economic stability and financial profitability does not overwhelm the quality of life desired. In the end however, the result cannot respond to population growth with sprawl that threatens to consume its source of life while seeking to preserve its quality of life.

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Any building design category may be used to shelter any activity, but the nature of the activity may increase or decrease the gross building area capacity predicted. For instance, Table 2 applies to the G1 Building Design Category when it is used to shelter R3 Apartment activity. The R3 Apartment Module has been added in Table 2 to specify the characteristics of the apartment building under consideration. All values entered in the shaded cells of the Land and Core Modules remain the same as Table 1. The floor quantity options entered in cells A56-A65 of Table 2 also remain the same. The values entered in the shaded cells of the R3 Apartment Module, however, have been added and affect the gross building area results predicted in cells B56-B65.

There are a number of reasons for the increase in the gross building areas predicted in Table 2 when it is occupied by apartment activity, but the simplest explanation is that the gross building area permitted per parking space in cell A35 of Table 1 has increased from 400 sq. ft. to 752.81 sq. ft. in cell J47 of Table 2. This produces a reduced parking lot in the core land area and a corresponding increase in the floor plan area available. When the increased floor plan area in Table 2 is multiplied by the same floor quantity options in Table 1, the larger gross building area options in Table 2 are produced.

It would have been possible to enter 752.81 in cell A35 of Table 1 and arrive at the same gross building area predictions as those in Column B of the Planning Forecast Panel in Table 2 without completing the R3 Apartment Module. This only shows, however, that Table 1 can be used to predict the development capacity of any buildable land area based on the shaded values entered, but additional activity specifications may be required to define the controlling design specification values for a specific land use activity.

FINAL POINT

It is not enough to separate incompatible land use activity in a master plan; depend on annexation to solve planning deficiencies; and include a few hopeful site plan and building design regulations that are often in conflict in a zoning ordinance. These regulations were included to protect our access to light, air, and ventilation within cities, but they have done little to protect us from excessive intensity that is a threat to the “public welfare” we now refer to as our quality of life. Table 1 has revealed a portion of the mathematical correlation involved. Its absence often makes design regulation appear inconsequential and vulnerable to variance requests. However, its invisible presence remains at the heart of the 
leadership needed to shelter growing populations within limited geographic areas that do not sprawl to consume their source of life.

If you are interested in pursuing this topic, you can find all building design categories, equations, and explanations in my book, The Equations of Urban Design, 2020, that is available from Amazon.com. If you are interested in related essays, you can find them in my book, Symbiotic Architecture, 2020, that is also available from Amazon.com. They represent my rough drafts and are not polished publications; but I chose to take no chances with my advancing age, since I felt the content could be a contribution to our continuing presence on a planet that does not compromise with ignorance.

Concerning Our Presence on the Planet

The urban and rural phyla of our built domain contain divisions
of shelter, movement, open space, and life support. The Shelter Division contains zoning areas of compatible activity and shelter intensity called gross building area per buildable acre. These areas produce revenue that is a function of the intensity and occupant activity present or planned for the area involved; but the importance of intensity has never been quantified beyond superficial height and setback regulations.

When revenue is divided by the acres occupied, the resulting public income per acre indicates its productivity, and productivity can be compared to a city’s expense per acre when its annual budget is divided by the taxable acres under its supervision. This means that a zoning map not only separates incompatible land use activity. It inadvertently defines the areas, activities, and intensities that contribute to its financial stability or instability; but these implications have escaped the equations, cooperation, digital analysis, and predictive ability required to evaluate “stability” beyond a balanced budget that may contain draconian service reductions.

Keep in mind that real estate tax revenue may be divided among a number of recipients. I have seen a city share as low as 9% with the remainder allocated to school, county, and library recipients. This makes the average revenue per acre for city operations extremely low even though the total dollar amount paid may seem high to a taxpayer. The percentage I’ve mentioned applied to a land-locked bedroom community with little off-setting income tax revenue and 5% non-residential land use. It had little ability to analyze its deteriorating financial situation in the physical detail required to make a difference, and was forced to grasp at project straws it called economic development.

Unfortunately, a city rarely knows the average revenue per acre that will be produced by the various activities and intensity combinations permitted within the zones on its map; and may not understand the mathematical definition of intensity that determines revenue predictions and quality of life standards. This means that many, if not most, cities attempt to correct budget imbalances with the annexation of land for new revenue to meet old expense when land is available; but remain unable to accurately anticipate the adequacy of this new revenue to meet increasing public expense per acre as its annexation ages. This uncertainty has often made annexation a Ponzi scheme that must consume ever greater amounts of land for new revenue that proves inadequate over time as the cost of its annexation maintenance and improvement increases. We are all familiar with the deterioration, sprawl and continuing consumption of an irreplaceable resource that occurs when budgets are inadequate and populations multiply. When new land is unavailable, a city’s lack of land use capacity, intensity, and yield information makes redevelopment a strategy based on hope with inadequate knowledge and persuasive power facing objection rooted in fear.

A city cannot balance and/or adjust its acreage and activity allocation to produce a desired financial yield per acre until it improves the tools, data, and knowledge it uses to make its case. The problem is magnified when time is taken into account. I have just pointed out that revenue from new development can appear to be a windfall until its maintenance expense per acre increases with age to exceed the revenue provided.

 have presented new tools, equations, and forecast models to predict the land development capacity, intensity, and yield of any urban land area in my book, The Equations of Urban Design, 2020; and have presented the database structures and relationships required to build knowledge concerning the revenue productivity of land use activity and intensity options in an essay contained in my book, Symbiotic Architecture, 2020. The essay is one from a collection in the bo
ok and is entitled, “The Least a Smart City Should Know”, 2018. I self-published the two books on Amazon.com where they can now be found.

The equations in the first book I’ve mentioned above represent a culmination of the work I began with the books, Land Development Calculations, editions 1 and 2, published by The McGraw-Hill Companies in 2001 and 2010. The database structures in the essay published in 2018 should be pursued by those wishing to accumulate the knowledge we will need to persuade others that we must learn to shelter growing populations on geographically limited land areas that are planned to protect both our quality and source of life. It will represent pure research; and it is my hope that the knowledge acquired will contribute to a new science of urban design on a planet where land and shelter is required to survive without excessive intensity that defeats the effort.