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.
