Search This Blog

Monday, August 29, 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.



No comments:

Post a Comment