The Shelter Decisions We Face

 

Growth, freedom and the choices involved.

There are now two worlds on a single planet – the Built Domain and Natural Domains of Earth. The Built Domain is currently a parasite slowly consuming its source of life with an outdated definition of growth on a planet that is no longer a world without end.

There are very few, if any, facts in this life. We have survived based on observation, instinct, insight, awareness, assumption, measurement, comparison, evaluation, inspiration, and opinion that can be revised or reversed at any moment in time with increasing knowledge, influence, and/or political power.

The first paragraph is simply my opinion. If you agree at this point in time, then the statement implies a law of limits for Earth that many of us already anticipate. If our goal is survival, then a symbiotic strategy is the only alternative; but the challenge is to define where to begin - and on how many fronts.

In our case the threat to survival is again microscopic. We are back to recognizing symptoms of sprawling disease and excessive intensity with inadequate tools for diagnosis. We are the microscopic problem - and have been consuming everything in our path as if unlimited growth is good.

I have already implied a symbiotic goal. My strategy in this brief essay is to indicate that the threat not only involves global contamination of air and water, fire and flood, earthquake and eruption. The microscopic portion of this threat involves us when viewed from space. Its symptoms appear as the sprawling shelter and excessive intensity we build to protect growing activity by consuming and contaminating land that is our source of life.

Anatomy of the Built Domain

The Built Domain contains Urban and Rural Phyla primarily distinguished by the quantities of land and activities related to the shelter provided. Both phyla contain Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions designed to serve as arteries for their Shelter Divisions. (Open space arteries are more of a dream than reality at the present time but can provide new blood to a failing anatomy.) Urban growth with annexation has been relatively unrestrained based on a concept of unlimited freedom to consume agriculture and the Natural Domain.

The Shelter Division contains six building design categories. We have been distracted from their presence by the appearance of architectural form, function, and style. This blizzard of fashion has concealed a classification system and mathematical foundation that makes the measurement and prediction of land consumption for shelter capacity, population growth, and lifestyle alternatives feasible. It is the design leadership language needed to address land consumption for shelter; measure results; and build knowledge as a foundation for a quality of life that can be symbolized by the best in form, function, and appearance.

Keep in mind that gross building area may be used to shelter any occupant activity. Shelter capacity is the gross building area introduced per buildable acre of related land area. The separate measurements of density for residential activity and floor area ratio values for non-residential activity have confused shelter capacity with social activity for decades. There is only one effective capacity measurement capable of consistently successful leadership. It is produced by the design specification values adopted for a building design category project and may be occupied by an activity. These specifications determine the capacity and physical intensity introduced to a project area.

Intensity is calculated from the shelter capacity introduced. Intrusion is calculated and combined with intensity to measure the dominance implied by the design specification values and floor quantities under consideration. These values have quality of life implications symbolized by the amounts of building mass, parking, pavement, and unpaved open space that emerge. They have yet to be measured and evaluated within the spectrum of physical possibilities they occupy, but will be similar to the first blood pressure readings introduced to assist with medical diagnosis and leadership.

Building Design Categories

Design specification templates are related to six building design categories that are used to shelter most human activity on the planet. Their limited number makes gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance measurement, prediction, and leadership feasible within a limited Built Domain. I won’t expand on this topic for the sake of brevity since I have covered its potential on numerous occasions. My objective here is to present as simple an overview of the concept as possible. Anyone wishing to go further can find complete information in my book, The Equations of Urban Design available on Amazon.com.

Two prediction templates are related to a building design category. The first is applicable when gross land area is given to find the gross building area, shelter capacity and intensity implications of a chosen set of design specification values. The second is applicable when a gross building area objective is given, buildable land area options are to be found, and intensity implications are to be calculated. These categories are: (G1) - All buildings with surface parking around, but not under, the building or buildings on the same premise; (G2) - All buildings with surface parking around and under the building(s) on the same premise; (S1) - All buildings served with adjacent parking structures on the same premise; (S2) - All buildings served with underground parking structures on the same premise; (S3) - All buildings with parking structures partially or completely above grade under the building on the same premise; and (NP) - All buildings with no parking required.

The shelter capacity evaluation objective is to determine the capacity of land to provide shelter for human activity without excessive land consumption or physical intensity that compromises the surrounding quality of life and occupant experience. If this approach gains momentum, opinion may begin to recognize through mathematical evaluation that shelter capacity and quality of life calculations have growth implications that contradict the belief in a world without end.

The Wars of Opinion

Wars begin with irreconcilable argument searching for resolution. We are currently at war with the capacity of a planet that does not compromise with ignorance, but have been too close to see the scope of conflict.

We have not been able accurately predict the shelter capacity of land to accommodate growth by accurately defining the intensity, intrusion, and dominance of what we have ambiguously called “over-development” and “sprawl”. We have been wandering across the planet as if it were our own like so many other species that have multiplied and failed to adapt with intuition and anticipation. Symbiotic survival demands these attributes. I have simply attempted to contribute a few new tools that can help with the effort to accurately measure, forecast, and define the spectrum of options available in my essays and books.

Summary

At this point in our evolution I would like to make the point that opinion should not be misunderstood as fact even though it may represent belief. We are a species that depends on observation, instinct, awareness, assumption, measurement, comparision, evaluation, knowledge, inspiration, influence, and/or political power to make decisions. We are fallible. We all know this format has not produced a perfect record of success.

In my opinion the definition of “growth” and “freedom” are two of the great issues before us that demand further refinement. No other species has had the power and intelligence to evaluate these definitions. They have had no choice but to grow until they couldn’t with the advantages they were given. We have been given the ability to choose our definitions. We would insult whatever power we accept if we follow the path of those who have become extinct through no choice of their own.

I have chosen shelter capacity evaluation to illustrate the choices that face us, and have provided new tools to illustrate these choices with the most convincing language we have created – mathematics. It defines a spectrum of choices ranging from physical sprawl and consumption of our source of life to excessive intensity at the other that can make the tenements of England and Hell’s Kitchen in Manhattan look like planned communities. I have provided the tools needed to define these choices within the spectrum and have had the temerity to predict that they could become the language of a new science. (Ignore the book I wrote entitled, The Science of Urban Design. Its classification is outdated and has been replaced by the explanations in The Equations of Urban Design. I wish I could have re-used the earlier title.)

The choices will always be yours. It is the gift you have been given and often abused. Study hard. Do your homework. Build the data needed for the many fronts involved in this war, and choose wisely based on the knowledge you accumulate.

Afterword

Shelter capacity measurement and evaluation is a powerful leadership language for the many disciplines related to city planning and urban design decisions. It is able to define our places on the planet in credible terms capable of political, social, and economic persuasion; and can accurately express instinctive reactions to current shelter patterns of behavior that we sense are self-destructive. Anticipation has been one of our primary survival attributes. It leads to opinion that remains with many and is converted to knowledge by a few. It is time to give these few a new voice that can lead us on the path that only we have been given the gift to choose – adaptation based on abstract perception.

Walter M. Hosack: October, 2023

Our Challenge

It’s time to re-evaluate the structure and staffing for democratic decision-making in our country. Businesses call it reorganization. They don’t throw out the business. It takes the right structure with the right people in the right places to make the right decisions. We are arguing over issues that we can’t bring to a vote because we are entangled in rules we have created to fill the gaps in Hamilton’s Federalist Papers, at the very least. Five hundred and thirty-five senators and congressmen/women can no longer compromise. Their rules defeat the concept. Gerrymandering with computer assistance from special interest is making the concept of majority rule a mirage.

At this point we need questions, homework, and evaluation far more than opinion based on emotion and assumption. I recognize that this approach does not currently attract votes, and that all facts are opinions supported by various levels of measurement, evaluation, and conclusion. They can, and some have, changed over time. Opinions have led us into a tangle we must wait four years to address with half-hearted platform promises. They are then shelved after the election. Distraction, dissent, and obstruction abound.

We need a better way to bring individual issues to the table promptly for a decision, and a better way to fill and re-fill the seats of leadership with those who will be counted. Hiding opinion in a bundle of legislative issues and hoping it will ride on the coattails of more essential topics is not compromise. It is deception in its finest legislative form. Reorganization does not mean we change the business of democracy. It means we intend to improve its performance to match the written ideals we have yet to reach.

The Planet's Law of Limits

Resolving growth within limits will challenge our ability to adapt.

I reposted the message below from the UN with some comments. I don't think I made my point and would like to revise these comments by first dissecting the message as noted below.

UN – Habitat:  

United Nations Human Settlement Programme 

“FORECAST: By 2050, 7 billion people will live in cities. 

FORECAST: That means that for the next 30 YEARS, we have to accommodate 2 million people moving in cities. Every. Week.

ARGUMENT 1): We cannot carry on with business as usual. The planet can't take it.

FACT: Construction uses 30% of all the resources globally, and produces 40% of GHG emissions.

ARGUMENT 2): We have to follow a truly circular economy model and follow the "6 R’s":

POLICY 1) - REDUCE: Implementing strategies to reduce waste and minimize resource consumption during construction and maintenance processes.

TACTIC - REUSE: Promoting the reuse of materials, components, and buildings to extend their lifespan and reduce the need for new construction.

TACTIC - RECYCLE: Establishing robust recycling systems for construction and demolition waste.

TACTIC - RECOVER: Exploring opportunities to recover energy and resources from waste materials.

TACTIC - REPURPOSE: Repurposing materials and buildings to give them a new life and purpose.

POLICY 2) - RETHINK: Changing mindsets and adopting innovative approaches to urban planning, design, and construction.”

I couldn’t agree more with the arguments presented, but they fall into the category of opinion that depends on Policy 2 for leadership success. Policy 1 is the topic that struck me since it is titled “Reduce” but avoids the issue implied by Argument 1 - population growth. I have also avoided it, but have attempted to imply the problem by deriving equations for the shelter capacity of land. I have argued that reasonable shelter capacity can be exceeded with excessive massing, parking, and pavement intensity that compromises our quality of life and have provided the mathematical means to calculate these implications. I have also argued that land can be consumed by sprawl that consumes our source of life. Both can be mathematically predicted and their implications can be measured and evaluated. In other words, shelter capacity implies a limit to population growth if our source and quality of life is to be protected and preserved. Growth without correlation and balance is a recipe for excessive consumption, decline, and extinction on a planet with limited resources.

Leadership requires a goal. I would like to suggest one: We must learn to shelter growing populations within a geographically limited Built Domain designed to protect their quality and source of life, the Natural Domain.

We live on a planet with limited resources that is not a land without end. There is a law of limits that we must accept to survive and it contradicts our concept of unlimited growth as beneficial. Policy 1 will be incomplete until we learn how to correlate, balance, and reconcile population growth and quality of life with the capacity of the planet to both sustain and survive.

The adjustment required to mentally step from parasite to planning and preservation is a challenge that many have questioned our ability to achieve -- given our tendency to argue and diverge over the slightest difference of opinion.

Walter M. Hosack: October 1, 2023

PS: The tactics mentioned fall into various objective categories. Thinking about these categories reveals the true scope of the task ahead, since the tactics mentioned are a random collection of the large number associated with each of the many objectives implied.