There are several prerequisites I need to cover before I get
to the title of this essay.
In general, gross building area may be occupied by any
activity. It is a product of design specification values and floor quantity
choices that combine to produce degrees of shelter capacity per buildable acre
occupied.
Shelter capacity (SFAC) is gross building area (GBA) per
buildable acre (BAC) of land (SFAC = GBA/BAC). The revenue potential of land is
a function of its location, shelter capacity and occupant activity. The sq. ft.
of shelter capacity per buildable acre multiplied by the revenue potential of
occupant activity per sq. ft. determines the revenue potential of the gross
building area and buildable acres occupied.
Shelter capacity quantities produce degrees of intensity.
These degrees are equal to shelter capacity times the impervious cover
percentage present divided by 10,000. (INT = SFAC*IMP% / 10,000)
The acres allocated to various land use activities are
determined by a city’s master plan and zoning plan, but they have not been
correlated with the shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options that determine
the revenue potential of these acres. This has made economic planning a
guessing game. This brief explanation should reveal how little we know about city
design for the economic self-sufficiency of cities across the acres that
represent its investment portfolio.
We have not been able to mathematically predict the gross
building area potential of buildable land area under any given set of design
specifications. This has meant that we have not been able to consistently and
accurately predict the shelter capacity of a land use allocation plan. It is a
critical point, because the intensity of activity placed on a buildable acre of
land determines its revenue potential, but excessive intensity can produce
misery. Inadequate attention to the relationship of shelter capacity to
intensity and activity produces annexation and sprawl attempting to solve an
immediate budget deficit. There is no way to resolve this guessing game without
improved knowledge and forecasting ability.
I have shown in my essays and books that we can
mathematically predict gross building area, shelter capacity, and intensity
options for a given buildable land area based on a given building design
category and value options entered in the category’s design specification
template. This is only a one piece of the puzzle however.
We do not know the average revenue potential per sq. ft. of
various occupant activities. A building can be occupied by any activity, but we
are not presently able to correlate shelter capacity and intensity with the
revenue potential of various activities to produce a desired revenue stream
from the square feet and acres occupied.
The lack of shelter capacity forecasting ability and revenue
knowledge per sq. ft. of occupant activity means that a city cannot correlate
its two-dimensional land use allocation plan with its three-dimensional revenue
potential. Annexation and excessive intensity will continue their search for
new revenue to solve immediate budget deficits until our mathematical measurement,
evaluation, and prediction of revenue potential per acre of shelter capacity
and activity allocation makes it possible to predict longer term solutions.
TABLE 1
I’d like to
begin explaining myself by introducing Table 1. It applies to all buildings
served by a grade parking lot around but not under the structure on the same
premise when gross land area is given. The building design category is referred
to as G1. The Design Specification Template in this table itemizes the topics
whose quantities are used to produce shelter capacity and intensity predictions.
Land Module
The
measurements entered in the gray cells of Column G in Table 1 are those of the
project entitled Bradenton Office. They are the traditional square foot
measurements of architecture. Subtraction is used to define a new area I’ve
referred to as “shelter area remaining” in cell G17 of the table. It is
composed of impervious cover in cell G19 and unpaved open space in cell G20.
The amount of impervious cover available in G19 is found by subtracting the
amount of unpaved open space in cell G11 from the buildable land area available
in cell G10. It also represents the storm sewer runoff capacity required. The
corresponding percentages in Column F track the quantity allocations measured
in Column G.
Core Module
The objective
of the seven gray boxes in cells G23-G29 in Table 1 is to identify all
miscellaneous pavements that reduce the impervious cover remaining for parking
lot and building footprint area. The sum of these miscellaneous impervious
areas is located in cell G30. It is subtracted from the impervious area
available in cell G19 to find the impervious area remaining in cell G33. This
is the core area (CORE) that is available for surface parking and building
footprint area. This definition makes the creation of master equations for the
prediction of gross building area options within a defined core area feasible.
Table 2 will explain this in more detail.
Two-hundred
and sixty parking spaces were provided in the Bradenton site plan for an
average of 420.5 square feet per space as calculated in cell A35. The parking
space quantity provided was equal to a provision of one space for every 250
gross square feet of building area. This is calculated in cell A36. The floor
quantity involved was noted as 3 in cell A46.
Planning
Forecast Panel
The Bradenton
footprint consumed 21,667 square feet of its core area as noted in cell C46.
The three floors noted in cell A46 transformed the footprint into 65,000 square
feet of gross building area as noted in cell B46. The remaining 109,330 square
feet of core area was used for the parking lot measured in cell D46.
The 65,000 sq.
ft. gross building area noted is a generalized measurement referred to as
building mass. Mass is equal to floor plan area times floor quantity when floor
plan area is defined by a simplified building perimeter that ignores
architectural enhancement. The result is an indication of building volume, or
mass, that encloses all detail and combines with pavement to form impervious
cover. It is offset by the unpaved open space quantity provided in cell F11.
Implications
Module
The
implications of the massing and impervious cover just measured are calculated
by the equations in cells F43–J43 of the Implications Module. The first of
these equations explains that the specification values entered in the gray
cells of Table 1 combine to produce 12,428 square feet of shelter area per buildable
acre. This is referred to as shelter capacity. The second explains that the
shelter capacity calculated represents an intensity of 0.752 in cell G46. The
third explains that the 3 story height produces an intrusion value of 0.6, and
the fourth explains that the sum of intensity and intrusion produces a
dominance value of 1.352. This is the point where evaluation can begin based on
objective classification, measurement, and comparison of the place created.
The project I
chose for this example is located on a street with low pedestrian and vehicular
volumes. If the volumes were greater, the intensity of 0.752 could have been
multiplied by a factor greater than 1 for each mode and level of adjacent
traffic. In fact, the basic intensity value could be multiplied by a number of
related factors such as sound pressure level and air quality to refine the
sophistication of the measurement.
I do not
intend to offer an evaluation of the measurements presented in Table 1. My
objective is to demonstrate that it is possible to classify and consistently measure
the places we create for evaluation, knowledge accumulation, and consistent
leadership definition. Conclusions will always remain in the realm of opinion.
The challenge is to give these opinions greater credibility with the method of
knowledge formation employed.
Economic
Implications
We will
continue to blindly pursue annexation and isolated economic development
projects in an attempt to plug annual budget shortfalls until we understand the
revenue implications of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity combinations on
every parcel within the boundaries of our master and zoning plans. Until this
time, both annexation and economic development will continue to have short term
frames of reference that cannot measure their comprehensive contribution to a
city’s long term economic stability.
If I knew the
total real estate, income, and miscellaneous tax revenue from Bradenton’s 65,000
sq. feet of gross building area I’d be able to make a more compelling presentation
regarding its contribution to its city’s long term economic stability. As it
is, I can only present the opportunity since the data and knowledge required is
scattered in several independent silos that frustrate correlated city design
evaluation.
If total
Bradenton revenue were known, it could be divided by its gross building area to
determine its revenue yield per sq. ft. This is the first piece of the puzzle.
The shelter capacity of the Bradenton project has been calculated in cell F46
of Table 1 as 12,428 sq. ft. per buildable acre. If this shelter capacity were
multiplied by Bradenton’s activity revenue potential per square foot, the
product would indicate the project’s revenue per buildable acre. This is the
second piece of the puzzle. It is interesting but becomes significant when
compared to a city’s total average revenue yield per buildable acre.
The puzzle
involves a simple question. Does the Bradenton revenue yield per buildable acre
provide more or less that the city’s average annual cost per buildable acre to
operate, maintain, and improve the city for all of its residents? The question’s
objective is not to target the performance of a single project, however.
Individual performance can be confidential information that is aggregated by
block, tract, zoning district, and so on to answer the same question.
The objective
is to produce a picture of a city’s financial performance that can be adjusted
to produce an average revenue yield per acre equal to a city’s average cost per
acre. This does not mean that all activity must yield a revenue surplus. It
means that the surplus and deficits must combine to produce the average revenue
required. It all depends on how a city allocates it land use activity, shelter
capacity, and physical intensity to produce yield in the form of revenue. At
this point, a farmer knows more about his land than a city.
TABLE 2
Table 1
presented the capacity and intensity implications of one set of project
measurements related to a given land area and three story building. Table 2
uses the same given land area, but illustrates the options that can be
predicted when percentage values replace the square foot measurements entered
in the gray cells of Table 1. Percentages equal to the areas presented are
entered in the gray cells of Col. F in Table 2. Their square foot implications
are forecast in Col. G and can be compared to Table 1.
The master
equation entered in cell B39 of Table 2 applies to Building Design Category G1
and has been added to predict gross building area options for the floor
quantity options entered in cells A44-A53. The ability to accurately predict
gross building area options in cells B44-B53 will become increasingly important
as we attempt to coordinate shelter capacity with intensity, activity,
location, and economic potential in geographic areas that are limited to
protect our source of life.
The existing
Bradenton Office project is classified by the data on line 46 of Table 2, but
the table illustrates that an unlimited number of shelter capacity options were
available during the Bradenton planning stage. Floor quantity choices are only
one example of the options that were available. In addition, the gross building
area calculations change whenever one or more of the gray cell specification
values is modified. Rapid calculation of these options will become increasingly
helpful as we attempt to balance shelter demand for activity with the quality
of life produced by increasing intensity and economic potential per buildable
acre. These are the strategic decisions that will be required to avoid a
continuation of sprawl and its promiscuous consumption of land in both the
Built and Natural Domains. Tables 3 and 4 have been created to illustrate how
these options can be created with a few keystrokes.
TABLE 3
I haven’t
changed the land area under consideration in Table 3 in order to facilitate
comparison with Tables 1 and 2, but have adjusted three primary points of
discussion. The amount of unpaved open space planned in cell F11 has been
reduced to 25%. The amount of parking lot area per space has been reduced to
400 sq. ft. in cell A35 (This means that little landscape area and minimum
parking lot dimensions will be provided within the parking lot perimeter.), and
the parking requirement in cell A36 has been reduced to one space for every 300
square feet of gross building area. The result is an increase in gross building
area potential from 65,000 square feet to 97,435 square feet and an increase in
shelter capacity from 12,428 square feet to 18,630 square feet per acre when
the same floor quantity is considered. Given the same activity and revenue
potential per sq. ft., this increase in gross building area represents an
obvious increase in economic potential per buildable acre and per square foot
of gross building area. Intensity increases from 0.752 to 1.397, however; and
dominance increases from 1.044 to 1.997.
I don’t mean
to imply that the intensity increase above is desirable. I am simply trying to
illustrate the efficiency of evaluation that can be produced with a standard
classification and measurement system for the Shelter Division of our Built
Domain. At this point, we only recognize excessive intensity when we see it.
Now that we can measure its presence, however, we may gain the knowledge needed
to define the condition. If the previous intensities are considered too great,
for instance, Table 4 can be produced to adjust these parameters with a few
keystrokes.
TABLE 4
The open space
value in cell F11 has been revised to 50% in Table 4. The parking
specifications in cells A35 and A36 have been changed from Table 3 to equal
those used in Tables 1 and 2. These changes reduce the 3 story gross building
area to 53,719 sq. ft. in cell A46 of Table 4. The Planning Forecast Panel in
Table 4 also shows that increasing the floor quantity to 10 in cell A53 cannot
return gross building area potential to its Table 2 quantity of 65,000 sq. ft. when
the unpaved open space percentage is increased from 39.5% to 50%. The trade-off
involved should be obvious.
The intensity
calculated in cell G53 for the 10 story building is less than that calculated
for the 3 story building in Table 1 because 50% unpaved open space has been
provided, but the intrusion and dominance calculated in cells H53 and T53 are
much greater because of the increased floor quantity.
This example
attempts to show the trade-offs involved when shelter capacity, activity, and
intensity measurement become coordinated elements of design evaluation. The
introduction of three-dimensional evaluation across all buildable acres of a
city can make the shelter capacity evaluation associated with city design an
essential contribution to city planning strategy, financial security, and
leadership direction.
CITY DESIGN
Tables 1-4
addressed a 5.23 acre project with optional values entered in a single building
design category template that included a design specification template, core
module, planning forecast panel, and implications module. The tables
illustrated the ability to forecast gross building area options that had
shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications. The text
also emphasized that the ability to accurately and consistently predict gross
building area options enabled predictions for many additional topics that were
a function of these gross building area options, and the revenue potential of
these options was emphasized.
The message is
not limited to single project design however. The correlation of shelter
capacity, intensity, activity, and location throughout a city will determine
its social and economic stability. A two-dimensional land use plan supplemented
with a zoning ordinance does not have the scope required.
The term for
this city-wide three-dimensional effort to correlate shelter capacity,
intensity, activity, and location within geographic limits defined to protect
our quality and source of life is city design. A portion of its language has
been illustrated by Tables 1-4. Smaller scale design efforts are referred to as
urban design. The titles are not significant however. The common specification
language in Tables 1-4 is the message, since it permits consistent measurement,
evaluation, and leadership definition that can repeat success and avoid failure
when research builds the specification knowledge required.
Tables 1-4
address one building design category. Six are used to shelter most activity on
the planet. The correlation of these six building design categories and their
specifications across all municipal land is city design. It produces the three-dimensional
physical presence we have referred to as urban form, composition, texture,
pattern, and so on; but these results have been arbitrary because specification
knowledge has been an incomplete and uncorrelated contribution to a consistent leadership
language. In my opinion, it has produced more sprawl and excessive intensity
that design success and economic stability.
The design
specification topics in Tables 1-4 represent a consistent vocabulary for the G1
Building Design Category. The five remaining categories use the same template
format but expand on the topics involved. Together, these topics itemize the
value decisions that lead physical design toward the visible results that
symbolize the decisions made.
POSTSCRIPT
There are 17
gray cell decisions and 10 floor quantity choices in Tables 2-4. They have been
mathematically correlated to produce the gross building area, shelter capacity,
and intensity options presented. A change to one or more of these topic values
will produce a new forecast. This should indicate the complexity of the design
relationships involved and the integrated correlation required to provide
informed leadership direction within a limited Built Domain that must learn to
respect what is not property but its source of life.
Walter M.
Hosack: January, 2024
