Cities and Design: March 2024

Friday, March 29, 2024

The Value of an Acre

The value of an acre is often considered in relation to its profit potential as a commodity, but rarely considered in relation to its public revenue potential as a shared investment in the future.

INTRODUCTION

There are few, if any, municipal jurisdictions equipped to accurately appraise the revenue potential of acres within their zones at the present time. They know what they are producing but they cannot accurately predict potential options. They may not even know their total average annual expense per acre. This means they cannot accurately compare or plan to adjust the revenue produced in relation to the increasing cost of their operations, maintenance, improvement, and debt service.

If the total annual revenue received from a property owner were converted to the revenue received per buildable acre owned, it could be compared to a jurisdiction’s total annual cost of operations, maintenance, improvement, and debt service per buildable acre. If it were, we would have a much better picture of a city’s economic health at the cellular level of its anatomy - and the development strategy needed to maintain or improve this performance in the future.

Public revenue in this context is the total revenue per gross building area square foot that can be expected from the activity planned, present, or permitted. It would be unrealistic to expect that every property and every zone in a city would be producing surplus revenue per buildable acre when compared to a city’s total annual expense per acre, but the combined average must produce the total public revenue per acre required to avoid future reductions in service.

Most cities rely on past history and future projections built on a history of expense that either ignores, or is unaware of, the true cost of annual infrastructure maintenance, to say the least. Annexation makes new revenue look like the answer until age again begins to increase its total service and maintenance expense per acre. The annexation trap is easily concealed by the years it takes to emerge as a problem, but the absence of analytical data makes it a potential Ponzi scheme based on expedient solutions from short-term office holders and hope that this revenue will be adequate; but hope has never been a strategy.

THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL ISSUE

The problem is three-dimensional. It has been called “urban design” or “city design” and is generally placed in the realm of fine art since the options have had a subjective foundation defended with opinion and experience. I have written many essays explaining that the options can be defined with mathematical algorithms. They are used to correlate related design specification values entered in the specification module of a building category forecast model. The master equation in the model produces a forecast of the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications implied by the values entered. Optional implications can be tested by changing the values entered with a few keystrokes.

Shelter capacity is occupied by activities that have revenue implications. At the present time this is more of a guessing game than the product of rational evaluation and comprehensive planning. We are faced with isolated data silos and missing relational databases that are needed to correlate shelter capacity and intensity options with the revenue potential of permitted activity.

ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

Economic performance is partially a function of the building capacity available or permitted per buildable acre to shelter taxable activity in a city. Some of these acres shelter activity that produces less than a city’s average annual cost per acre. Some produce far more, but there is no three-dimensional display that correlates shelter capacity, activity, intensity, and context with the revenue needed to sustain a desirable quality of life within geographic limits.

Before I go any further, “shelter capacity” is gross building area in sq. ft. divided by the buildable acres allocated to serve the building. Physical “intensity” is shelter capacity times the total impervious cover percentage present or planned divided by 10,000. If this is confusing, please refer to some of my earlier essays that discuss building design categories, the components of their shelter capacity forecast models, and their predictions in detail.

The challenge to produce an inter-active, three-dimensional display of shelter capacity, activity, intensity and economic performance is not a simple one. The prediction of options can only begin with a new mathematical ability to predict the gross building area alternatives associated with optional design specification values assigned to a given building design category forecast model and land area. Math is the foundation for correlated urban design and economic development evaluation since gross building area options can be occupied by any activity, and the relationship of building area to occupant activity sets the stage for revenue potential.

The standardized value topics in a forecast model can also be used to measure, record, and evaluate the shelter capacity of existing parcels on a systematic basis, and correlate these measurements with their calculated intensity and context implications.

Our inability to correlate building design categories and design specification values for every acre within a city has handicapped our ability to correlate shelter capacity, activity, and intensity to achieve and adjust the economic performance needed to support a desired quality of life for growing populations within geographic limits. In my opinion, sprawl and excessive intensity have resulted from this inability to correlate design decisions with the math that is an unrecognized foundation for the leadership decisions involved.

POSTSCRIPT

An acre has a higher value when slated for consumption as a commodity than when designated for preservation as a source of life. This is logic that begs for appraisal on a planet that will enforce its Law of Limits without compromise.

Walter M. Hosack: March, 2024

Sunday, March 17, 2024

How to Transition from Zoning to Urban Design

I was recently asked the question in this title and thought I’d publish my answer.

INTRODUCTION

Urban design begins with mathematical relationships between the geometry of building mass and the two-dimensional quantities of building footprint, pavement, parking, and unpaved open space. They are combined and arranged to form a building site plan. Elevations are needed to define the building mass implied by the building footprint in the site plan. A collection of these plans defines the shelter anatomy of neighborhoods, districts, cities, and regions served by arteries of movement, open space, and life support. (Arteries of public open space are more of a dream than reality but their absence compromises the health of the anatomy in my opinion.)

It’s time to learn about the mathematical correlation required to understand and lead the shelter compositions we create within a randomly growing urban anatomy. We cannot lead without a more precise, comprehensive, and correlated mathematical language capable of the measurement, evaluation, debate, prediction, and planning required to guide our habitat toward a symbiotic relationship with its source of life.

There are only six building design categories when classification is based on the parking system planned or present. This classification makes shelter capacity measurement, evaluation, planning, and forecasting mathematically predictable. (Shelter capacity is gross building in sq. ft. divided by the buildable acres of the property.) I have mentioned these categories in many essays and request patience from those familiar with the topics as I repeat them here. They are: Buildings with surface parking lots around, but not under, the building on the same property (G1); Buildings with surface parking around and under the building on the same property (G2); Buildings with an adjacent parking garage on the same property (S1); Buildings with underground parking on the same property with or without supplemental surface parking (S2); Buildings with structure parking under the building on the same property with or without supplemental surface parking (S3); and Buildings with no parking required (NP).

Buildings are classified by design category in the attached Table of Contents. I’ve included the table to illustrate the range of forecast models currently available to measure, evaluate, predict, plan, and lead the formation of shelter within geographic limits defined to protect their source of life.

The master equations noted in the attached Table of Contents have been derived under separate cover for future evaluation. The forecast models shown greatly improve the models I included on a CD in my first book, Land Development Calculations, 2001 published by McGraw-Hill. I have had requests for the first edition CD from some who can no longer find it with a used book. As far as I know, the second edition still contains a more complicated CD and is available from both McGraw-Hill and Amazon.com.

I cannot provide copies of the first edition CD on request because: (1) It was prepared using an older version of Excel and I’m not sure it will still run. (I haven’t used it for years); and (2) The CD was often copied. As a result of this experience, I will only provide the new algorithm-based forecast models to an investor willing to place these inter-active models on a subscription based web site.

The gross building area options predicted per buildable acre by these models is based on optional design specification value entries. The results are a keystone consideration, since they define the shelter capacity, intensity, and revenue/income potential per acre. The type of activity planned or present within gross building area determines the economic potential of the shelter capacity options and intensities predicted per buildable acre. This potential revenue per acre can be compared to a city’s total annual expense per acre when its annual budget is divided by the taxable, buildable acres within its limits.

The relationship between a buildable acre and the gross building area present, planned, or predicted determines the shelter capacity of the acre. Occupant activity determines its revenue potential, and gross building area may be occupied by any permitted activity. A land use plan solely focused on compatible activity relationships leaves its economic future to chance since gross building area results are left to chance.

Economic development does not need to be a reaction to budget deficits. It can be part of a forward-thinking master planning effort when its decisions are mathematically driven. In other words, shelter capacity and activity must be mathematically correlated before economic potential can be more than hope that has never been a substitute for strategy.

It all begins with the choice of a building design category for a given land area and the optional values assigned to the design specification topics within its forecast model. Embedded algorithms correlate these values with the floor quantity options entered to produce a table of gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications. The activities that can be accommodated by these gross building area options have economic options and implications. It is in both the public and private sectors interest to correlate these shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options to produce economic results capable of consistently supporting a desirable quality of life within geographic limits that protect their source of life.

The gross building area capacity of a buildable acre is a function of the building design category chosen and a limited number of design specification topics and value options. This specification palette, however, produces a relatively infinite number of desirable and undesirable shelter capacity and intensity possibilities. Correlating these options to produce physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic security without threat to our source of life is the challenge we face on a planet that does not compromise with ignorance.

THE ANSWER

The transition from zoning to urban design will begin with the recognition that zoning has a mathematical foundation that must be distilled and correlated to become a successful leadership language. It has been a step in the right direction but urban design specifications are not like social regulations. They require mathematical correlation. I have often found that the currently absolute and incomplete zoning design regulations have simply led to contradiction and confusion. This appears to have contributed to the sprawl and excessive intensity we find in many of our cities.

Think of urban design as a mathematically correlated policy statement for each cell in an urban anatomy that cannot continue to randomly metastasize without consequence. This growth has been referred to as urban form, urban pattern, and urban composition, but these terms give the mistaken impression of organization. The only appropriate and accurate term has been “sprawl” enabled with legal annexation as an expedient solution for the growth we encourage with an inadequate understanding of the consequences.

Mathematical urban design decisions have physical, social, and economic implications that remain to be discovered through measurement, evaluation, and debate. The policy decisions adopted will be symbolized by the form, function, and appearance built on this foundation.