I recently read some architectural compliments regarding the appearance of a building addition in London. I appreciated the extension of the original style as well, but one comment caught my attention since it addressed a topic that I have attempted to define for a long time. It remarked that, “…it’s all about context”. Since it was a multi-story building covering the entire parcel and surrounded by traffic, I thought the comment was perceptive but couldn’t see the context nearby, except for the traffic.
I do not separate appearance from the external context encountered
but have long believed that the shaping of building mass, parking, pavement,
and unpaved open space quantities within a site plan establish the foundation
for all ensuing external and internal architectural context and style.
The land given for a development project has many shelter
capacity options. A context decision can be defined by the building design
category chosen and the values entered in its design specification template
long before building form, function, and appearance are established.
A capacity option has intensity, intrusion, and context
implications that can be predicted mathematically. They can also be measured at
existing locations. Presently, we do not correlate shelter capacity
calculations with the land area given. We simply determine if the client
objective can fit. This has often produced context results intuitively referred
to as either “sprawl” or “excessive intensity” in polite terms. The ambiguity
of zoning has simply led to arm-wrestling matches in many cases.
As a student, I believed that style and appearance were
adequate substitutes for context since sprawl and intensity were client
decisions. It was a way to justify the limitations facing these decisions. I have
long since agreed with the comment that it is all about context as we attempt
to shelter the activities of growing populations in land areas that must be
limited to protect their quality of life and our source of life. I would simply
add that context results from the correlation of quantity values entered in a
building design category template. These are the details that must be addressed
to lead many toward context decisions that produce a desirable quality of life
in limited land areas that protect their source of life.
INTRODUCTION
Merriam-Webster provided two definitions for “context” on
the web.
1)
The parts of a discourse (emphasis added)
that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning.
2)
The interrelated conditions (emphasis
added) in which something exists or occurs - environment, setting.
Neither definition is capable of physical design leadership.
They describe a result from an experience that cannot be measured.
Architecture, urban design, city design, city planning, and zoning attempt to
create shelter context that sets the stage for a desirable social and economic quality
of life, and it can be measured, evaluated, and led in the future.
ZONING
Zoning was the first attempt to define physical context with
minimum regulations written to protect public health, safety, and welfare; but
welfare has become a term often associated with social programs. In my opinion,
the term was intended to mean quality of life for entire populations, but the
physical context required could not be adequately defined. This is still the
case since zoning regulations, as currently written, are too partial and
contradictory to meet the context leadership challenge. The result has too
often been sprawling low density development that consumes agriculture;
excessive intensity on urban land of greater value in search of increased
return on investment; and habitual annexation. I won’t defend this argument
since I have discussed the issue in many previous essays.
We need leadership capable of measuring, predicting, and
evaluating context options that can shelter the activities of increasing
populations within limited land areas that protect their quality and source of
life. This requires shelter context definition, measurement, evaluation, organization,
design and regulation since sprawl and excessive intensity are not recipes for survival,
and we cannot depend on private enterprise to reach this objective without
comprehensive leadership.
PREVIOUSLY
I have written extensively about the Urban and Rural Phyla
of a Built Domain, and that each contains a Shelter Division served by its
Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions.
I have also classified the six building design categories of
shelter, including their design specification templates, and have explained the
specification value decisions and correlation involved with each template.
These correlated specification values have capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context
implications that affect our social and economic quality of life; and they must
be made within limited geographic areas designed to protect our source of life.
Shelter design leadership involves a building design
category choice and a template range of specification value decisions that
define a shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, context, and revenue objective.
When successful, the project definition will contribute to an urban design plan
for a desirable quality of life within a city that protects its source of life.
Zoning and building codes were our first attempts to protect
the public interest in shelter construction after the social reform movement
raised the issue long before. City planning addressed two-dimensional land use
relationships and compatibility with annexation as its response to
unpredictable growth. Building codes addressed health and safety. Urban design
now attempts to lead the three-dimensional context that emerges without an
adequate leadership language. This context has often been referred to as urban
pattern, composition, or texture; but there has been no specific mathematical language
applicable to these intuitive design references
ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
What I haven’t emphasized in my previous essays is that architectural
context can be defined with a mathematical equation. This implication
measurement has always been in the forecast models I have discussed, but I
labelled the forecast implication “dominance”. I think the term “context” is a
far better indication of the implications involved since the measurement will
not always indicate dominance.
Architectural context is based on the gross building area
measured or predicted for a given buildable land area and is different from
urban design and city design context measurement. It is the simplest to explain
based on my past essays, however.
Gross building area can be measured in place or predicted
based on the design specification values entered for each topic in a building
design category template. The values entered are correlated with template
algorithms to calculate their combined shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion,
and context implications. Changing one or more specification value produces
another context calculation for evaluation.
I have discussed the measurements and gross building area predictions
related to six fundamental building design categories on many occasions, so
I’ll begin with gross building area as a given measurement or chosen prediction
from one of the six building design category templates mentioned. The following
derivation of a universal equation for architectural context (ACTX) applies to
any gross building area measurement or any gross building area prediction found
in any building design category forecast model.
DERIVATION
Shelter capacity (SFAC) is equal to gross building area in
sq. ft. (GBA) divided by the buildable acres involved (BAC).
SFAC =
GBA / BAC
Physical intensity (INT) is equal to shelter capacity (SFAC)
times the impervious cover percentage (IMP%) present or planned divided by
10,000.
INT =
(SFAC * IMP%) / 10,000, substitution produces:
INT =
(GBA/BAC * IMP%) / 10,000, reduction produces:
INT = (GBA*IMP%) / (BAC * 10,000)
Intrusion is the three-dimensional impact produced by floor
quantity (f). Its influence combines with intensity to produce a measurement of
context (CTX). The equation for intrusion is simply:
INTR =
f/5
I have mentioned that I previously referred to context as
dominance in my shelter capacity forecast models; and that the equation remains
the same, but I think the term “context” is a far better indication of the
implications involved since the measurement will not always indicate dominance.
Architectural context (ACTX) is equal to intensity (INT)
plus intrusion (INTR). In other words,
ACTX =
INT + INTR, substitution produces:
ACTX = ((GBA*IMP%)
/ (BAC*10,000)) + (f / 5)
The context equation gives you the formula needed to consistently
measure, define, compare, evaluate, catalog, and adopt a context decision. It
can lead us to an improved quality of life by building a library of leadership knowledge
to supplement fine art intuition that leaves us with its owner. In other words,
it will be all about the measurable context of shelter capacity and our quality
of life in the future.
Walter M. Hosack, October 2024
