LEARNING TO LEAD SHELTER CAPACITY DESIGN DECISIONS

 The G1 Building Design Category includes all buildings with a surface parking lot adjacent to, but not under, a building on the same premises. The maximum gross building area that can be provided to shelter permitted activity is a function of the core land area remaining for parking cover and building cover after all other demands and/or land deficiencies are subtracted from the gross land area given.

When the core area is multiplied by the coefficient in parentheses in Equation (1), the result is a maximum gross building area forecast (GBA) that increases with the floor quantity considered. The equation for this G1 shelter capacity relationship is:

Equation (1):

G1 Building Design Category 

GBA = ((a/f) / (a + (fs))) * CORE

 When: 

GBA = gross building area

a = total parking lot area per parking space in sq. ft.

f = floor quantity

s = parking lot area per parking space in square feet

CORE = land area remaining in square feet for parking cover and building cover after all other demands and/or land deficiencies are subtracted from the gross land area given. 

The values (a), (f), and (s) in Equation (1) are variable design decisions. The importance of accurately defining the core area available for use in this equation is imperative and will be discussed.

The forecast model for Equation (1) is included as Table 1. Lines 3-33 are devoted to the derivation of the core area (CORE) remaining in cells F33 and G33 for parking cover and building cover after all other demands and/or land deficiencies are subtracted from the gross land area given. This includes the percentage of unpaved open space (S) to be subtracted from the buildable land area in cell F11. It is a critical decision because it offsets the amount of building cover, parking, and pavement (impervious cover) that produces storm water runoff; and that must be accommodated by the storm sewer capacity planned or present. It is also a critical factor contributing to the amount of physical intensity introduced to a given land area. These Table 1 decisions produce the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications calculated in cells F44-J53.

Table 1 has been discussed many times. It is used to find the G1 shelter capacity of land based on the design specification variables entered in the shaded cells of its G1.L1 forecast model. It has been customized for this example by entering one acre in cell F3 and zero in all other shaded cells except F3, F11, A35, A36 and A44-A53. The combination represents a land area unencumbered by land deficiencies and miscellaneous pavement provisions.

In other words, the core land area (CORE) found in cell F33 is equal to the gross land area given minus the unpaved open space quantity specified in cell F11. This is the greatest the core area can be, unless the unpaved open space percentage entered in cell F11 is reduced.

The values entered for (s), (f), and (a) in cells A35, A36, and A44-A53 are needed to calculate the coefficient in parentheses in Equation (1). A change to one or more of the values entered changes the coefficient and the gross building area options calculated. Since no miscellaneous pavement area percentages are subtracted, the gross building area predictions in cells B44-B53 are maximum forecasts based on the values entered and the core area defined.

The point is that G1 shelter capacity on a given land area is the product of its core area multiplied by a coefficient that is formed from three design decisions. When a gross land area of one acre is given and an unpaved open space percentage is subtracted from the buildable land area to find the core area remaining, the coefficient indicates the percentage of the core area that will equal the gross building area capacity of any given land area when considering the G1 building design category. Table 2 has been created to illustrate the point along with a few observations below. Be careful to note in this example that the core area example is equal to the one acre given minus the unpaved open space percentage noted with each schedule of the table.

The values entered in the gray cells of Table 2 indicate given information. The coefficients calculated in the white cells of each schedule in the table indicate the fraction of any core land area that can become G1 gross building area given the conditions chosen to identify the coefficient multiplier at their intersection. Obviously, the accurate definition of core area for use with the coefficients in each schedule is critical, and the temptation to reduce unpaved open space (S), increase the gross building area planned or permitted per parking space (s), and increase the floor quantity (f) under consideration will increase potential gross building area. The temptation to overlook unbuildable, unstable, environmental, historic, archeological, woodland, water, public roadway, wetland areas and so on can also increase since their subtraction reduces the core area available for building footprint area. However, considering any of these areas as part of the core area available represents an attempt to artificially inflate the shelter capacity of a given land area. The increasing intensity and intrusion calculations that result would represent a decline in the context anticipated.

Keep in mind that Table 2 is meant to display maximum possibilities based on a core area that has no miscellaneous pavement percentage estimate subtracted. It has been omitted because it cannot be consistently predicted, but an estimate should be subtracted from the core area available before gross building area prediction when a specific project makes a more accurate forecast possible.

Table 3 has been included to illustrate the increase in gross building area percentages of core area (coefficients) that occur when the incremental unpaved open space allocation declines from 40% to 20%.

A comparison of the coefficients in Tables 2 and 3 should illustrate a very limited picture of the tug-of-war that has occurred between architects, planners, urban designers and real estate interests when the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of design specification decisions could not be measured, predicted, and evaluated on a uniform scale for comparison, and leadership direction. Equation (1) has made it possible to find common ground.

Tables 2 and 3 are a very small window into the spectrum of shelter capacity decisions that can lead us to shelter the activities of growing populations on geographic areas scientifically limited to protect their quality and source of life. I have written “The Equations of Urban Design” to crack the window for those who may be interested in pursuing the measurement, evaluation, knowledge, and decisions required to lead us in a direction that will respect the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits. Opinion without measurement and evaluation on a consistent, comparable physical scale of shelter capacity evaluation will not get us there.

Walter M. Hosack, June 2025

PS: Density is a social measurement that has attempted to lead physical decisions without the comprehensive shelter capacity specifications and mathematical correlation required. This essay has attempted to offer a glimpse of the building design categories, design specifications, algorithms, master equations, and implication predictions involved with urban design decisions and discussed in detail in the book just mentioned. I am leaving research, measurement, evaluation, knowledge acquisition, and leadership decisions to those interested in applying the vocabulary and language provided.

Eliminating Hope as a City Design and Zoning Strategy

 Shelter capacity is provided for activity on an intensity scale that ranges from minimal to life threatening; but perception, intuition, and approximation have had to substitute for correlated mathematical guidance capable of consistently reproducing success and avoiding failure or variance compromise. The result has often been low-intensity, sprawling consumption of agriculture and the Natural Domain, or excessive intensity attempting to improve return on investment with the physical concentrations of building mass and pavement on limited land areas.

The challenge is to derive accurate, consistent measurements of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context that can lead the design and construction of shelter capacity in a Built Domain served by movement, open space, agriculture, and life support systems that must coexist with its source of life -- the Natural Domain.

SHELTER CAPACITY and INTENSITY

To begin with, shelter capacity is gross building area in square feet per buildable acre occupied. It is a mathematical function of a building design category choice, values entered in its design specification template, and a category master equation that predicts gross building area options in sq. ft. based on the specification values and floor quantity alternatives entered. These options, when divided by the land area consumed in buildable acres, form mathematical increments of shelter capacity. When shelter capacity is multiplied by the impervious cover percentage present or planned and divided by 10,000, the result is a measurement of physical intensity.

THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS of SHELTER CAPACITY, INTENSITY, and ACTIVITY DECISIONS

Real estate profit and public revenue implications vary with the shelter capacity, intensity, and activity planned or present on a given land area. Activity produces income per square foot of gross building area occupied. Shelter capacity is the gross building area present or planned per buildable acre in square feet. The product of shelter capacity in sq. ft. times the expected income or revenue per sq. ft. of activity divided by the buildable acres occupied produces an estimate of the total income or revenue that can be expected per acre by the combination. This result has quality of life implications when the average revenue received per buildable acre from a city’s total shelter capacity, intensity, and activity allocation is less than the city’s total cost to provide the operational, maintenance, improvement, and debt management services required to maintain a desired quality of life per acre. This mathematical relationship adds economic meaning to the rather ambiguous planning term “balance”. A negative balance means that a city’s quality of life can be compromised, or even blighted, by the budget reductions required.

OUR LIMITED ABILITY TO MONITOR LAND USE ALLOCATION IMPLICATIONS

A city’s allocation of land for shelter capacity, intensity, and activity defines the composition of its physical investment portfolio and the annual income (revenue) it will receive from these decisions. Annexation of more land for new income with deficient revenue potential over time is a short-term Ponzi solution, but difficult to predict with the paucity of relevant data and processing ability available to lead a city’s long-term land investment portfolio.

Community satisfaction with the scope of services being provided is a political issue beyond the scope of this essay. In any case, the annual cost per acre for the public services provided must be less than, or equal to, the total revenue a city receives from its land use allocation of shelter capacity, activity, and intensity. Unfortunately, most if not all cities do not have the shared data, relational databases, algorithms, and geographic information systems required to measure, evaluate, debate, correlate, and adjust their land use allocation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity in relation to their fluctuating annual operating, maintenance, improvement, and debt service expense.

THE OBJECTIVE

The challenge is to define and monitor a sustainable balance between the Natural and Built Domains on a limited planet, AND the sustainable correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity needed to produce a desirable physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life for growing populations within a limited Built Domain.

THE LEADERSHIP NEEDED

The spectrum of shelter capacity and intensity possibilities is vast. Sprawl is at one end of the spectrum and excessive intensity at the other. These extremes have been too-frequent results from market experimentation that continues to promiscuously consume available urban, rural, and natural land with annexation and rezoning that thrives on a city’s deficient analytical ability.

Experimentation without a mathematical language of measurement, prediction, and evaluation equal to the leadership evaluation and guidance needed will leave us without the correlation required to produce the coexistence expected by the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits. It directly contradicts our pursuit of unlimited growth.

THE SPECTRUM of SHELTER CAPACITY and INTENSITY CHOICES

It is possible to mathematically define the shelter capacity and intensity spectrum of possibilities along with their intensity, intrusion, and context implications. The graduated increments can be measured and predicted with the building design categories, design specification templates, master equations, and forecast models of Shelter Capacity Evaluation. They have been introduced in “The Equations of Urban Design” that I self-published on Amazon.com in 2020. Leadership choices will involve the correlation of project options and implications predicted by these equations.

RESEARCH

The consistent measurement of existing examples and evaluation of their implications is needed to improve our knowledge and leadership decisions regarding shelter capacity in a Built Domain because its sprawling expansion must be limited by public policy to prevent consumption of its source of life.

THE MEANING of ARCHITECTURAL INTENSITY

The concept of “physical intensity” has often been associated with extreme relationships perceived but not defined with an adequate mathematical vocabulary.

In the context of this essay, and all others I have published, the term “intensity” (INT) is not an extreme condition. It is a mathematical spectrum, or range of building mass, pavement, parking, and unpaved project open space relationships that range from non-existent to life-threatening. Its implications are measured with the following sequence of equations when a gross land area, building design category, and template of design specification values is given as illustrated in Table 1.

(1)   Gross building area potential GBA = ((af) / (a+(fs))) * CORE. The value (a) is equal to the gross building area in sq. ft. permitted per parking space provided. The value (f) is a floor quantity option. The value (s) is the parking lot area in sq. ft. per space provided. The value (CORE) is the gross land area remaining for building and parking cover after all other existing and/or anticipated unbuildable areas, rights-of-way, impervious cover, shared spaces, reserve areas, unpaved project open space quantities, and so on are subtracted from the gross land area given. This core area quantity varies with the design specification template topics and values associated with a given building design category and specification values entered.

(2)   Shelter capacity implications SFAC = GBA / BAC. The gross building area GBA found in equation (1) is divided by the buildable acres BAC derived in the design specification template of a given building design category to find the shelter capacity options under consideration.

(3)   Intensity implications INT = SFAC * IMP% / 10,000. The shelter capacity SFAC found in equation (2) is multiplied by the total impervious cover percentage present or planned for the project area. The product is divided by 10,000 to find the intensity represented.

(4)   Intrusion implications INTR = f / 5. The effect of floor quantity (f) on the relationship of building mass, parking, pavement, and unpaved project open space is considered by equation (1), but its influence can be buried in the result without the attention provided by equation (4).

(5)   Context implications CTX = INT + INTR. The spatial impact of a shelter project on pedestrians at street level, without considering building façade appearance, is defined by combining the intensity found in equation (3) with the intrusion found in equation (4). This purposely emphasizes the impact of floor quantity on the spatial context represented by the measurement since floor quantity is also a factor in equation (1).

The point is that shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion combine to produce physical context on a scale that ranges from excessive shelter concentration to natural absence. The range is intuitively perceived but has never had an accurate method of measurement and evaluation that could identify a desirable shelter intensity range within specified land areas for all seven building design categories.

TABLE 1

Table 1 is included to point out the context measurements CTX in cells J44-J53. They are a function of all the design specification values entered into the shaded boxes of the table, the cascading equations in the design specification template, and the implication calculations presented in cells B44-J53. There are no judgments assigned to these context calculations.

OPPORTUNITY

The use of shelter capacity evaluation for consistent measurement and evaluation of existing shelter projects can produce the knowledge needed to successfully correlate shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and economic decisions within a sustainable Built Domain. This is the future challenge associated with the seven primary building design categories and the shelter capacity evaluation system of urban design. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The mathematical correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity on every parcel within a city has revenue implications that combine to affect a city’s physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life.

I doubt that any city has recorded its shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion measurements with the context and total revenue per acre it receives per parcel, block, tract, or zone. This, however, would permit it to compare the total average revenue per acre received per parcel, block, tract, or zone with its total expense per acre. The comparison could not help but contribute to the debate and decisions needed to produce an advanced comprehensive strategy for improvement.

The alternative has been piecemeal economic development hoping for “big scores” to offset revenue deficiencies. This includes mistaken annexation for “new money per acre” that cannot keep pace with a city’s increasing average annual expense per acre. It results from an inadequate ability to accurately monitor and understand the shelter capacity, intensity, activity and revenue relationships present per block, tract, and zone within its boundaries. This prevents comprehensive adaptation and adjustment with the knowledge required to eliminate hope as a strategy.

FUTURE WORK

There are no current examples of the effort I suggest to my knowledge. All my work has been a theoretical attempt to answer the question: “How do we shelter the activities of growing populations within geographic limits that protect their quality and source of life?” 

During this effort I have suggested the question and a method of pursuing the answer with shelter capacity evaluation based on proposed building design categories and equations for urban design definition of leadership solutions. It represents a new vocabulary and language. The use of these tools to build and apply leadership knowledge will not be proven without technical applications pursued by interested readers around a planet we cannot pollute and consume without consequence.

Walter M. Hosack, June 2025

PS: Don’t be distracted by legal solutions that overlook the mathematical, architectural fundamentals required for shelter correlation and urban design leadership. Annexation and variance approvals attempting to reconcile a lack of mathematical correlation have never been an adequate, comprehensive answer to the issues of population growth, land consumption, encircled cities, budget deficits, and deterioration.

Hosack Blog Index: 10.2.2010 to 6.6.2025

I recently published a list of essays. The list, however, was buried in another essay. I also didn’t make it clear that the essays posted to LinkedIn began in June 2016, but the first essay was posted in October 2010 on my blog at this location. The entire list has had quite a few additions since my last update and is indexed by date below.

The Relationship of Shelter and Space to Survival

 I asked Google for the essential elements of survival and got the following response:

“The fundamental requirements for survival include air, water, food, shelter, sanitation, sleep, space, and touch.”

I assume that “space” was chosen because “land” can be excessively occupied to threaten survival, but “adequate space on land” was too cumbersome in context. In fact, the unmentioned assumption throughout the sentence is “adequate quantity and quality”. Space on land, however, is my point of reference in this essay.

I expected to see “shelter” but was surprised by the presence of “space” in the Google sentence. Shelter and space are the building blocks of architecture and urban design. They have been associated with fine art rather than survival because we have been distracted by their final appearance. The importance of shelter and space to survival seems self-evident, but the fundamental issue is their quantity and quality on a planet that must share its space with the shelter we need and the environment our source of life requires.

SHELTER CONTEXT

Shelter mass combines with pavement and unpaved open space in quantities that produce a spectrum of physical intensity options. They range from “sprawl” to “excessive intensity” in defined project land areas. The issue of survival enters the picture because excessive shelter sprawl threatens to consume our source of life and excessive shelter intensity is a threat to our health, safety, and quality of life. The devil is in the definition of “excessive” and “intensity” because the terms have simply been undifferentiated ranges on the missing yardstick of “intensity”. We have been distracted from these measurements by the appearance of a shelter result that has always begun with these intuitive, unwritten intensity decisions for the land available. Google has reminded us that survival is at stake. Literature warns us to avoid judging a book by its cover. Architecture, urban design, city design, and city planning should judge both – in my opinion.

The relationship between shelter and space in the Built and Natural Domains is the least understood among the survival topics mentioned by Google. It involves a rather simple commandment, however. We must provide adequate shelter capacity for growing population activity within space that must be limited to coexist with that required by a Natural Domain that is its source of life.

The issue we face is the “quantity and quality” of space that must be provided for both the Built and Natural Domains, and the shelter capacity of the space allocated for the Built Domain, since it must also accommodate the arteries of movement, open space, and life support that serve its urban and rural phyla. The Natural Domain requires space to serve the ecology that is our source of life. The relationship is inherently unstable when human motivation remains growth without limits on limited land area.

SHELTER INTENSITY and CONTEXT

Shelter capacity options produce a spectrum of physical intensity results with “sprawl” at one end and “excessive intensity” at the other, but the spectrum of shelter capacity, intensity, and context has never been mathematically defined. These conclusions have remained matters of perception, intuition, and unsubstantiated opinion. In fact, sprawl is simply a degree of intensity, and the spectrum can be mathematically measured and predicted.

SHELTER CAPACITY

The “equations of shelter capacity evaluation” have been derived to produce intensity, intrusion, and context measurements from design specification values entered in their forecast models. The equations and models are included in a book of the same name. They represent the leadership vocabulary needed to mathematically measure, evaluate, predict, and lead the shelter capacity of land and the economic organization of activity for growing populations within geographic limits scientifically defined to protect their quality and source of life.

Shelter demand for activity has often been answered with unlimited sprawl or excessive intensity. One threatens our source of life and the other threatens our quality of life. Improvement will require the correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options to consistently produce economic stability and a desirable quality of life within limited geographic areas.

Shelter capacity is the amount of gross building area in square feet present, planned, or possible per buildable acre of designated project land area. It can be occupied by any activity permitted in a zoning district. It can be measured, predicted, and evaluated based on a building category forecast model and values entered in the category’s design specification template. The values entered can be measurements or design options correlated by the forecast model algorithm to produce consistent shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context measurements. 

LEADERSHIP DECISIONS

Leadership decisions based on mathematical evaluation are the only way to emerge from the morass of undisciplined, emotional opinion that continues to promiscuously consume the land while overlooking the fundamental correlation and mathematical allocation required to achieve a desirable, economically sustainable quality of life– in my opinion.

In this discussion, “space” has meant land used for the construction of shelter, movement, open space, and life support in the Built Domain. It has also meant land in the Natural Domain that is our source of life. Defining the relationship between these two spatial domains, and the adequate quantities needed to serve each, will demand far more accurate attention, evaluation, and leadership than presently committed. Fortunately, the foundation for leadership opinion can be mathematical evaluation.

A FORECAST MODEL

I’ve discussed the building design categories, forecast models, design specification topics/values, and master equations related to shelter capacity measurement, evaluation, prediction, allocation, and land consumption in many essays. The discussions have focused on mathematical values entered to define topic quantities in the design specification module of a building design category forecast model. These project value options are correlated by the model’s algorithm to calculate their combined planning and design implications. These shelter capacity, intensity, and context implications can then be evaluated for their potential to establish correlated physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic stability within neighborhoods, districts, cities, and regions. The caveat for the process is that the shelter capacity of the Built Domain cannot be permitted to consume its source of life.

Forecast Model G1.L1 in Table 1 illustrates the primary mathematical terms and equations associated with shelter capacity evaluation for the G1 Building Design Category when gross land area is given. The forecast model, given information, forecast objective, and design premise are explained in the first four lines of the model.

Optional design specification values have been entered into the 26 gray cells of Table 1 to illustrate the operation of the model. The equations in cells H3-H33 convert these percentage values to their equivalent sq. ft. values in cells G3-G33. The objective is to find the CORE value in cell G33 for use in the master equation located in cell B39. The master equation combines this value with the parking quantity (s), parking area (a), and floor quantity (f) values entered in cells A35, A36, and A44-A53 to find the gross building area (GBA) options listed in cells B44-B53. These gross building area options are key to the forecast and are a function of the floor quantity options (f) entered in cells A44-A53. All remaining planning and design implications predicted in cells C44-J53 are a function of the gross building area options predicted in cells B44-B53.

The measurement predictions in the Implications Panel of Table 1 have physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications that can be organized and evaluated in relation to these measurements to build knowledge and leadership direction. This can assist in forming the knowledge needed to consistently improve context results without dictating appearance.

CONCLUSION

I was gratified to see “shelter” and “space” mentioned as essential elements of survival, but these elements are topic titles. They do not indicate the essential quantities and intensity levels required for the survival of growing populations on a limited planet with a desirable, sustainable quality of life.

The building design category classification system, specification topics, and equations supporting Shelter Capacity Evaluation are also topic names that require quantity and quality evaluation. The results can be used to build leadership knowledge. Knowledge itself will remain a mystery until consistent measurement, evaluation, correlation, and prediction produce desirable shelter capacity and activity allocation within sustainable geographic limits. This is the foundation needed to support the fine art and quality of life that can emerge - in my opinion.

Walter M. Hosack, June 2025