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.
No comments:
Post a Comment