PURSUING URBAN DESIGN and ZONING KNOWLEDGE

I first began considering the capacity of land to accommodate gross building areas when I began studying architecture. At the time the land area given for the problem was always adequate. The site plan issue was one of parking, pavement, and unpaved open space quantity arrangement in relation to the building floor plan needed for the shelter activity assignment, and the floor plan could reduce its footprint by increasing its floor quantity. The problem included consideration of the assets and liabilities on and around the site. The amount of land consumed for shelter capacity was never an issue.

Land area adequacy became an issue in practice, but it was a function of what was available. Tailoring land consumption to productive capacity was a rural, agricultural concept. Eventually I realized that the urban concept of approximate land consumption based on prior land surveys and current availability was at the heart of arbitrary consumption, sprawl, and excessive intensity that was slowly consuming agriculture and the Natural Domain, but I was not prepared to accurately evaluate the land needed to shelter the activities of an owner.

This became more apparent when I confronted density regulation. I became aware that density and all other zoning regulations were not mathematically correlated with each other or with the land available. The combination of density, parking, floor quantity, setbacks and so on, were often irreconcilable because they were independent requirements. In many cases, the conflict could not be resolved without variance approval for regulation exceptions that were considered arbitrary by the opposition, and virtually impossible to track as precedent-setting standards by the arbitrators. I realized that the difference between the independent regulations of zoning law and the correlated, interrelated demands of shelter design decisions represented a collision of two different languages.

The problem became more acute in multi-family residential zones when an ordinance led land owners to believe that they could reach a permitted density when it was not correlated with their average dwelling unit size objectives and parking requirements, not to mention correlation with all other applicable, independent regulation topics. This inevitably led to suspicion, mistrust, variance requests, and wildly different interpretations of leadership intent in some cases.

THE FIRST EXPERIENCE

The issue crystallized for me when I was asked to evaluate a multi-family housing proposal and responded that the site plan appeared too compressed or “tight”. My opinion was based on the visual impression of a site plan based on years of exposure and experience, but the density regulation permitted more than was requested and the quantity had already been reduced. At this point it became clear to me that the debate revolved around regulations without correlation. They often permitted excessive shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context compression in my opinion, and the method of density measurement was unequal to the correlation of design decisions required for adequate leadership guidance. Unfortunately, the implications in bold above had no quantitative definition. My interpretation had been learned as a product of trial-and-error education, and the intuitive lessons learned could be easily contradicted by the demands of an owner and the representations of legal counsel.

I came away knowing that the issue was mathematical, and that opinion needed a more quantitative and correlated mathematical foundation of experiment, evaluation, prediction, and conclusion before it could become a consistently credible leadership language. It had to be based on knowledge accumulation that recognized the interrelated, mathematical nature of design specification topics, values, and shelter capacity design decisions.

SEARCH FOR CONSISTENCY

My search for consistency began with the recognition that all human shelter falls into a limited number of building design categories when they are distinguished by their method of providing parking, including one that provides no parking. The result was six building design categories whose gross building area potential was a function of a given land area and a standard template of design specification topics and assigned values. I called the gross building area alternatives that could be achieved with optional floor quantities and design specification values shelter capacity.

Shelter capacity is equal to predicted gross building area options in sq. ft. per buildable acre of land occupied. The predictions are based on the values entered in the design specification template of the category. These gross building area options have shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that are calculated with separate, universal equations.

The collection of building design categories represents a set of forecast models with a consistent measurement system, predictive shelter capacity format, and related implication calculations comparable across all design categories and project installations. This is the measurement format I felt was needed to evaluate the shelter capacity of land and regulate its growth in a Built Domain geographically limited to protect its source of life – agriculture and the Natural Domain.

ACTIVITY GROUPS

Gross building area can be occupied by any permitted activity. Its internal capacity for activity varies with the specification values entered in a companion activity group template. The addition of an activity group template to a building category forecast model correlates the predicted gross building area options for land with each option’s internal capacity for the activity based on the specification values entered in the companion activity group template. The results have economic potential related to the scope of activity predicted within the gross building area options predicted.

I’ve illustrated the building design category-activity group relationship with the Residential Activity Group of specification templates in several previous essays. A more complete presentation is included in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design” available from Amazon.com.

CONCLUSION

Shelter capacity results have social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications that remain to be correlated with measurement and evaluation that can lead to knowledge regarding the quality of life implied by measurable alternatives.

Currently the Shelter Division of the Built Domain is served by Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions in both the Urban and Rural Phyla of a Built Domain that is currently a parasitic threat to the Natural Domain. This threat cannot be addressed with debate over the details of independent, conflicting zoning regulations that require arbitrary adjustment, or land use master plans that depend on annexation of agriculture and the Natural Domain to address budget deficiencies based on land use activity and shelter capacity misallocation.

Shelter capacity evaluation is a measurement language capable of evaluating options and guiding decisions toward the goal of shelter for the activities of growing populations within limited geographic areas designated and designed to protect their quality and source of life, the Natural Domain. It is simply a classification and measurement language that can be used to pursue research and define conclusions capable of consistent leadership, however.

The Latin word for shelter, roof, or cover is “tegimen”. I pronounce it “tejimen”, even though this may offend Latin scholars, and would like to suggest the word “Tegimenics”, “Tegimenistics”, or "Tegimenology" as a label for those interested in pursuing the issue of shelter capacity and quality of life for growing populations in limited geographic areas on a planet in a universe that expects us to anticipate its unwritten Law of Limits. It is a language intended to give a quantitative voice and credible support for emerging but also ancient topics many refer to as urban design or city design with roots in architectural design.

SITE PLAN EXPLANATION

The forecast models I have discussed on many occasions depend on the site plan terminology I presented long ago. Figure 1 is an introduction for those who may be unfamiliar with site plans in general. There have been a few additions and adjustments along the way, but Figure 1 has been the foundation for all design specification topics and templates associated with a building design category. It is not comprehensive but can be a useful introduction.

PS:

This is a repeat of previous essay paragraphs.

“I self-published “The Equations of Urban Design” on Amazon.com in 2020 to summarize and improve my work in three previous books entitled, “Land Development Calculations”, editions 1 and 2 published by McGraw-Hill in 2001 and 2010, and “The Science of City Design” self-published on Amazon.com in 2016. They represent my continuing effort to explain the site plan allocation that precedes architectural design, urban design, city design and landscape architecture. It is the quantity allocation of building cover, parking cover, pavement, unpaved open space, and floor quantity in a site plan that determines shelter capacity options, context, and quality of life in mathematical terms equal to the leadership debate involving private enterprise and architecture, landscape architecture, government, city planning, real estate law, zoning regulation, and economic development. The mission is to establish a consistent leadership language for shelter debate and land consumption decisions on a planet that does not compromise with failure to anticipate.

I also maintain a blog entitled, “Cities and Design” at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com that began in September 2010. It currently contains 258 essays for anyone interested in following the topic. The more recent essays are also included on LinkedIn.” 

Walter M. Hosack, July 2025

FIGURE 1

The Mathematical Foundation of Shelter Design Decisions

 

A correlated set of floor quantity and site plan area decisions determines gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context for any given buildable land area and building design category. A collection of these parcel decisions determines the physical context, but not the appearance, of shelter projects, blocks, tracts, zones, districts, cities, regions, and conurbations. The quantitative correlation of these quantity decisions has been overlooked for centuries because the evolution from shelter concept to completion has required drawings to define direction. The final style and appearance of the result has distracted us from a mathematical foundation that can be classified to consistently lead the choices that consume land to produce shelter capacity for any activity.

Shelter capacity evaluation focuses on the mathematical correlation of site plan area and floor quantity decisions. These decisions produce gross building area options and shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that range from sprawl to excessive intensity, but these relationships remain to be mathematically defined in terms of consistent measurement, evaluation, and leadership potential.

The absence of shelter capacity measurement, evaluation, and mathematical expression has prevented the accumulation of knowledge and the formation of a leadership language that can consistently guide shelter decisions for the activities of growing populations toward choices that protect their quality and source of life in limited geographic areas.

I have written about building design categories, design specification templates, and the shelter capacity implications of specification value choices on many occasions using forecast models to illustrate the mathematical correlation required for consistent shelter capacity leadership. I have made the effort to put the discussion of shelter capacity and its relationship to quality of life on an equal footing with the languages of real estate law and economics.

The debate can only begin on an equal footing when a mathematical language of shelter capacity built on measurement, evaluation, prediction, and knowledge accumulation can forecast the implications of land area, building design category, and specification value choices. These are the choices that lead to the formation of urban context and appearance. The nascent awareness of the need for this leadership language and knowledge has been referred to as urban design, or city design in the words of my deceased but prescient professor Rudolf Frankel.

I self-published “The Equations of Urban Design” on Amazon.com in 2020 to summarize and improve my work in three previous books entitled, “Land Development Calculations”, editions 1 and 2 published by McGraw-Hill in 2001 and 2010, and “The Science of City Design” self-published in 2016. They represent my continuing effort to explain the site plan allocation that precedes architectural design, urban design, city design and landscape architecture. It is the quantity allocation of building cover, parking cover, pavement, unpaved open space, and floor quantity in a site plan that determines shelter capacity options, context, and quality of life in mathematical terms equal to the leadership debate involved with city planning, real estate law, zoning regulation, economic development, and private enterprise. The mission is to establish a consistent leadership language for shelter debate and land consumption decisions on a planet that does not compromise with failure to anticipate.

Walter M. Hosack, July 2025

Shelter Capacity Design Dissection

 

The identification and definition needed to shelter the activities of growing populations within economically stable and geographically limited communities.

 

The term “dissection” in the title of this essay means the comprehensive, consistent identification, measurement, and evaluation of the design specification topics that define building mass and the related site plan features of a building design category. They do not operate independently. The values assigned to these topics must be mathematically correlated before their shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion implications can be calculated and guided toward context results that represent a desirable quality of life and coexistence with our source of life.

There is no divine guidance that directs the growth and anatomy of shelter toward adequate organization, context, and coexistence. Master plans and zoning ordinances have been our attempt to provide guidance, but conflicting regulations, rezoning, variance requests, and annexation have randomly diluted their intent. This has often left us with sprawl, excessive intensity, diminishing agriculture, and a threatened natural source of life. The results have confirmed our inability to identify and evaluate the building design categories, activity groups, design specification topics, and topic values that must be mathematically correlated at the project level to consistently produce shelter capacity for the activities of growing populations within limited areas of the planet.

SHELTER CAPACITY

Shelter capacity evaluation involves the capacity of land to accommodate gross building area options, their related site plan features, and their shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. The shelter options are three-dimensional. The site support options are two-dimensional. Population density and activity options per square foot of gross building area measured or predicted are separate social issues.

Density has been an inadequate measure for the shelter capacity of land. It has not been able to bridge a gap that requires mathematical correlation of many related shelter capacity decisions before we can learn to protect the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to guard both their quality and source of life.

The dissection of a shelter project identifies the specification components and mathematical decisions that lead to the formation of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context in a limited land area long before appearance becomes an issue. Identification is not enough, however. Measurement, evaluation, and correlation are needed to define and predict the mathematical parameters that have physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic leadership potential. The knowledge acquired can help us step beyond the random results produced by isolated and often conflicting zoning ordinance regulations.

BUILDING DESIGN CATEGORIES and ACTIVITY GROUPS

A building design category is distinguished by the parking system chosen to serve its occupants such as (G1), (G2), (S1), and so on. An activity group is the generic occupant activity historically referred to as “land use” such as (R) for residential. A shelter type is a unique form and arrangement of shelter for an activity group member such as a single-family home (R1); a townhouse (R2), or an apartment (R3). An activity group member is identified by the specification characteristics related to its building design category, occupant activity, and shelter type.

The first seven chapters in Table 1 address six generic building design categories that may be occupied by any permitted activity. Chapters 9-17 explain how these categories are used to accommodate the Residential Activity Group.

For example, a G1 or G2 Building Design Category is typically used to accommodate single-family occupancy members of the Residential Activity Group that are designated (R1) in Chapters 9-12. The characteristics of this group member are defined in the specification templates of its G1.R1 and G2.R1 forecast models. The values entered in the templates are either measurements or value entries used to predict gross building areas and building cover options for the land area given. The implications calculated for these predictions indicate the suitability of the values for the purpose intended. These shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications are found using the secondary equations above the relevant columns in the model.

The G1 and G2 building design categories are also used to shelter the townhouse occupancy members of the Residential Activity Group that are designated (R2) in Chapter 13 of the Residential Activity Group. The characteristics of this group member are defined in the specification templates of its G1.R2 and G2.R2 forecast models. The values entered in the templates are either measurements or value entries used to predict gross building areas and building cover options for the land area given. The implications of these predictions indicate the suitability of the values for the purpose intended. These shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications are found using the secondary equations above the relevant columns in the model.

Any building design category may be used to shelter apartment occupancy members of the Residential Activity Group designated (R3) in Chapters 14-17 of Table 1. The characteristics of this group member are defined in the specification templates of its G1, G2, S1, S2, S3, and NP forecast models. The values entered in the templates are either measurements or value entries used to predict gross building areas and building cover options for the land area given. The implications of these predictions indicate the suitability of the values for the purpose intended. These shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications are found using the secondary equations above the relevant columns in the model.

The point is that the gross building area of a building design category may be occupied by any permitted activity, but subdivision of the gross building area for occupant activity may require additional design specification topics and values to define or predict the internal capacity of the building for the activity under consideration. The shelter capacity of the land for gross building area is a constant function of the building design category, site plan specifications, and floor quantity options that pertain to the generic building design category under consideration.

DESIGN SPECIFICATION TEMPLATE

Table 2 is an example introduced in many previous essays. It is included to show that the values assigned to the shaded cells in a design specification template are mathematically correlated by an architectural algorithm to predict their core area implications in cell F33 and G33.

The Design Specification Template in Table 2 is an example related to the generic G1 Building Design Category. The gray cells in the template represent a dissection of the category’s essential specification topics. The value assignments entered in the gray cells above cell F33 are mathematically correlated to determine their combined core area implications in cell F33 and G33.

The master equation in cell B39 combines this core value found in cells F33 and G33 with the additional specification values entered to find gross building area implications in cells B44-B53. These vary with the floor quantities entered in cells A44-A53 of the model. The gross building area options become the basis for all other predictions in the Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module of the forecast model.

QUESTIONS and CHOICES

Our ability to shelter the activities of growing populations within geographic limits that protect our quality and source of life is the question that the equations in Table 1 have been derived to address. The forecast models and design specification templates involved with the answer offer the ability to measure, evaluate, and predict the implications of quantitative choices that have the potential to lead future shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context debate and decisions. The templates do not make decisions. The intent is to improve the discussion by defining questions and potential answers with a common, quantitative language based on consistent measurement and evaluation. This can make it possible to express options and decisions with a credible leadership vocabulary and language equal to the challenge.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

A building can shelter any permitted activity. The correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and location of a building has context, quality, and economic implications.

Private investment implications are limited to the specific project costs involved and the profit per square foot potential of the activity, location, and scope anticipated.

Public implications concern the combined revenue potential per acre of municipal land consumed by a city’s combined shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and activity decisions for all projects in the city, since the average revenue received from all taxable acres must equal a city’s annual cost per acre for operations, maintenance, improvement, and debt service. In other words, land use allocation for shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, activity, and context represents the content of a city’s investment portfolio and the yield available to serve its population.

To my knowledge, no city can comprehensively monitor and adjust the relationships between shelter capacity, land use allocation, and revenue potential at the parcel, block, tract, or zone level of the community. In the absence of this ability to monitor and correlate, a city must rely on annual budget estimates and random economic development initiatives. These initiatives represent hope without the data, evaluation, knowledge, and vision required to increase revenue for the quality of life desired, and hope is not a strategy.

FINAL COMMENT

An improved method of definition, measurement, evaluation, and expression is needed before leadership debate can credibly address the issue of shelter capacity for the activities of growing populations within land areas limited to protect their source of life and improve their quality of life.

Walter M. Hosack, July 4, 2025