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
No comments:
Post a Comment