WHAT IS TEGIMENICS?

I was asked to explain the word “tegimenics” in a post but was restricted by its character limit. I’m adding a few words to provide a short, and hopefully better, explanation.

Tegimenics is a new term encompassing the building design categories, forecast models, design specifications, algorithms, and master equations of shelter capacity calculation and evaluation. Shelter capacity is equal to gross building area in square feet divided by the buildable land area occupied. Results have measurable shelter intensity, intrusion, and context implications. The term is borrowed from the Latin word for shelter: tegimen. I've called the urban design knowledge and leadership language that can be assembled from this specification and measurement, evaluation, and prediction: Tegimenology. If interested, please see my book, "The Equations of Urban Design" available on Amazon.com and 270+ essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. The more recent are also located on LinkedIn. A list of these essays is a recent submission to my blog and to LinkedIn.

I should begin by explaining that everything flows from the building design categories, forecast models, and design specification values entered in consistent forecast model formats. The results are predictions, or measurements, of the gross building area options related to floor quantity choices and a given buildable land area. The implications of these predictions are calculated in each forecast model. I've compared these implications to our first blood pressure readings. Research can identify those that are healthy to improve our ability to provide shelter for the activities of growing populations in limited geographic areas defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

SUMMARY

Tegimenics is an umbrella term for shelter capacity measurement, prediction, comparison, and evaluation in city planning, urban design, landscape architecture, architecture, engineering, government, real estate investment, real estate law, urban geography, and other affiliated professions.

Is Architecture a Profession?

 

This is in response to a post on LinkedIn regarding a federal contention that architecture is no longer a professional degree eligible for annual professional education loan limits.

I am not defending architectural education in its current form since I don’t believe it emphasizes the correlation required to lead the contributing professions involved in enough detail -- without the apprenticeship and experience required after the degree award. This does not mean an architect should be an engineer. It means that he/she must be able to evaluate the attributes of all system decisions and equipment choices as part of his/her consultant leadership effort. There may be little popular appreciation for this strategic training since popular opinion rarely considers more than single-family housing.

A plan is a strategy. In architectural terms it is called programming and schematic design during its evaluation, discussion, and formation. Its formal definition involves the correlation of many regulatory, technical and engineering professions. They labor with architectural coordination to shape the plan into a set of contract documents that define the tactical objectives involved. Bidding the plan secures the lowest, but not necessarily the best, price for the campaign. At this point a second wave of tactical mobilization begins with a clearly defined goal. Both strategy and tactics require leadership.

The Normandy invasion is remembered for the tactical action involved. The same is true for architecture. It is remembered for the form and appearance produced, not the strategy involved.

A professional army depends on strategic leadership. Anything less increases the chances of failure. Construction is a battle with an army in the field. Its strategic plans are essential, but they have often led to sprawl and excessive intensity. In my opinion, two the causes are inadequate shelter capacity knowledge and professional advice that has been subject to both investor and popular veto based on a lack of convincing, credible knowledge in the hands of either advocate.

I am not applauding our current success. I do not believe, however, that further deemphasis on the professional measurement, evaluation, comparison and correlation required to build the knowledge required for a  sustainable future will be encouraged by de-emphasizing the acquisition of strategic knowledge. It is the invisible foundation for planning decisions and tactical shelter construction activity.

Choose whatever adjective you prefer for architecture if you wish to argue over “licensed profession” but fund its education in relation to the role shelter knowledge must play in protecting the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect agriculture and their source of life from destruction, pollution, and consumption.

Architectural plans are part of shelter planning on the planet. They define a cellular strategy that combines to form a physical anatomy that we further define with city planning, urban design, landscape architecture, engineering, real estate development, geography, politics, environmental science, economic development, and so on. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts, and we deemphasize its sustainable relationship to the Natural Domain when we discourage pursuit of the professional knowledge required to understand the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

PS: In my opinion, architecture must become a growing, transferable, mathematical, leadership language of shelter capacity research, evaluation, correlation, and knowledge. Part of this opinion is based on my belief that pictures and sculpture are fine art, but that architecture is shelter. It is far more relevant to the decisions we face, and its appearance will symbolize our success or failure.

The challenge we face is an improved ability to correlate the tactical efforts of many. It is anticipation, creativity, and strategic leadership in its most complex form in my opinion. Call it what you will but focus on the objective and fund it accordingly unless you take our presence on the planet for granted.

WM HOSACK BLOG LIST SEPT. 2010 THROUGH NOV. 2025

 

The following update list attempts to assist those who may be interested in the essays I have published since 2010. It includes all published on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and those published on LinkedIn since July 2016.
Those published from October 2020 to April 2023 have been published in my book, Symbiotic Architecture, available on Amazon.com. I plan to continue with updates as needed and hope the list proves useful.

Revenue Implications of Shelter Capacity and Land Use Activity Investment

The land is a city’s source of income. If it doesn’t deliver average revenue per taxable acre equal to its total annual expense per taxable acre, the annual deficit must be reconciled with budget reductions or depletion of its “rainy-day” fund.

I doubt that many cities even know their total annual expense per taxable acre or their total annual revenue per taxable acre. It would be easy to calculate expense per gross acre, but it would be more difficult to calculate by taxable acre, and even more difficult to calculate by taxable, buildable acre. It would be relatively meaningless information, anyway, if it were not contained in a database format of additional information organized by street address, parcel number, census block, census tract, and zoning district number at the very least. (Delete or compartmentalize street address and parcel number if privacy is a concern.) This would allow geographic information mapping of database information at the cellular level of the urban anatomy. Comparing revenue to expense at this level is one way to evaluate the economic health of its various blocks, tracts, and zones. It is the only way, in my opinion, to identify the scope of land use area/activity and additions/adjustments needed to improve a city’s average revenue per taxable, buildable acre. It represents digital urban design, economic planning, mapping, and geographic evaluation at the cellular level of the urban anatomy, but it relies on information sharing arrangements and agreements. Annexation or redevelopment without this information will continue with hope as a strategy based on a lack of analytical data and evaluation. It will produce continuing consumption of agriculture and our source of life, the Natural Domain. Much investment in research, evaluation, debate, and leadership remains if we hope to respect the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits.

At the present time we lack information sharing agreements and reliable data regarding the revenue that can be expected per square foot of gross building area and activity. Until then, the shelter capacity of land and its revenue potential per square foot of activity cannot be usefully linked to improve our ability to shelter the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect their quality and source of life.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

photo credit: BLM Wyoming

PS: The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 Our capacity to shelter all forms of activity will always depend on the gross building area potential of the land involved and the site plan that serves it. 

The land required for housing revolves around what is defined as a dwelling unit. The correlation of land and dwelling takes on greater importance when the issue is “affordable housing”. The potential to provide this housing involves many physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic factors that I’ve collected under the phrase “shelter capacity evaluation”, or Tegimenics. My focus has been on the measurement and evaluation of the physical factors I am qualified to address.

Table 1 defines a detached 2-story dwelling shown in Fig. 1. It was built in 1903 on a 30x105 foot lot and was built at a time when many lots were 20-25 feet wide or less and did not have enough lot width for the driveway shown. I’ve chosen Fig. 1 because the lot size, home area, and site plan would now be considered small, but not necessarily desirable. The density is 13.8 dwelling units per gross acre as shown in cell F5 of Table 1. It is still not small enough to meet the tiny-home standards I’ve encountered, but is more affordable than many others because of its age, condition, and location. This may not be the affordable housing many are seeking, but its design specification in Table 1 raises several issues relevant to the topic.

The Lot, Pavement, and Building Modules of Table 1 contain approximate specification values from memory that define the fundamental characteristics of the home illustrated by the Fig. 1 site plan. The specification values entered in the shaded cells of the Lot, Pavement, and Building Modules produce the gross building area options shown in cells B41-B49. The value in cell B43 represents the existing home example.

The current small-home arguments I’ve read would seem to challenge the need for the garage shown and specified in cells F25-F27 of Table 1 and the driveway area shown and specified in cell F19. Elimination would mean that the lot size could be further reduced and the density increased. Curb parking is not shown in Fig.1 but is present up and down this street. It turns the two-way street into an alternating one-way system that depends on courtesy and deference to function. It is separated from the home by a 10-foot-deep front yard. The immediate questions concerning this property are:

1)   Can the garage and driveway be eliminated in future plans?

2)      Is the unpaved open space provided in cell F13 adequate in relation to the building mass and pavement present?

3)      Are movement, open space, and life support services adequate?

4)      What is the measurable shelter capacity of the project?

5)      What is the measurable intensity of the project?

6)      What is the measurable intrusion imposed by the floor quantity present?

7)      What is the measurable context of the correlated site plan and building features?

8)      Does this plan contribute to the quality of life of the occupants and surrounding neighborhood?

The calculations related to the physical questions involved are provided in the Implications Module of Table 1, but the data do not provide answers.

The purpose of Table 1 is to show that mathematical evaluation of shelter design decisions, once thought intuitive, is feasible when the calculations are reduced to the strategic foundation on which shelter, form, function, and appearance emerge. Prior to the derivation of Tegimenic equations, however, this analysis has taken place in the creative minds of designers following a random format of trial and error at the drawing board or CAD station. The result has too often been sprawl at one end of the intensity spectrum and excessive intensity at the other.

Figure 2 and Table 2 have been provided to show how small home modification and expansion over time on limited lot areas in response to unknown motivation can lead to compression and deterioration often associated with inner-city neighborhoods. It is a difficult issue because shelter is a fixed asset that does not adjust easily. Any reevaluation that leads to redevelopment, urban renewal, and eminent domain has been political disaster in many cases, but any additional land consumption for affordable housing reduces agriculture and the natural domain that is our source of life.

In my opinion, a successful search for affordable housing will depend on our ability to correlate the many mathematical design decisions involved with the shelter capacity of land for diverse occupant activity. In other words, affordable housing represents one of many demands for land area.

The correlation of land area for shelter capacity, occupant activity, movement, open space, and life support determines the economic stability of the whole. Random experiments responding to market preferences have not balanced the economic equation in my opinion. Affordable housing is not an independent part of this equation. It is not an independent dollhouse like that shown in the cover picture. It is a cell that must be combined to contribute to a healthy anatomy. If you share this opinion, you may realize that information sharing, data science, shelter capacity evaluation, financial analysis, and mapping correlation are some of the tools needed to begin building credible arguments for the shelter capacity equations and proposals needed to correlate urban form, design logic, and data modeling within geographic limits defined to protect both our quality and source of life.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

PS: The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

photo courtesy of: tiny home girl

Combating Shelter Sprawl and Excessive Intensity

The quantity specification for a residential site plan determines the density that will be produced.

The Density Forecast Panel in Table 1 is a function of the project quantity definition provided in the shaded cells of the Land, Pavement, and Apartment Program Modules above, unpaved open space quantity choices from shaded cells A46-A64 in the panel, and floor quantity choices on line 44 of the panel. All density options calculated from these options in the Density Forecast Module are a function of the 68 shaded value decisions and options shown, and a change to one or more of them will change the density results calculated in cells C46-M64 of the Density Forecast Panel.

Table 1 should illustrate that 68 shelter design decisions lead to a density result in this example, and that density does not lead any of them. It is a hurdle that too often creates a guessing game with sprawl and excessive shelter intensity of questionable benefit to an entire municipal economy, and a threat to agriculture and the Natural Domain it consumes, as too-frequent results. Shelter capacity evaluation guided by Tegimenic forecast models and government leadership is one option, but it will not be easy to learn to live within limits.

The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

PS: Please see Table 2 for the calculated intensity and context implications of the Density Forecast Panel calculations in Table 1. As I’ve said before, these calculations are like the first blood pressure readings taken without the research needed to understand their health insights.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

Shaping Urban Pattern, Form, and Space for Shelter Capacity and Economic Stability within Limited Geographic Areas

 Urban Pattern, Form, and Space -- Learning to Live Within Limits

I’ve mentioned in some previous essays that I believe our goal must be to shelter growing populations within limited geographic areas that contain economically correlated urban design compositions of shelter capacity, intensity, and occupant activity. In my opinion, it is the only way we can avoid random, sprawling, and excessive consumption of agriculture and the Natural Domain. We cannot do this until we can mathematically measure, predict, evaluate, and lead shelter capacity, intensity, and physical context for activity toward economic stability within these limits.

This is why I have pursued the mathematical language of shelter capacity evaluation and have discussed its evolution in 260+ essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. The more recent have also been published on LinkedIn. The effort has been summarized in my book, The Equations of Urban Design, that is available on Amazon.com. I regret the title, which should have been “Shelter Capacity Evaluation”, since the book is not about the algorithms and equations embedded in shelter capacity forecast models. It is about a template format and design specification topics related to six building design categories that enable the consistent definition, evaluation, and prediction needed for shelter knowledge accumulation and leadership direction.

We will continue to struggle with sprawl and excessive intensity until we can quickly and efficiently calculate shelter capacity options and their implications based on improved information sharing, data science, mapping evaluation, and mathematical correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options with their economic implications. The result can be correlated decisions in a language capable of consistently leading our design efforts toward the physical pattern, form, and spatial solutions required for financial stability and quality of life within sustainable geographic limits.

Shelter density is an attempt to define a cake with a partial recipe of unmixed, uncorrelated ingredients. Is it any wonder that the result often fails to satisfy? Table 1 is my initial attempt to illustrate the correlation required for consistent leadership success. It illustrates a language and format of correlated mathematical expression that can help us measure existing conditions, evaluate shelter options, build knowledge, and pursue leadership direction in terms that can produce consistent success.

TABLE 1

Table 1 applies to the G1.R3 Residential Activity Group.* All zoning ordinances contain some of the shaded cell topics in the Land and Pavement Modules of Table 1, but I doubt that most if not all of the ordinances contain the entire list; and I doubt that those included are mathematically correlated to expose their combined implications and/or contradictions.

*G1.R3 refers to the residential apartment activity group (R3) when served by surface parking around, but not under, the building(s) on the same premises (G1).

The shaded topics in all three modules of Table 1 are interrelated and mathematically correlated to either measure or predict the implications presented in its Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module. A simple density limit has been entered into cell F4 and the number of dwelling units it represents has been calculated in cell F5. This entry and calculation do not determine the specification values entered in the template’s remaining shaded boxes, however. This is the point. Any set of values can be entered in the remaining shaded boxes. The embedded template equations calculate the planning and implication results that will respect the density limit given, even though some results will be far less desirable than others, some will be unbearable, and some will be impossible. In other words, density does not lead to design specification decisions, but it can lead to some very undesirable results.

A brief glance at the shaded boxes in Table 1 should indicate the number of variable design decisions involved. Results calculated in the table’s planning and implication modules will change whenever one or more of the shaded values in its Land and Pavement Modules are modified, but are all options desirable? For instance, lower open space quantities in cells A45-A53 produce larger gross building areas and greater potential return in cells B45-B53, but are lower unpaved open space areas desirable? I could ask the same question about any number of the shaded cell values entered, since any value or combination of values would produce different results.

I don’t believe that arbitrary results have ever been the objective. They happen because the equations of urban design have not been derived to predict shelter capacity options and implications that can lead to evaluation and establish parameters that define a healthy, contained urban anatomy. One that is not a parasitic threat to its host. The fact that they now exist does not mean that the effort is over. It has just begun. The Planning and Implication Modules in Table 1 have been provided to assist the effort and are included for every building design category and activity group in The Equations of Urban Design.

At this time, we can calculate the planning and implication results produced by templates of design specification values for classified building design categories like the one presented in Table 1. I have mentioned in other essays, however, that looking at Table 1 results is like looking at the first blood pressure readings. The reader will have no grasp of the health indicated or the parameters needed. (The impossible results are shown in parentheses.) New research is required. The result can be a language capable of consistently leading our design efforts toward the physical pattern, form, and spatial solutions required for financial stability and quality of life within sustainable geographic limits.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025