Correlating Zoning Design Standards

 NOTE: The shelter capacity of land is equal to the gross building area in square feet present or planned divided by the buildable project area in acres, except for future expansion area. The quantity introduced has many related implications such as but not limited to the scope of -- occupant activity, traffic generation, population capacity, revenue potential, construction expense, and return on investment implied by the square feet introduced.

Zoning ordinance regulations depend on itemized, independent standards that are not mathematically correlated in many if not all cases. A residential density limit that cannot be reached by the combination of applicable parking and floor quantity limits involved is a common current example. This has often produced contentious arguments, permitted exceptions, inconsistent precedent, excessive intensity, and sprawl that has limited its zoning effectiveness as a leadership language.

Shelter design depends on quantity decisions that become the foundation for all ensuing site plan organization, building form, and final appearance decisions. In a sentence, initial site planning quantity decisions such as parking area, pavement area, unpaved open space area, floor quantity, building volume, and final appearance have been intuitively evaluated and created for centuries, but the mental correlation involved has been considered a fine art endeavor. As a result, it has escaped the underlying mathematical definition that makes knowledge, prediction, evaluation, and accurate leadership guidance feasible.

Mathematically correlated design specification standards produce shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that can be measured for evaluation and predicted for future planning and urban design guidance. It has been my intent to define the terms shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context with mathematical specification values and template forecast models for a building design category classification system. The templates have been created to provide the mathematical format required for consistent measurement and prediction of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications based on the values entered. This format can lead the efforts of many toward shelter for the activities of growing populations within the sustainable, symbiotic geographic limits that are required.

THE PROBLEM

Table A from “The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance” is repeated at the end of this text. The point was to show that the organization of itemized standards in a zoning ordinance were disconnected when compared to the five chapter and nine section reorganization suggested in Table 2. The underlying motive at the time was to relocate all applicable design standards that were often buried with unrelated text throughout the ordinance.

Table 3 includes a sample dissection of a partial section in the sample ordinance chosen. The table illustrates the heavy lifting required to convert a section of the sample to the structure illustrated by Table 2.

Each topic in Col. B of Table 3 is dissected and referenced to the Table 2 sections that pertain, but the itemized format remains. The related Table 2 sections are noted in Col. A of the table. Some additional notes are also included.

Table 4 illustrates the distillation of all design standards from the sample ordinance, and they were not all found in one location. The result is a Table of Design Standards. It displays all relevant standards for one zone on one line in one consolidated location for ease of reference and consistency of application. Lack of adherence to a standard, however, still represents an itemized offense requiring variance approval by a Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Table 4 may represent a consolidated improvement over scattered design requirements in a zoning ordinance, but it does not correlate these complex standards to indicate their combined implications and realistically achievable gross building area results. At the present time each collection of line-item limits represents a puzzle that must often be solved with exception variances in some, if not many, cases. This is not leadership with a goal. It is regulation with an unknown future.

If city planning and urban design leadership is desired, the ability to correlate diverse requirements is needed to produce gross building area options that can reach shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context goals without inconsistent exceptions that compromise the quality of life desired.

THE SUGGESTION

Conceiving a method of measuring, evaluating, and correlating site plan quantity decisions has been my objective, since quantities are the foundation for all ensuing physical design, and we must move beyond the puzzles represented by Table 4 before we can provide the shelter portion of a sustainable, symbiotic goal.

Those of you who have read my previous essays know that I began by classifying two worlds on a single planet, The Natural and Built Domains. I theorized that the Built Domain anatomy contained Urban and Rural Phyla, and that each phyla contained a Shelter Division served by arterial divisions of Movement, Open Space, and Life Support, even though I admitted that arteries of open space in the Built Domain were more of a dream than reality.

I continued with the theory that shelter classification contained only six building design categories based on the parking system adopted, and that each responded to a specification template of topic variables that could be mathematically correlated to produce measurable and predicable gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. Implications could then be evaluated with a mathematically correlated leadership language, and knowledge could replace the presently itemized opinions of zoning.

This meant that mathematical shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context planning prescriptions could be used as a language that could lead shelter formation and organization toward protection of a city’s physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic health, safety, and quality of life.

THE G1.L1 FORECAST MODEL

I’ve used Table 5 on many occasions for many reasons. I’ll use it here to illustrate the point I’ve just made regarding architectural quantity correlation. Table 5 predicts the gross building area potential of a given buildable land area, excluding future expansion area, when using surface parking around but not under the building. The option is referred to as the G1 Building Design Category.

The first thing to recognize is that occupant activity occupies capacity and may be limited by the quantity available. For example, capacity is a function of the design specification values entered into the gray cell topics of the Table 5 template. These template topics vary with the building design category and activity group involved.

Table 5 involves generic activity topics for the G1 Building Design Category. It is unencumbered by specialized activity group functions that require additional template topics, such as residential activity. The generic shelter capacity of land is predicted in cells B44-B53. This is determined by the design specification values entered and mathematically correlated in the forecast model. A change to one or more of the values would produce a new prediction of gross building area options in cells B44-B53. This would also produce a revision to the capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications calculated in cells F44-J53.

Any value entered in a gray cell of Table 5 is a variable. For instance, the parking values entered in cells A35 and A36 are the most common since they change with the occupant activity involved and affect the gross building area that can be produced. The floor quantity values in cells A44-A53 may also be limited or expanded to influence gross building area potential.

The unpaved open space percentage entered in cell F11 is a variable that has often remained unspecified in a zoning ordinance since it can also limit achievable density, shelter capacity, and intensity, but this is a serious mistake. It should at least be correlated with the storm sewer capacity available, since inadequate correlation can contribute to capacity overload without more sophisticated engineering modifications.

Table 5 differs from Table 4 because it is based on an algorithm; and it immediately responds to the variables entered in its shaded cells with a measurement of their implications in its Forecast Panel and Implications Module. This means that design specification options capable of achieving the same shelter capacity objective could be easily explored by rebalancing the variables involved. This balancing discussion could even occur at joint public/private conferences with the model as the center of attention.

If I’ve made my point, the interactive concept of correlated shelter capacity evaluation illustrated by Table 5 can replace the static regulation of Table 4. In fact, it has the potential to amend regulation with cooperation among all parties concerned with the provision of shelter for population activity. I have only provided a glimpse, however. Table 5 is one in a series of forecast models that represent a suggested method of measuring and predicting the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of design specification decisions. This is information that could be used to build knowledge. The entire suggestion is presented in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design” that is available on Amazon.com. I’m including its Table of Contents as Table 6. The book discusses the building design categories, activity groups, and forecast models that use embedded equations to provide shelter capacity predictions for evaluation and guidance with a few keystrokes.

CONCLUSION

Some form of shelter capacity measurement and prediction is needed to build the knowledge and defend the guidance required to protect populations within geographic limits that recognize our responsibility to protect our source of life. Our current methods of zoning regulation are an inadequate response to the threat represented by annexation, excessive intensity and sprawl based on inadequate knowledge and mistaken assumptions. It will continue to consume agriculture and the Natural Domain until a leadership language equal to the knowledge and guidance required is pursued. I have simply made one suggestion in a discussion that deserves pursuit in my opinion.

Walter M. Hosack, January 2026