STRATEGY IS MISSING FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PLEASE NOTE THAT MY PRIMARY SITE IS NOW LOCATED AT “THE BUILT DOMAIN.NET”. A link is provided in the upper right hand corner of the screen.

            There is a solution to the economic problems of every state and local government, but it requires a new approach to city planning and design that must be built from currently scattered information; and it can take us well beyond the simplistic concept of a balanced annual budget.

Attracting new business to finance past practice is not economic development. It is another Ponzi scheme built on the best of intentions. New revenue is considered a budget solution even though the income per acre may not equal or exceed the jurisdiction’s average annual expense per acre, especially when forecast over time. This lack of planning consideration for the relationships among land development capacity, land use activity and economic yield per acre is the driving force behind the annexation and blight of American cities as they sprawl in a futile search for economic stability.

All residential and commercial land use activities do not produce equal revenue per acre and many do not meet a jurisdiction’s average annual expense per acre. Unfortunately, we do not know the average yield associated with each activity group; and a city’s average expense per acre is simple division but rarely calculated as a planning benchmark for city design and economic development. As a result, economic development is pursued to balance annual budgets without a strategic plan for greater success. This will continue until our plans correlate development capacity options with land use activity and revenue potential.

In military terms, economic development is a tactic employed to achieve an objective. An objective should be part of a strategic plan designed to achieve a greater goal. When the goal is debated and strategy is missing however, tactics support random battles that wander across the landscape. In this case, a strategy to achieve economic stability within physical limits that protect the agriculture, environment and ecology beyond is missing; and it can only be expressed with plans for urban form that adequately shelter activities, improve our quality of life and yield the income needed to meet public expense over time. This expense is a constant source of debate that distracts us from the primary goal. There is a way to address this political problem, but it will remain a subject for another time.

I have tried to focus this message and hope I have made it clear that city and state plans for land use and urban form will directly affect our social and economic welfare. They will also determine the land that will remain to sustain all life on the planet, but the data (intelligence) required to support these plans remains uncollected. In other words, the goal is clear but a strategy has not been filtered from intelligence to lead the power and tactics of economic development toward victory.

The march will begin when we are able to quickly and accurately forecast development capacity options and implications for every acre of land we consume, since a sustainable future will depend on the balance we create between the natural environment of our host and the artificial environment of our presence.

Forecasting is now possible with Development Capacity Evaluation software, but the values entered in its design specification templates produce forecasts with implications that remain to be evaluated. Context evaluation of existing projects with similar values, however, can provide the intelligence required to create economic development strategies with plans and language that can lead us to our goal.

Author Note: Development Capacity Evaluation software is attached to Land Development Calculations, second edition, McGraw-Hill, 2010. Chapter 6 expands on the observations above and is entitled, “Land Use Allocation and Economic Stability”. The book can be found on Amazon.com. The first edition was published in 2001 and translated by China in 2007.
 

The following articles can be read on my blog, Cities and Design. The third article is an expansion of the discussion above. The blog can be found at http://wmhosack.blogspot.com/:

1)      "Replacing Density" discusses its leadership weakness and intensity alternative,

2)      "The Limits of Shelter Capacity" provides expanded detail regarding intensity,

3)      “The City is a Farm” discusses the relationship of intensity to economic development,

4)      "The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance" outlines the legislative confusion that impedes leadership progress,

5)       “Examining Architecture” takes a closer look at a piece of the city design puzzle,

6)      “The Variance Trap” illustrates development regulation weakness with a residential forecast model from the Development Capacity Evaluation (DCE) software collection,

7)      “City Design with Space” discusses the overlooked role of project open space with a non-residential forecast model from the DCE collection,

8)      “The Core of Our Built Environment” identifies the nucleus of development capacity

9)      “Ponzi Schemes and Land Use Plans” offers an alternative to annexation and sprawl.

10)     “Where Does Sustainability Begin?” discusses the importance of land in the competition between our natural and built environments.

11)    “Economic Development Is Missing a Strategy” discusses the intelligence and strategic planning required to identify economic development objectives on the road to a sustainable future.

These articles have been deleted but are available upon request:

1)      “The Concept of City Design” includes an overview and suggested research agenda,

2)      “Politics and Planning” is an argument in support of the effort, and

3)     “Context Measurement” outlines a suggested research yardstick.

WHERE DOES SUSTAINABILITY BEGIN?

Sustainability begins with instinct and grows to awareness of what is at stake. There are many essential elements of survival, but for me it begins with the land. This essay is about forecasting its capacity to provide shelter in order to preserve the remainder to sustain life. Land supports two worlds and is the platform for city planning, urban design and architecture. If I had chosen another profession I might have debated the choice of land as a point of departure but not its relevance.

From my perspective therefore, sustainability begins with the preservation of land in the garden we have been given. Linnaeus began to organize this garden but overlooked a second world. The built environment was a negligible consideration at the time, but has grown into a competing artificial presence that consumes the land of his work. This is a contest we cannot win in a universe that does not compromise. It is why every acre of land is precious; why we must learn to live within limits; and why we must use each acre wisely within our world as we attempt to shelter growing populations without consuming the face of the planet.

            The consumption of land begins with the concept of property. I won’t even attempt to address this issue except to say that it has been the foundation of perpetual conflict, and that our current legal concepts will either appear anachronistic at some future point in time or become extinct. Adaptation is required and conscious adjustment is not inevitable, but I will leave its legal form for others to debate. My objective is to provide the tools needed to evaluate shelter options within sustainable limits defined by the science of others.

After Apollo 11 most will agree that the Earth is a finite resource protected by a thin film of atmosphere at risk; and that it exists within a universe that has become our definition of infinity. (Visual confirmation that the Earth is round and not infinite was a hard won, but foregone conclusion.) Therefore, the development capacity of land to provide shelter for growing populations becomes an issue of survival, since it is also a source of life that can be consumed. In other words, the built environment competes for land with the natural environment and survival hangs in the balance.

            Land is used by four divisions within the built environment. The Shelter Division is served by the Movement, Open Space and Life Support Divisions. The relationship between building mass, pavement and open space within the buildable area of the Shelter Division is called intensity, which can be magnified by the surrounding intensity of its supporting divisions. Shelter intensity is expressed as the gross building area constructed per acre of buildable land available. Shelter capacity is found when gross building area is multiplied by the population anticipated per 1,000 square feet of building area forecast. The activities sheltered by building intensity combine to establish the social and economic characteristics of urban form.

Intensity options can be predicted with Development Capacity Evaluation software (DCE) based on the forecast model chosen and the values entered in its design specification template, and hundreds can be forecast in the time it takes to sketch one. The evaluation of these predictions can help us learn to use each acre wisely, since I've pointed out that economic potential is a function of the social activity within building intensity; but overdevelopment represents a threat to our health, safety and welfare.

There has been no adequate definition of “overdevelopment”, so the debate has wandered in a forest of detail and emotional confrontation that has only led to annexation, sprawl and blight. Debate has been limited by the language available, and DCE has been written to expand this vocabulary with accurate predictions of building capacity options. This may improve our ability to shelter growing populations within sustainable limits.

The average yield from a buildable acre must at least equal a city’s operating, maintenance, improvement and debt service expense per acre to avoid deferred services and deterioration. Acres must also be preserved for agriculture. The land beyond this built environment suffers our presence at its discretion, and the atmosphere protects us all from a universe of forces we cannot begin to comprehend. This is the ultimate definition of “unstable” and we tamper with its balance using the concept of “property” as justification. These forces do not recognize ownership however. They respond to land use and expect us to recognize and respect the gift we have been given by learning to live within limits based on an understanding of intensity and context.

Intensity and context combine to create neighborhoods, districts, cities and regions. When the equations of intensity embedded in DCE software are linked to the mapping power of geographical information systems (GIS), the three-dimensional potential of urban form will emerge as options expressed in a visual and descriptive language. This can lead us toward life within limits that protect the health, safety and welfare of two worlds that now compete for survival in a competition that is no contest.

Intensity options represent context parameters. If we must learn to live within limits, then both intensity parameters and context design are critical to our health, safety and welfare. Within all divisions of the built environment, context is the form, function, appearance and arrangement of building mass, pavement and open space within the intensity parameters established. The most prominent attempts to establish context parameters have been land use and right-of-way regulations, but their lack of ability to forecast intensity and correlate socio- economic benefit has produced a sprawling attempt to return to the farm.

Context is mute testimony to a great number of tactical design decisions made to achieve strategic leadership objectives. Strategy and tactics are lost without a goal, however. In this case, victory will be defined by shelter within symbiotic limits that protect the survival of all life on Earth with dignity. This is a worthy purpose for our continued presence if we can accept our stewardship responsibilities.

Author Note: Portions of this article were excerpted and edited from the second edition of my book, Land Development Calculations, and its attached forecasting software, Development Capacity Evaluation, v2.0 published by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2010. The book can be found on Amazon.com.

The following articles can be read on my blog, Cities and Design, at http://wmhosack.blogspot.com/:

1)             "Replacing Density" discusses its leadership weakness and intensity alternative,

2)             "The Limits of Shelter Capacity" provides expanded detail regarding intensity,

3)             “The City is a Farm” discusses the relationship of intensity to economic development,

4)             "The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance" outlines the legislative confusion that impedes leadership progress,

5)             “Examining Architecture” takes a closer look at a piece of the city design puzzle,

6)             “The Variance Trap” illustrates development regulation weakness with a residential forecast model from the Development Capacity Evaluation (DCE) software collection,

7)             “City Design with Space” discusses the overlooked role of project open space with a non-residential forecast model from the DCE collection,

8)             “The Core of Our Built Environment” identifies the nucleus of development capacity

9)             “Ponzi Schemes and Land Use Plans” offers an alternative to annexation and sprawl.

10)         “Where Does Sustainability Begin?” discusses the importance of land in a competition between our natural and built environments.

11)         “Economic Development Is Missing a Strategy” discusses the intelligence and strategic planning required to identify economic development objectives on the road to a sustainable future.

These articles have been deleted from my blog but are available upon request:

1)             “The Concept of City Design” includes an overview and suggested research agenda,

2)             “Politics and Planning” is an argument in support of the effort, and

3)             “Context Measurement” outlines a suggested research yardstick.

PONZI SCHEMES and LAND USE PLANS

            Ponzi schemes consume until their appetite exceeds the resources available. Land use plans begin with limits but succumb to Ponzi when revenue drops in relation to expense, since they have little concept of the resources implied by levels of shelter capacity, economic activity and context quality. They are driven by random market forces that can produce profit without yield. Budgets tighten and land use plans rely on annexation for new revenue and little expense, but time increases maintenance cost and expense begins to exceed revenue. Blight enters the core while annexation expands to add new revenue as the city walks a tightrope without a sense of balance. The result is chaos called sprawl driven by a failure to quantify the relationship of activity and yield to intensity and context in order to produce physical, social and economic stability.

Within a city, the average annual yield per acre from a land use activity group indicates its contribution to the city’s average annual expense per acre, but cities will continue to annex land for activities that may reduce their economic potential until these group contributions can be defined and forecast. Annexation has allowed us to avoid accumulating this knowledge; but the result is a Ponzi scheme that consumes increasing amounts of land to honor past commitments. Unfortunately, the average yield per acre from this effort often proves inadequate as decline increases and annexation expands to compensate. This consumes a nation’s agricultural base and threatens our common ecology of survival.

Sprawl is old news to city planners, but the problem begins with a lack of knowledge. We do not know how to balance land use activities and development capacity (intensity) to achieve economic stability and context benefit within city limits. City planning began with a focus on the protection of public health; the separation of hazard; and the reduction of intensity. It is still not prepared to address economic stability and has permitted parking lots to be considered open space in an effort to reduce intensity and improve context benefit.

We have separated buildings with building codes and setbacks, while separating incompatible land use activities with master plans and zoning codes. Separation has led to sprawl, however. Land has been available in abundance to compensate for revenue deficiencies as we fled from the intensity of central cities, but encircled first ring suburbs have been the first to discover the weakness of a sprawl-based economy. When the land runs out, the suburb’s ability to add land for additional revenue runs out as well; and redevelopment is deferred until blight can no longer be ignored, but may remain intractable. This has taught cities to protect their annexation corridors or share this fate, since they lack the tools and knowledge to plan for economic stability and context benefit within land use limits. This can place our entire planet at risk if continued indefinitely.

From a planning standpoint, separation begins with the relationship of our built environment to its natural host, since each must be protected from the other for mutual survival. If you agree, this should lead city planning and design to consider separation from several new perspectives. If the built environment is to exist within limits while sheltering growing populations, we can no longer rely on minimum land use and building separation standards to lead the way. We need the ability to forecast the physical, social and economic implications of development capacity (intensity). Forecasting can be pursued with Development Capacity Evaluation software, but we must still rely on intuition and experience to evaluate its predictions. Improvement will require intensity and context research before intuition can be converted to knowledge equal to the emerging threat we pose to ourselves.

The combination of shelter, movement, open space and life support within a city is called urban form. The activities sheltered within the buildings of urban form are separated and served by its movement, open space and life support divisions; and the composition determines its economic potential. It also defines its quality of life. In other words, urban form has physical, social and economic characteristics that affect the health, safety and welfare of its population. Containing this composition within limits to protect our natural, agricultural and resource environments requires knowledge of development intensity, shelter capacity, land use separation, revenue yield, and return on investment that does not exist; and tools that have only recently arrived.

I have noted in previous articles that development capacity is the gross building area that can be constructed per acre of buildable land available. It can be predicted based on values entered in the design specification template of a forecast model, and models are chosen from a library of options. (See “City Design with Space”) The activities sheltered by intensity determine the income and revenue generated per acre. The open space remaining defines the place created and its contribution to the fabric of city experience. We have not been able to accurately forecast the spectrum of these development capacity (intensity) options in a reasonable amount of time, and this has limited our ability to correlate the shelter capacity of land with its social and economic implications. This means that development capacity (intensity) has physical, social and economic implications that we have not begun to measure and evaluate. We have observed the appearance and influence of context, but there are measurable intensity components that set the stage. When entered in a forecast model, they are the forces that can convert chaos to opportunity. Context adds form, function and appearance to intensity components that affect our health, safety and welfare. Component values define the parameters of physical, social and economic solutions. The implications are profound, because intensity options and averages are leadership tools. They will determine our ability to address population growth and economic stability with context solutions of benefit and respect for our irreplaceable partners.

Limits are anathema to Ponzi schemes but essential to a natural partner who suffers our presence at its discretion. They also preserve an agricultural partner that can only retreat when not protected by informed and convincing physical, social and economic arguments.

            Ponzi schemes allow us to put off hard decisions until the day of reckoning inevitably arrives. Some have been formed with the best of intentions on a foundation of inadequate anticipation. Anticipation emerges from knowledge built on intuition. In the military, knowledge is called “intelligence”, intuition is called “strategy”, action is called “tactics” and success means survival. The effort requires leadership that has many partners. In our case, city planning also needs many partners to meet the assault from land conversion, since intelligence is lacking, strategy is unreliable, and tactics have failed to reach objectives; but success will be measured in the same unforgiving military terms.

            In our time, adaptation has been called innovation; but when successful, both quickly become habits that are hard to break. The concept of land as a commodity that can be conquered, lost, bought, sold or consumed is a habit that began before time. Our only innovation has been to expand permitted participation. I can’t imagine a more difficult habit to break, unless its war; but land is not a commodity. It’s a mute power whose life depends on a universe of forces we once considered gods, and these forces will subtly adapt the land to intrusion without compromise if we do not adapt to the awareness that life is limited by a responsibility that Ponzi has never accepted.

            The Earth was visually confirmed as round on July 20, 1969 by Apollo 11. Mapping had been based on that assumption for quite some time. Our advances in mapping and geography may again lead the way in adapting to our planet, when combined with development capacity evaluation; but this is another article for another time.

 

Author Note: The following articles can be read on my blog, Cities and Design, at http://wmhosack.blogspot.com/:

1)             "Replacing Density" discusses its leadership weakness and intensity alternative,

2)             "The Limits of Shelter Capacity" provides expanded detail regarding intensity,

3)             “The City is a Farm” discusses the relationship of intensity to economic development,

4)             "The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance" outlines the legislative confusion that impedes leadership progress,

5)             “Examining Architecture” takes a closer look at a piece of the city design puzzle,

6)             “The Variance Trap” illustrates development regulation weakness with a residential forecast model from the Development Capacity Evaluation (DCE) software collection,

7)             “City Design with Space” discusses the overlooked role of project open space with a non-residential forecast model from the DCE collection,

8)             “The Core of Our Built Environment” identifies the nucleus of development capacity

9)             “Ponzi Schemes and Land Use Plans” offers an alternative to annexation and sprawl.

10)         “Where Does Sustainability Begin?” discusses the importance of land in a competition between our natural and built environments.

11)         “Economic Development Is Missing a Strategy” discusses the intelligence and strategic planning required to identify economic development objectives on the road to a sustainable future.

These articles have been deleted from my blog but are available upon request:

1)             “The Concept of City Design” includes an overview and suggested research agenda,

2)             “Politics and Planning” is an argument in support of the effort, and

3)             “Context Measurement” outlines a suggested research yardstick.

CITY DESIGN WITH SPACE

            Design with space depends on the concept of core area development capacity and its relationship to the off-setting project open space provided. (Core area is the land remaining for building mass and parking after all other demands are subtracted from a gross land area of any size. If parking is not required, or placed underground, the entire core area is available for building mass that is often referred to as building height and area.)

            Table 1 explains the distillation of core area. Public rights-of-way and improved or paved easements, if present, are first subtracted from a gross land area. (If this is a forecast the area subtracted would be an estimated percentage of the gross land area.) The net land area remaining is further reduced to buildable land area by subtracting all unbuildable areas such as, but not limited to, ravines, marshes, ponds, and unstable soil, if present. Buildable area is reduced to core area by subtracting the open space present or planned in addition to miscellaneous pavement, driveways and loading areas. (If this is a forecast, the areas subtracted would be estimated percentages of the buildable land defined.) The core area that remains is available for building mass; and parking, if required. (Parking is only open space in the minds of those who wish to increase intensity.) When reviewing Table 1, keep in mind that the areas mentioned can represent those of one project, or the sum of many areas within a larger plan.

After core area is identified, it becomes possible to forecast gross building area potential based on the forecast model chosen and the design specification values entered. This potential has been called development capacity, and the square feet of gross building area present or predicted per buildable acre has been called intensity. Intensity can be calculated per gross or net acre; but when large unbuildable areas are involved, these statistics distort the intensity that people experience within the buildable area.

The choice of a development capacity forecast model is influenced by the land use category involved, but this is a simple choice among residential, non-residential or mixed-use alternatives. A non-residential choice would lead to Table 2. A series of decisions in Table 2 leads to a forecast model. The first decision involves the parking system contemplated. This leads to a choice among the parking design options available within the system chosen. From this point, the path leads to one of two forecast models. The choice depends on the information given. Gross building area predictions are based on a given gross land area. Gross land area predictions are based on a given gross building area objective. The given areas can be of any size and do not need to be restricted to one project.



For instance, if the CG1L forecast model is chosen in Table 2, Table 3 illustrates values that can be entered in its design specification template to forecast the core area of a given gross land area. Additional values are entered to calculate the development capacity of this core area in the GBA column and the intensity of this capacity in the SFAC column. Any change in the values entered alters the forecast. If the open space percentage is increased from 30% for instance, core area shrinks along with gross building area capacity, or design specification values must be adjusted to maintain the same capacity. If open space is decreased, the core area increases along with its gross building area potential unless other specification values are also modified.



It should be apparent that open space is a major design specification value that affects the amount of core land area available within our built environment. When combined with other design specification values, it determines the scope of activity and population that can be sheltered within any specified area. Context refinement adds form, function and appearance to intensity decisions that lead to the places we create.

Building height can be increased within a core area, parking requirements can be eliminated and open space can be reduced in the buildable area to increase core area intensity, but these options can be used to extremes that prompted original efforts to protect the public health, safety and welfare.  When these options are exhausted, the only way to increase core area development capacity is to buy more land. This is the dilemma we face on a planet of limited resources and expanding population. Open space must be protected beyond the artificial environment we build to ensure the survival of life on the planet, but it must be protected within the places we build to relieve intensity. The specifications required remain to be determined, but common sense should tell us that open space is essential to our quality of life and agricultural capacity, while also part of an ecology of survival we threaten with unlimited consumption.

Footpaths document our first explorations of space, but the land discovered is simply an island in a sea protected by a thin film of atmosphere at risk. Improved movement systems expanded our control. Shelter was built and life support systems were extended. As a result, land was converted from its natural function to an artificial domain we call the built environment. In my lifetime this domain has expanded to serve growing populations while inner cities have been abandoned to escape intensity. This has produced sprawl without economic stability that continues to threaten its source of survival.

Sprawl tells me that we have not learned to design with space as we construct the four divisions of our built environment. We use too much or too little and mistakes are reflected in blight, social alienation, economic instability and psychological distress. We have all seen horrendous relationships among shelter, movement, open space and life support structures within cities. We consider open space a void to be “improved” and resistance is considered “taking”. Sprawl continues as we struggle to recognize natural realities that face our abstract world with a power we cannot dominate without consequences.

It is becoming apparent that we must adapt to life within limits since the space beyond cannot be consumed indefinitely. It also means that we must adapt our concept of agriculture to resist urban sprawl; to adapt open space requirements within cities to offset excessive intensity; and to recognize that life within limits will require the redevelopment of blight rather than the abandonment of central cities. This does not mean that economic penalties can be imposed on those saddled with the mistakes of our past, but that our abstract financial concepts must adapt to recognize the goal, which is design with space that protects the survival, patterns and dignity of all life on the planet.

We have much to learn about the space that must be protected beyond our cities and the space we must preserve within, since shelter and movement options can respond to population growth with overwhelming intensity. We are now coming to realize, however, that low intensity cannot serve population growth without threatening the health, safety and welfare of the planet.

Learning to shelter the activities of expanding populations within geographical limits will require a thorough understanding of intensity and context design. Anything less will continue our consumption of a planet that cannot speak, but who reacts without compromise. It is we who must learn its language, since it has no need to explain that we are not a gift. It is the gift and we are expected to take responsibility. Forecasting our development capacity options within sustainable limits is a step in this direction.

Author Note: Land Development Calculations has been written to assist many professions who wish to build the knowledge required to design with space. It forecasts development capacity in relation to the land consumed. This unlocks the ability to forecast anything that is a function of the gross building area predicted such as, but not limited to, construction budget, population capacity, traffic generation, return on investment and yield per acre (for comparison to a city’s average annual operating expense per acre).

The following articles can be read on my blog, Cities and Design, at http://wmhosack.blogspot.com/:

1)             "Replacing Density" discusses its leadership weakness and intensity alternative,

2)             "The Limits of Shelter Capacity" provides expanded detail regarding intensity,

3)             “The City is a Farm” discusses the relationship of intensity to economic development,

4)             "The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance" outlines the legislative confusion that impedes leadership progress,

5)             “Examining Architecture” takes a closer look at a piece of the city design puzzle,

6)             “The Variance Trap” illustrates development regulation weakness with a residential forecast model from the Development Capacity Evaluation (DCE) software collection,

7)             “City Design with Space” discusses the overlooked role of project open space with a non-residential forecast model from the DCE collection,

8)             “The Core of Our Built Environment” identifies the nucleus of development capacity

9)             “Ponzi Schemes and Land Use Plans” offers an alternative to annexation and sprawl.

10)         “Where Does Sustainability Begin?” discusses the importance of land in a competition between our natural and built environments.

11)         “Economic Development Is Missing a Strategy” discusses the intelligence and strategic planning required to identify economic development objectives on the road to a sustainable future.

These articles have been deleted from my blog but are available upon request:

1)             “The Concept of City Design” includes an overview and suggested research agenda,

2)             “Politics and Planning” is an argument in support of the effort, and

3)             “Context Measurement” outlines a suggested research yardstick.

THE VARIANCE TRAP

           

            A zoning variance is intended to mitigate the hardship of general regulations applied to a unique circumstance, but often represents a lack of confidence in the regulation itself. In many cases there is good reason, because specific requirements are often uncoordinated attempts to achieve poorly defined goals. The following is a brief sketch of the confusion that surrounds our attempts to reach goals with density, parking and building height regulations.

            I began my career listening to discussions of permitted residential densities, heights, and required parking.  I started wondering if anyone understood the combined impact of these requirements, especially when additional regulations, such as landscape require­ments within a parking lot, were being considered.  I quickly realized that no one could accurately forecast implications, and all of us relied on intuition and claims of experience.

            As an example, a density of 80 dwelling units per acre was permitted along with a building height of 15 stories and a parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.  When a developer attempted to design within these parameters using a grade parking lot, he couldn't come close to 80 dwelling units per acre. This encouraged him to pave every potential square foot in an attempt to reach his authorized density, and this began my search for a way to define realistic expectations based upon a thorough understanding of design fundamentals.

            Table 1 explains the point using a forecast model from the Development Capacity Evaluation software collection. This model is designed to address residential, grade parking lot design solutions with the parking lot around, but not under, the building.  It has two primary panels entitled, “Design Specification” and “Planning Forecast”. A land area of 5 acres is given and Arrow 1 points to the permitted density. Arrow 8 points to the number of dwelling units implied by this density. Arrow 3 points to the parking requirement and Arrow 2 points to the land area estimate per parking space. (The area shown implies that very little internal parking lot landscape is planned.) Arrow 4 indicates that 80% of the gross building area will remain for habitable space. (This means that 20% of the gross building area is estimated for wall thickness, circulation, mechanical areas, etc.) Arrow 5 points to the average dwelling unit area planned based on the dwelling unit mix specified. (This is a critical forecasting value that is rarely considered.) Arrow 6 points to a minimal open space provision of 10% and Arrow 7 points to a more desirable value of 40%. However, column FLR in the Planning Forecast Panel is zero throughout, indicating that the density and design specification is not feasible, nor is the dwelling unit target of 400.

            Table 2 forecasts development implications for a density of 50 when all other specification values remain constant. Arrow 8 points to a reduced target of 250 dwelling units. A 10.2 story building is required and only 10% open space can be provided since 15% requires a 16.4 story building and only 15 floors are permitted. This design specification can easily produce a profitable building in an undesirable context when design with space is dominated by the demand for building capacity.

            Table 3 forecasts the development implications of the density 33.43 when all other specification values remain constant. Arrow 8 points to a reduced target of 167 dwelling units that could be constructed on 15 floors with 40% open space, but why build 15 floors when you can create the same number of dwelling units on 2.5 floors with 10% open space and less expense? (You could also build 250 dwelling units with 10.2 floors (round to 10 or 11) and 10% open space as noted in Table 2.) The answer depends on the intensity and context desired within an urban design district of a city design plan.

           

            Note in Table 3 that the parking lot area PLA is constant because the density objective of 33.43 does not change, but that the open space S increases from 0.5 to 2.0 acres as building height FLR increases from 2.5 to 15 floors and building footprint BCA decreases. Changing any value entered in the design specification panel of Table 3 would produce a new forecast for evaluation. This should indicate the spectrum of intensity options available to any project, not to mention the increase in options that occurs when a forecast model representing another design category is selected for comparison.

            Unfortunately, a developer who expects a 400 dwelling unit return from a land purchase may first attempt to modify his design specification values when only reaching 167, or 42% of his goal. He may then seek variances to the values required when he still can’t reach the level of expectation encouraged by the density regulation involved, and appointed regulators with diverse backgrounds may feel relief is warranted because of the disparity. This is not in anyone’s interest when the places created and the land consumed occurs by chance mistaken for leadership.

            If 40% open space was part of a pedestrian circulation plan however, the 10% option in Table 3 would not meet the urban design criteria established and a variance would clearly contradict the goal.

            The development capacity of land is a function of the zoning regulations adopted. Setbacks, densities, building height and parking requirements represent our first attempts to combat fire hazard with building codes and separation; physical and mental health hazard with density regulation and building height limits; and traffic hazard with parking requirements. Open space has been a left-over often reduced with variance approvals and rarely addressed as a specific requirement in zoning ordinances. Its existence by chance is threatened by variance, but its reduction is a hazard that increases intensity and alters context. Specific requirements will raise the issue of “taking”, but space is a design fundamental and an essential ingredient that defines intensity by off-setting building mass and pavement. The lack of space is no less a hazard than the lack of light, air and ventilation since physical and psychological health issues are interrelated. City design with space and intensity can clearly define the goals required, and development capacity evaluation can expose the implications of varying from the plan.

Author Note: Portions of this article were excerpted and edited from the second edition of my book, Land Development Calculations, and its attached forecasting software, Development Capacity Evaluation, v2.0 published by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2010. The book can be found on Amazon.com.

The following articles can be read on my blog, Cities and Design, at http://wmhosack.blogspot.com/:

1)             "Replacing Density" discusses its leadership weakness and intensity alternative,

2)             "The Limits of Shelter Capacity" provides expanded detail regarding intensity,

3)             “The City is a Farm” discusses the relationship of intensity to economic development,

4)             "The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance" outlines the legislative confusion that impedes leadership progress,

5)             “Examining Architecture” takes a closer look at a piece of the city design puzzle,

6)             “The Variance Trap” illustrates development regulation weakness with a residential forecast model from the Development Capacity Evaluation (DCE) software collection,

7)             “City Design with Space” discusses the overlooked role of project open space with a non-residential forecast model from the DCE collection,

8)             “The Core of Our Built Environment” identifies the nucleus of development capacity

9)             “Ponzi Schemes and Land Use Plans” offers an alternative to annexation and sprawl.

10)         “Where Does Sustainability Begin?” discusses the importance of land in a competition between our natural and built environments.

11)         “Economic Development Is Missing a Strategy” discusses the intelligence and strategic planning required to identify economic development objectives on the road to a sustainable future.

These articles have been deleted from my blog but are available upon request:

1)             “The Concept of City Design” includes an overview and suggested research agenda,

2)             “Politics and Planning” is an argument in support of the effort, and

3)             “Context Measurement” outlines a suggested research yardstick.