City Planning and Design Basics

City planning involves a blizzard of issues that make it difficult to see through the storm. In such conditions, a few reference points can provide direction.

Land Use Evaluation

Imagine the real estate property map of any city with each zoning district represented by a transparent color. All property tax-exempt areas are in white. Calculate the area of each zoning district and subtract the tax-exempt areas to find net area per zone. Divide the total real estate tax produced per zone by the gross and net area calculated to find the real estate tax revenue per acre per zone. Next, divide the income tax revenue from each zone by the gross and net land area per zone to find the income tax revenue per acre from each zone. Add all real estate and income tax revenue and divide by the total net and gross acres in the city to find the revenue yield per gross and net acre from all zones. Divide annual revenue from all other municipal sources by a city’s gross and net land area to find other financial yield per gross and net acre. Add all real estate tax revenue, income tax revenue, and other revenue to find total municipal revenue and divide it by a city’s gross and net acres to find a city’s average revenue per gross and net acre.

Finally, divide the city’s total annual expense by its gross and net acres. Compare its gross and net annual revenue per acre to its total annual expense per gross and net acre. The two should be equal, but this does not indicate an adequate quality of life.

Compare the city’s total annual expense per gross and net acre to the gross and net revenue received per zone. The zones that turn up negative are being subsidized by those that turn up positive. The ratio of positive to negative is one indication of stability.

A city is required to maintain a balanced annual budget, but does the population feel the programs and services provided are both needed and adequate? This is a public policy question they are able to answer if the programs and services are submitted to a general election. If the need is there but the service is inadequate, then a city’s revenue per acre is inadequate and additional funds must be found. The data also provides a foundation for additional program request evaluation.

Development Capacity Evaluation

So far, this discussion has addressed land use allocation; but allocation is only half of the issue. A building shelters activity and can be remodeled to serve other activities. I’ve called gross building area per buildable acre development capacity, and it determines the scope of activity that can be sheltered per acre. Shelter capacity and activity per buildable acre determine the revenue produced per acre. In other words, the development capacity introduced combines with the activity permitted to produce public revenue per acre. Every activity has an average yield per acre, but we have not collected the information. We have also not been able to accurately and consistently predict development capacity options for a buildable land area, but activity allocation and development capacity combine to determine the public revenue potential of a buildable acre, and the economic potential of a city’s total area.

When a city can correlate land use activity with development capacity options and revenue potential, it will be in a position to evaluate options and credibly defend planning recommendations.

I’ve written The Science of City Design: Architectural Algorithms for City Planning and Design Leadership to give you the ability to predict development capacity options for any buildable land area because shelter area determines activity capacity and revenue potential. It can be found on Amazon.com and as a Kindle Fire e-book.

Conclusion

If I have made myself clear, a land use plan without development capacity correlation simply separates incompatible activity. It does not ensure economic stability that is a function of a correlated land use and development capacity plan. I have referred to the combination as city design, and there are a number of pre-requisite chapters in the book I mentioned that lead you to the topic. Adequate city design is the physical foundation needed to undertake the blizzard of city planning issues that face us.

Excerpts from The Science of City Design

Shelter design: The correlation of two dimensional areas and three dimensional building mass to protect human activity in a single project area.

Urban design: The correlation of land use allocation and shelter design within a limited aggregation of project areas.

City design: The correlation of land use allocation and urban design within a jurisdiction.

Built Domain: A collection of jurisdictions that shelter and serve human activity.

Natural Domain: The source of life for all activity

The Goal: To shelter growing human populations within a limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life – the Natural Domain.

The Policy: To establish a symbiotic relationship with the planet.

Design: The definition of a problem and an exploration of potential solutions with instinct, observation, education, anticipation, comparison, evaluation, correlation, measurement, logic, talent, and perseverance. In many cases, the result is failure. In some cases, the result is knowledge. Darwin called it evolution and adaptation. Others have called it chaos.

Intelligence: The ability to memorize, retain, and apply both information and knowledge.

Fine Art: A category of successful and unsuccessful design solutions established by aesthetic opinion.

Design can be considered fine art and fail as a solution to a problem based on the two definitions I’ve written. Design involves the use of logic. When that fails, the result may still be considered fine art but is not a successful answer to the problem. This is the paradox we face. Design and fine art are separate issues. When the priority is form, appearance, and fine art, design can suffer and the solution can be compromised; not to mention the education provided. The goal is to correlate priorities. The policy is symbiotic survival.

PROLOGUE

If you had one acre of land and were asked to find its ideal gross building area potential, you would first ask if parking were required; and identify the parking system to be provided.

If you were given a gross building area objective and were asked to find the buildable land area required, you would first ask if parking were required; and identify the parking system to be provided.

These two sentences represent two questions:

1)     What gross building area options can be produced on a given gross land area, and what are the intensity implications when floor quantity is an option?

2)     What land acquisition options can accommodate a given gross building area objective, and what are the intensity implications when floor quantity is an option?

Our ability to accurately and consistently answer these two questions will determine our ability to shelter the activities of growing populations, and to protect their quality of life, within a limited Built Domain that does not sprawl to threaten their source of life: The Natural Domain.

This goal cannot be achieved until we create a reliable leadership language to:

1)     Consistently measure existing physical conditions with a vocabulary that can be used to compare, evaluate, and correlate the social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications of these measurements.

2)     Consistently forecast future options with the same vocabulary, and an increasing store of measured knowledge, for comparative evaluation.

The objective of this book is to provide a conceptual foundation supported by a vocabulary and language that can be used to build a Science of City Design. We cannot lead until we learn how to speak. This is the message from those who could not speak and pondered the cave paintings of Lascaux, Altamira, and Font-de-Gaumme 17,300 years ago. The scientific language and cellular awareness of Biology is one result.

INTRODUCTION

Unlimited urban growth is sprawl. It continues to expand over the face of a planet that is our source of life. It is encouraged by a primitive definition of “growth”, and a leadership language based on emotion and opinion that does not fear what it cannot see. We could solve climate change and still suffocate the Earth with this expanding blanket.

There are now two worlds on a single planet. The plant and animal kingdoms of Linnaeus have been superseded by the Built and Natural Domains of the 21^st century; and the inhabitants of the Built Domain are threatening to consume their indispensable host.

Zoning ordinances are not written to address the issue. They contain conflicting design requirements that encourage arbitrary results within an expanding Built Domain. As a consequence, we have not had a leadership language capable of consistently measuring problems, predicting options, evaluating solutions, accumulating knowledge, and creating a design strategy:

To shelter growing populations within a limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life.

This book will propose a scientific language of city design based on a shelter classification vocabulary, architectural algorithms, and master equations. It will introduce six universal shelter design categories, three residential activity groups, design specification templates, and forecast models for each category. Architectural algorithms will calculate topic quantities from specification value decisions; and they will correlate results for use by a category master equation. Master equations and subordinate equations will predict the shelter capacity and intensity options implied by a collection of category specifications. A change to any specification value will produce a new shelter capacity and intensity forecast for evaluation. The topics and equations in a forecast model will clearly demonstrate why density is a social measure that cannot lead shelter design toward physical objectives, strategic plans, or policy goals.

Shelter design categories are occupied by activity groups. Activities add a social and economic dimension to physical capacity, intensity, location, and condition. Design categories, activity groups, specification templates, architectural algorithms, master equations, and planning forecast panels introduce a quantitative, comprehensive method of measuring and predicting the shelter capacity of land, and the intensity of the options predicted. The vocabulary and equations to be introduced will represent a city design language that can correlate capacity and intensity with activity on any land area to achieve pre-determined physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic objectives.

I should add that the compatibility of land use allocation is compromised when the shelter capacity, intensity, and activity planned or present is not correlated with the municipal revenue required to meet expense per acre over time. The mathematical language and forecasting ability of city design makes this strategic correlation feasible.

The classification system and mathematical language of city design is a means to an end. It makes the accumulation and evaluation of comparative knowledge feasible. Success will be symbolized by the form and appearance of shelter that emerges from symbiotic solutions correlated by the science of city design within a limited Built Domain.

THE SHELTER QUESTION

The satellite images of sprawl and one image of Earth from the Moon tell us there is no world without end. It’s time to imagine the threat, the relevant detail, the relationships, and the language that can lead us toward solutions that meet the challenge to survive.

We should all be concerned with the answer to a single question.

How do we shelter the activities of growing populations within a geographically limited Built Domain that does not threaten their quality of life with excessive intensity and their source of life with sprawl?

The answer depends on the information available, and this creates two subordinate questions that will be addressed throughout this book. When gross land area is given, the question becomes:

What maximum gross building area can be accommodated on a given gross land area without excessive intensity?

When a gross building area objective is given, the question becomes:

What minimum buildable land area is needed to accommodate a given gross building area objective without excessive intensity?

Answers depend on the shelter design category chosen and the specification decisions adopted. The shelter capacity of land will determine our ability to protect growing populations within a geographically limited Built Domain; but solutions cannot threaten their quality of life with excessive intensity. This means that we must be able to accurately measure, evaluate, and forecast shelter capacity and intensity options.

ANSWERS

The answer to each preceding question depends on the shelter design category chosen. A design category is gross building area classified by its primary parking system, except for combinations of surface and structure parking that are classified by the parking structure configuration employed. There are six building design categories within the Shelter Division of the Built Domain.

1)     G1: Buildings surrounded by a surface parking lot

2)     G2: Buildings above a surface parking lot

3)     S1:  Buildings adjacent to a parking garage

4)     S2:  Buildings above an underground parking garage

5)     S3:  Buildings above a parking garage at grade

6)     NP: Buildings with no parking requirement

A design category may be occupied by any permitted activity group. This distinction separates two-dimensional land use planning from three-dimensional city design, and the two must be correlated to create sustainable cities and a desirable quality of life within limited geographic areas.

The remainder of the book is devoted to the generic design categories that may contain any permitted activity group. These categories represent our source of shelter within the Built Domain. They are customized to suit a particular occupant activity. Their capacity, intensity, location, and condition combine with land use allocation to determine a city’s economic stability and quality of life.

SUMMARY

The city design language you will encounter offers the opportunity to evaluate shelter capacity, intensity, activity, economy, and quality of life options on a quantitative basis in a very brief period of time. We have been handicapped by an inability to measure, evaluate and predict the consequences of shelter design decisions in a precise language that is capable of repeating success and avoiding failure. This has led to a Ponzi scheme of land use misallocation and consumption that we call annexation for growth and economic development. It continues to grow in rings from an expanding core of decay to consume our source of life because we do not speak in terms that can make a difference.

We survive in the nucleus of a cell we have artificially created with property lines on a planet that does not recognize ownership. These property cells multiply as populations grow. They are part of a Built Domain that is sprawling to threaten the Natural Domain with its concept of property rights, but the planet and the universe do not bestow rights. They demand compliance with commands that must be anticipated. Knowledge follows.

We have produced sprawl and pollution on the face of a gift we have had the temerity to challenge with theories of freedom and concepts of power. The planet and the universe have not given us freedom or power. They have given us responsibility. Acceptance of this responsibility will begin when we use the mathematical language of city design to understand a property cell and organize its aggregation to protect our quality and source of life. This organization will produce an anatomy that is not a gift. It is a challenge to our creative ability, and the price for our presence on a planet that is losing its patience.

The preceding has been an excerpt from my book, The Science of City Design. The book can be found on Amazon.com and CreateSpace.com.

The Science of City Design

The Science of City Design introduces the perspective, format, vocabulary, language, measurement, and forecasting ability needed to shelter the activities of growing human populations within a limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life – The Natural Domain.

Editions 1 and 2 of Land Development Calculations by the same author introduced a tool entitled "Development Capacity Evaluation" on a CD-ROM. The Science of City Design introduces the knowledge that was required to create the tool so that the effort can become a building block for future generations.

Our challenge is to visualize, measure, predict, and establish a sustainable relationship between the cities we build to shelter human activity and the source of life we consume in the process. The Plant and Animal kingdoms of Linnaeus have been superseded by two worlds on a single planet - The Built and Natural Domains. The Science of City Design introduces a new language of design categories, specification values, architectural algorithms, master equations, shelter capacity predictions, and intensity calculations that can be used to discuss the issue and define leadership alternatives in terms that can repeat success without duplicating physical composition, context, and appearance. The book can be found on the Amazon.com web site and at CreateSpace.com.

If you would like a free desk copy for evaluation, please submit your mailing address, a URL address showing your position as a professor in an accredited institution for higher learning, and a brief explanation of its potential use with the e-mail option on the author profile page.

Architectural Comments Worth Considering

Mr. Jonassen,

I’m afraid I haven’t kept up with all the AIA posts while working on my book. I just noticed your post on Dec. 19, 2014 and wrote the following recommendation.

 

I recommend that all architects ponder Mr. Jonassen's comments and his first sentence in particular. The remainder emphasizes the goals of a successful practice, which I also recommend; but a successful practice is a business achievement.

Mr. Jonassen mentions that the profession "...demonstrate(s) no specific purpose that resonates with clients." This is at the heart of the matter because the profession is the only forum that can focus on building and sharing common goals supported by the education, information, tools and knowledge needed for achievement in a competitive environment. Even if you agree with the concept, however, it is meaningless until adjustment is able to meet the challenge.

 

Mr. Jonassen’s comments posted Dec. 19, 2014:

The profession as a whole and many practices demonstrate no specific purpose that resonates with potential clients.

Those practices that find, profess and live a purpose in which clients sense an intellectual, financial and emotional connection generally get respect and work from those clients.

When the architect's purpose is limited to the minimum of mandated professional responsibility and great design, defined solely in aesthetic terms, the reach of client resonance is pretty limited. Those practices which believe and act on a purpose which includes achieving a high level of intellectual, emotional and financial value for clients generally succeed.

Of course this is not profound...it’s just true.

NOTE: Mr. Jonassen is a partner at the architectural firm NBBJ, Seattle.

ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE and PROFESSION

***PLEASE SEE MY LATEST BOOK: The Science of City Design: Architectural Algorithms for City Planning and Design Leadership. The book offers a universal language to correlate the work of many isolated disciplines concerned with one issue: The provision of shelter for the activities of growing populations within a limited Built domain that protects their quality and source of life - The Natural Domain. It is available from Amazon.com in both e-book and paperback.***

An architectural office is a city-state that competes with others for work. I have never had the impression that offices are very interested in sharing their competitive advantage, if it exists.

I have the impression that the architectural profession wishes to improve the public perception of its value in order to increase the work available to competing offices. This requires cooperation rather than competition.

At the risk of over-simplification, an office goal is to survive competition. A professional goal is to increase market share in an effort to protect the public interest.

It appears to me that the profession is struggling to develop an argument that will increase the public perception of its value in order to increase its market share, and has had difficulty achieving its goal by repeating the arguments of the past. It has also had difficulty defining research that will produce the tools and knowledge needed to improve this argument and the public perception that follows.

The Point

My point is that all must recognize the difference between practice goals and professional goals if they haven’t already. Professional goals improve the tools and knowledge that is shared by architectural practitioners. I agree that we must communicate with the public in terms they can understand. This is no different than a doctor talking to his patient, but it is a practice goal. The professional goal must be to improve the knowledge, education, tools and experience all practitioners can use to solve a problem of great public significance.

A medical analogy might help to make my point. The goal of the medical profession is to improve the tools, knowledge and treatment of injury and disease. The goal of a doctor is to successfully treat a patient with the education and experience provided.

In the case of architecture and city design, the problem is shelter within sustainable geographic limits without excessive intensity. This is the larger context that has great public significance, and the problem grows one project at a time in a pattern currently referred to as “sprawl”. A practitioner must be able to address a project. A profession must be able to address the problem before solutions can be found.

A FORK in the ROAD

This is a response to a conversation being held on the AIAKnowledgeNet.

I thank Mr. Singer, Mr. Graham and Mr. Hainsfurther for their words of reason. Emotion is often connected to reason with a thread of wisdom. It is not the path to knowledge but it can be a source of instinct, awareness, anticipation and inspiration. This is why I believe architecture is art and science, but it must earn this recognition. At the moment it appears to prefer art and faces another fork in the road.

One fork continues with the pattern languages represented by Architectural Graphic Standards. The other leads to a scientific form of expression that can build the knowledge required to shelter growing populations within a limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life – the Natural Domain.

I decided earlier to ignore the personal attacks that came via the back channels of the AIAKnowledgeNet, but have re-considered now that Mr. Ely has gone public. I’d like to explain a few of the terms he has used in all of his correspondence from my perspective.

I am working on a project that has forced me to invent new terms to get my point across. Everyone interested will have to judge if it is “invented jargon” when it is published. The fact that I have referred to some of the logic I have considered over the years and some of the content I plan to include in this project could also be construed as “hermetically self-referential”. I am sorry if this is the impression that has been conveyed, but this accusation could apply to all original work. (I’m actually impressed with the creativity of the phrase.)

I don’t agree with the accusatory terms: “obfuscating”, “wrong-headed”, “designed to infuriate”, and attempts to convey “intellectual superiority”. If I were intellectually superior I would have had this done long ago. As for the other terms, readers will have to judge and I’m sure these opinions will be shared by some critics. It can’t be helped.

I thank those who have offered support along the way. I believe the finished product will represent a contribution. This is the conviction a writer must have to continue, and a little encouragement goes a long way in these formative stages.

A LESSON from the DUOMO

The Duomo of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, Italy represents reason behind a strategy to achieve an owner goal, and the exceptional talent of Brunelleschi symbolized the reason he employed. The result was shelter to serve an owner goal and solve a structural challenge.

It was a project solution, however. Projects combine to form the Shelter Division within a Built Domain, and the new challenge is to shelter growing populations within a limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life - the Natural Domain. The Duomo challenges us to improve our reason and assemble symbiotic shelter one project at a time within a limited Built Domain that does not threaten its source of life. The Duomo teaches us that appearance follows reason. In the future, reason will recognize that form must follow symbiotic function within the Shelter Division of a geographically limited Built Domain.

My companion, and better looking, blog "Cities and Design" can be found at www.wmhosack.com

 

TWO QUESTIONS

Dear Sir: You asked two very relevant questions: 

1)      ”… should we not be convincing the public of our sincerity? Maybe our efforts are misdirected and not focused on repairing the theses of LeCorbusier and Wright.”  

2) “…The question in my mind is whether our professionalism has been and will continue to be compromised by out sourcing to others?” 

My answer to both questions is yes, and I don't mean to be impertinent. We are all reluctant to part with money if we don’t believe in benefit from the expense. It doesn’t mean that we’re right. It’s a function of perception. If the public is convinced of value, they may even be willing to mandate the service. This depends on the argument. I think you can tell that I don’t believe the argument is adequate at the present time.  

Architecture will continue to be compromised by outsourcing until it convinces the public of its unique ability to provide benefit equal to cost and value. 

I’m sending you my argument to support the claim that architecture will provide public benefit when it expands its point of view and adopts the tools needed to create the knowledge required.  

I sent Mike an older copy of this argument. It has many facets and is part of Chapter 6 in the book I’m working on. I asked him to only use it with attribution. I’m sending you updated text for your review because of your interest, and I also ask that you only use it with attribution.  

I’ve returned to Chapter 6 because of the current AIAKnowledgeNet discussion.

CH 6: <<NAME TO BE REVISED>> 

The lesson from Chapters 3 and 5 was that a generic forecast model can predict development capacity and intensity for any specific activity when an activity module is attached to translate unique characteristics into the common values expected by the master equation in an architectural algorithm.  

PROPOSITIONS 

These algorithm examples were based on the following propositions: 

Scope 

1)      That the planet is not a world without end

2)      That our finite planet is protected by a thin veil of atmosphere at risk

3)      That this planet is a source of life that can be polluted, depleted and consumed

4)      That pollution, depletion and consumption are characteristics of a parasite that lacks a symbiotic relationship with its host.

5)      That we are faced with two worlds on a single planet: the Built Domain and the Natural Domain.

6)      That the Natural Domain is an unstable source of life in an infinite, unstable universe

7)      That the Built Domain includes the Shelter, Movement, Open Space and Life Support Divisions.

8)      That the Built Domain is slowly consuming the Natural Domain with sprawl.

9)      That a sprawling Built Domain includes a Shelter Division that is an aggregation of individual projects.

10)   That shelter capacity is also referred to as development capacity or building capacity in total square feet per acre.

11)   That development capacity introduces various levels of intensity within the Shelter Division of the Built Domain.

12)   That development capacity and intensity measurement, evaluation and prediction will allow us to evaluate our ability to shelter growing populations within a geographically limited Built Domain while protecting their quality of life.

13)   That the ability to measure and evaluate shelter capacity and intensity can produce knowledge to defend design decisions in a scientific language. 

Architecture  

1)      That architecture defines a strategy to achieve an owner goal. This goal, when constructed, becomes part of the Shelter Division of the Built Domain. (This strategy is called “design” by architects and involves the correlation of work by many allied professions to produce a contract for bidding and construction of a shelter project. The project is a prototype designed to suit the unique requirements of the owner.)

2)      That the majority of shelter projects are not currently defined by architects.

3)      That architecture includes the context, composition, form, function and appearance of a shelter project strategy.

4)      That shelter projects aggregate to form the Shelter Division of the Built Domain.

5)      That the Shelter Division must accommodate growing populations within geographic limits to protect their source of life

6)      That the shelter capacity of a limited Built Domain is equal to the capacity of its constituent parts

7)      That shelter capacity alternatives emerge from architectural design decisions to produce intensity options.

8)      That a new ability to measure, evaluate, and forecast development capacity and intensity is based on architectural algorithms.

9)      That architectural language can be used to evaluate development capacity and intensity decisions.

10)   That the ability to measure and evaluate development capacity and intensity will produce knowledge

11)   That invisible development capacity and intensity design decisions create a foundation for the context, composition, form, function and appearance of architectural solutions.

12)   That architectural form, function and appearance must blossom from symbiotic policies and solutions.

13)   That the physical appearance, social activity and economic stability of a Built Domain will reflect the city design policies and shelter projects created.

14)   That these policies and projects are needed to achieve the third leg in the holy trinity of city planning (The original term was “welfare”. Unfortunately, the term has become political. The term “quality of life” seems to have become a replacement.) 

Architectural Imperative 

An architectural strategy must combine with a planning strategy to achieve economic stability and an improved quality of life within a limited Built Domain. Nothing less than shelter and survival is at stake. 

Observations 

1)      We can solve climate change and still consume the planet with growth called “sprawl”.

2)      Economic growth is currently symbolized by physical sprawl sheltering social and economic conflict.

3)      Improved knowledge can help us learn to shelter the activities of growing populations within geographic limits that protect:

a.      Their source of life from extinction,

b.      Their quality of life from excessive intensity, and

c.       Their economic life from misallocation of land use activity that produces financial instability

4)      Design matters because we must learn to live within geographic limits and function symbiotically. (Form and appearance must eventually follow symbiotic function. This is the message of hope from Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. It is a level of awareness that can lead to a Symbiotic Period of collaborative effort.

5)      The Symbiotic Period will be symbolized by the compostion, context, capacity, intensity, function, form and appearance of city design divisions within a limited Built Domain.

City Planning Goals

• To protect our source of life by geographically defining the Built and Natural Domains.
• To coordinate the land use allocation of shelter capacity and intensity; movement corridors; open space; and life support systems within a limited Built Doman that protects our source of life; our quality of life; and the financial stability of our shared municipal organizations.

City Design Goal

To shelter growing populations within a limited built Domain tht protects their quality and source of life - the Natural Domain.

Architectural Goals

• To coordinate land use allocation with shelter capacity, ntensity and economic benefit at the project level, since the aggregation will determine our quality of life within a limited Built Domain.
• To improve the design of shelter context, composition, capacity, intensity and symbiotic function within a geographically limited Built Domain.
• To improve the tools, knowledge and concepts needed to achieve the preceding goals.
• To expand private practice into the public domain and workplace by offering the ability to improve public benefit

Common Collaborative Goal

To build a network (of professional organizations) to achieve the preceding goals through research, collaboration, education and practice.

In This Book
 

You will learn how to measure, evaluate and forecast development capacity and intensity for six architectural design categories with a credible scientific language. These categories encompass the generic spectrum of available shelter options within the Built Domain.
 

The Implications
 

The appearance of planning, city design, urban design and architectural project goals will be judged by many related professions. The physical, social and economic success of these efforts will be evaluated by the population. If successful, the results will symbolize a new period of symbiotic awareness in our attempts to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

Follow-Up

Thank you for your kind response. I omitted much from Chapter 6 and hope you will find that this work should be required reading for architects as well as city planners, geographers, landscape architects, real estate developers and so on. Architects must bridge the gap to public benefit with a common language capable of building credible knowledge. The architectural archives of all architects represent a treasure trove of information that must be translated and evaluated before it can be applied by architectural practitioners. I am 71 years old and was once a member of the AIA, AICP and NCARB. I agree with everything you say from a lifetime of experience and commitment. My work on the architectural algorithms for this book is done. I just have to explain it and this is taking a great deal of time.

Your third paragraph is something I wish I had written. The greatest unrecognized lesson learned in architecture is correlation. This is leadership, but leadership needs a goal worthy of the effort. Architects are leaders that have limited objectives. Think of it in military terms and it becomes easier to understand. In WWII the goal was set by Roosevelt and Congress. The strategy was created by Marshall, Eisenhower and central command. The objectives were achieved by field commanders. In architecture the policy goal is missing and there is no central command strategy that will convince the population of public benefit, in my opinion. This leaves field commanders (architects) defining strategies to achieve limited objectives with no policy goal and strategy. It is like Patton roaming Europe with no direction.

You said, "My concern is that we are too timid to stand up for what is right and correct. Also, that by abdicating our leadership role we give the creativity which is part of our professionalism to others LESS talented." There are two important points here and I’ll take them in reverse order.

An architectural education improves the ability to reason. The claim that architects have more talent does not sell on Main Street. Talent is applied to reason to create form and appearance. Architects have not focused on their ability to reason nor sold it to the general public because their language is inadequate and they ignore programming as the starting point for architectural reason. Their explanation of solutions is weak as a result and this weakens their competitive position in the marketplace. Their strength will come from a universal goal, a universal strategy, and a language that does not depend on emotion when addressing the public.

What is “right and correct” is a political issue that defines the nature of a culture. Religion often has a modified version and the two reflect the conflicted nature of man.

Regarding timidity, architects have a very limited marketplace of work opportunities and a negative reference can have a very damaging impact. They work at the pleasure of partners as draftsmen and women after graduating from years of education. (Call it an “apprenticeship” or an associate AIA member if you like, but graduation from college as an apprentice is an abuse of the intelligence and ability they bring to the table.) Their opportunity to become a partner is extremely limited and partially a function of a very uncertain economy. It is no wonder they are timid. These are very real problems that need to be addressed by the format of professional education and practice.

I like your terms “inward knowledge” and “excitement of discovery”. I also agree with your municipal government frustration having once been a local Director of Development and a Deputy Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation. Inward knowledge requires a public explanation with an adequate language. This is what my book is about. Excitement of discovery is why we remain committed to the world of architecture, and it requires a combination of reason and appearance that has not been explained with an adequate language.

I’ve gone on long enough, but you raise questions that are at the heart of the need to “reposition” architecture as one of many armies needed to shelter growing populations within a limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life – the Natural Domain. Reason will lead to success. Talent will symbolize success. The secret is a new level of awareness, knowledge and language that can overcome timidity, entrenched interest, and lack of interest.

 

Value-added Architecture

This is a continuation of the "Reconsidering Architecture" discussion posted on the AIAKnowledgeNet.It has been updated for this site on 1/18/2015 at approximately 3:10PM.

 

Mr. Ytterberg’s comments have given me pause since he is a professor of architecture and urban history, theory and design at the University of Pennsylvania. As such his comments are influential and they’ve stayed with me.

He makes two points that I didn’t address in my first response:

1)      That architecture is a “value-added” profession.

2)      That: “There are many designers of the environment – that is not the privileged realm of the architect.”

These comments are stunning because I believe architecture is a strategy to achieve a goal. I believe the unrecognized goal is to shelter growing populations within a limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life. This means that architecture has fundamental value that is not recognized. 

Shelter is essential to survival but can sprawl to consume its source of life. Sprawl grows one project at a time. A project is the realm of an architect. The goal is the realm of the organization. I believe the goal I’ve mentioned is essential to the public interest because we can’t survive without shelter, but it has an impact on the environment and our source of life. For instance, we could solve climate change and still consume the planet with sprawl.

The tools, concepts and knowledge required to address the goal I’ve mentioned can place architecture in a leadership position that requires its correlation skills, if it accepts the challenge. In other words, repositioning begins with an examination of the organizational goal in my opinion. We need shelter to survive and we cannot survive without symbiotic solutions. A foolish parasite consumes its host. Other parasites evolve to establish symbiotic relationships.

At the present time architectural goals are primarily dictated by special interest. Strategy is based on intuition and anticipation that is always influenced by emotion, but depends on intelligence and knowledge. Knowledge is accumulated from research referred to as intelligence by the military. As knowledge increases, strategy improves but contribution depends on the scope of the goal. As long as the architectural goal is limited to special interest, the population will consider the benefit marginal. Professional requests to introduce a public mandate for architectural leadership will be considered self-serving.

If architectural education is focused on bringing emotion and appearance to the need for shelter, then I believe full disclosure is long overdue; because the name of the education is entirely misleading.

The fact that architecture is not considered part of environmental design is another stunner. The “privileged realm of the architect” indicates a disconnection with the public interest.

It appears that the definition of architecture deserves further consideration as a first step in the effort to reposition the profession. Vitruvius offered a definition of excellent architecture to Augustus that was outdated long ago, but he avoided the definition of architecture. If you say that architecture is shelter designed by an architect the public may agree, but this will not improve their respect for the effort. This will require a sustainable, environmental focus; not justification based on value-added emotion, appearance and privilege. This is a contention that appears “out of touch with the mainstream of society”. I’ve borrowed this phrase from Mr. Ytterberg’s criticism of the current re-positioning discussion.

Previous Response to Mr. Ytterberg

Naiveté has gotten us to this point. A building is always a structure but a structure is not always a building. All buildings are shelter. It is naive to claim that shelter is not architecture unless it passes a litmus test of emotion and appearance. This argument says to me that only design award winners are architecture and only the work of practitioners is an issue. I think many architects will disagree.

This argument seems to miss the point. It is not just the work of practitioners that should be debated and classified as architecture or non-architecture. The support they all receive to improve their value and credibility to the community should also be discussed. To limit the discussion distracts attention from the leadership they need. I realize this is a heretical argument, but architecture by your definition is an artistic religion. Its tenets should be re-examined. The acolytes deserve more than an emphasis on emotion.

You can stifle my voice by preventing me from submitting blogs. This has already occurred since I'm not an AIA member. You may also ban me entirely, but this will not solve the re-positioning many intuitively realize is required. You may call it naive. I call it anticipation that will be refined. This is the true nature of design and the decisions required to create a strategy.

Mr. Ytterberg’s Comments

This entire discussion seems hopelessly naïve, a prime example of why architects seem to be so out of touch with the mainstream of society. Unless mandated by law, architects are a value added. Hence in most cases an architect's services are outside of the financial calculation most people make when a building is required. Do not all of us make that same calculation every day?

One needs to ask why there are two words in most languages to describe the structures we make, building and architecture. Though you may not find this in the dictionary, architecture is clearly building with something added. Pevsner famously tried to distinguish between the cathedral and a shed, but that overstates the cultural distinction that separates a work of architecture from a work of building. Society values the cultural component highly when that component is needed/wanted. That is the reason there are so many popular shelter magazines. Every object we touch in our lives is infused with meaning, and people are very willing to spend their hard earned cash on things that they find meaningful to their lives. Architects frequently find themselves in the position of denying the meaning of architecture in order to sell their desired approach as rational and beyond the realm of emotional decision making. But to take a technocratic approach and try to reduce architecture to a variety of engineering is misguided. There are many designers of the environment - that is not the privileged realm of the architect.

-------------------------------------------
Michael Ytterberg AIA

Principal

BLT Architects

Philadelphia PA 

Original Submission to an AIAKnowledgeNet Discussion. Re-titled “Reconsidering Architecture”

The goal of medicine and law has been to improve the tools and knowledge used by its practitioners to protect the public interest. Architecture is perceived as serving private interest. It prepares a strategy to achieve an owner goal. Before you object, think about the struggle to accept building and zoning codes that protect the public interest. They have often been considered restrictions on creativity. Architecture needs a public goal before it can step into the same arena with medicine and law. A brief review of the architectural process will help set the stage for my repositioning comments.

PROCESS

An architect defines an owner goal with a programming effort, or asks the owner to provide a program of requirements. A strategy to achieve the goal is defined through a design and production effort. The result is a set of construction documents. They define a product that is a prototype. Bidding of contract documents produces an agreement to achieve a vast number of specified objectives with one or more contractors. These contractors are field commanders.

When a command strategy hits the beach in this military analogy adjustments are required to compensate for imperfect anticipation. The same is true for any prototype. In these circumstances a prototype strategy that hits the beach requires an adjustment budget. Every untested strategy requires adjustment. In automobile manufacturing this adjustment occurs before production at considerable expense. In architecture this adjustment occurs during production at minimal expense often referred to as a contingency budget.

Architecture is a prototype that serves a limited special interest. Its public benefit has been mandated but not embraced. An emphasis on public benefit will equate architecture to medicine and law, but this will require additional levels of awareness and expanded goals.

GOALS and OBJECTIVES

An architectural prototype is the responsibility of a practitioner, like a doctor’s responsibility to treat a patient. It is only an organizational responsibility when support to the entire profession is considered. This responsibility is to improve the tools, knowledge and concepts placed in the hands of a practitioner to improve the public benefit provided. I believe this distinction is at the heart of an architectural repositioning discussion. The question to be debated, in my opinion, is one of organizational goals and practitioner goals. I’d like to suggest five levels of awareness and four organizational goals that would involve repositioning.

Awareness

1)      To recognize the presence of two worlds on a single planet: the Built Domain and the Natural Domain.

2)      To recognize that the Natural Domain is an unstable source of life in an infinite, unstable universe.

3)      To recognize that the Built Domain is slowly consuming the Natural Domain with design decisions that produce sprawl.

4)      To recognize that sprawl contains shelter capacity and intensity that is an aggregation of individual project design.

5)      To recognize that shelter capacity and intensity are physical conditions that require new measurement systems to assist and defend design decisions.

6)      To recognize that design matters because we must learn to live within geographic limits and function symbiotically. Form and appearance must follow symbiotic function. This is the message of hope from Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. It is a level of awareness that can lead to a Symbiotic Period. The period will be symbolized by its composition, context, capacity, intensity, function, form and appearance.

Goals

1)      To improve the design of shelter context, composition, capacity, intensity and symbiotic function for growing populations within a geographically limited Built Domain in order to protect their quality and source of life – the Natural Domain. Form and appearance will flower from the policies established.

2)      To improve the tools, knowledge and concepts needed to achieve the preceding goal.

3)      To expand private practice into the public domain and workplace by offering public benefit.

4)   To build a network (of professional organizations) to achieve the preceding goals through research, collaboration, education and practice.