Limited Land - Unlimited Growth

 

It seems obvious that land on a finite planet is limited and that our need for shelter must be balanced against our need to preserve land as a source of life for ourselves and all other species. All physical design disciplines related to shelter capacity evaluation will become more essential to survival as it becomes a more significant issue.

It is now possible to mathematically measure, evaluate, predict, adjust, and guide the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications associated with a chosen building design category and related template of design specification decisions. The result is a mathematical forecast of implication options based on the specifications and a range of floor quantity choices. It is also possible to measure the design specification decisions related to an existing building and enter them in a related building category template to measure the implications and evaluate the results to improve our knowledge regarding shelter design decisions.

The combination of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity on land determines its revenue and investment potential per buildable acre occupied. These considerations take their place next to our historic concerns for compatibility of adjacent activity to protect our health and safety because they determine the revenue and investment potential of a buildable acre. In municipal terms the allocation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity per buildable acre within its total land area determines the annual yield it receives to support its operations, maintenance, improvements, and debt service.

Cities have not been prepared to monitor, evaluate, or plan the economic performance of land use, shelter capacity, and intensity allocation relationships at the parcel level of their incorporated area. They have had to rely on annual budget estimates based on experience. This is one reason why cities attempt to maintain unincorporated corridors of land for annexation that can provide new revenue to meet existing expenses that often prove inadequate over time as age, maintenance, and demand for service expense increases.

If this topic is of interest, I have written the following essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com to address various topics associated with the shelter capacity of land and the design decisions that face our growing demand for shelter and quality of life on a limited planet. Essays written after December 2020 are also included in LinkedIn. The first was written in September 2010.

Walter M. Hosack, February 2025

FACING the REALITY of OUR DEPENDENCE on SHELTER and DESIGN

 

Quantities of building mass combine with quantities of parking, pavement, unpaved open space, and movement to produce measurable levels of physical intensity that affect our social, psychological, environmental, and economic health, safety, and welfare. Residential buildings produce density that is an inaccurate measure of the intensity levels produced by all building compositions. Floor area ratios are equally inaccurate. Without consistent measurement and evaluation of the shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion quantities that combine to form the physical context levels we encounter, we will continue to debate philosophy and opinion without building the knowledge needed to form a consistent, credible, and convincing leadership language. We cannot overcome sprawl, excessive intensity, and unlimited consumption of the Natural Domain until we agree upon the goal and accept a mathematical language, consistent measurement discipline, and evaluation standards to define a leadership strategy that can lead the tactical efforts of many toward shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits that protect their quality and source of life – the Natural Domain.

Walter M. Hosack: February 2025

The Relationship of Shelter Capacity and Quality of Life to a Limited Built Domain

 

Until the political success of city planning and zoning in the 20^th century, we believed that the ownership of land came with sovereign authority over its use. This freedom came into question when public health, safety, and welfare were threatened by decisions that created incompatible adjacent activity, and shelter was constructed for human activity without adequate light, air, ventilation, and fire protection. The need to protect public health, safety, and welfare was accepted by the majority, but the concept of welfare protection has always been vague, open to interpretation, and limited by the concept of minimum standards.

The protection of social welfare has been associated with housing and human service programs serving qualified segments of the population. The protection of physical welfare has been associated with building regulation, land use planning, and the limitation of shelter density, intensity, activity, and appearance at specified locations. The protection of economic welfare has been associated with the scope of public revenue needed to support a city’s desired quality of life, or “welfare”.

photo by: Wladyslaw Sojka  www.sojka.photo

Our success in leading cities toward physical, social, and economic stability has been symbolized by the shelter, movement, open space, and life support sprawl we have constructed; and the blight that has followed within land use patterns and textures (building height composition) that have not been balanced with the public revenue potential required to maintain their stability over extended periods of time.

There are several policy issues associated with an urban population’s “welfare” or ”quality of life” that may be too much for us to handle, but whose answers are inevitably reflected in the shelter, movement, open space, and life support we build.

The first issue is unlimited population growth and shelter demand on a limited planet. The second is geographic limits for a Built Domain that must be constrained to protect its source of life, the Natural Domain; the third is prevention of environmental and ecological degradation; and the fourth is economic instability produced by the mathematically uncorrelated relationship of shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and revenue potential on the land consumed.

Shelter capacity within a limited Built Domain that meets minimum acceptable standards will require a conscious correlation of population growth and activity with the shelter capacity, intensity, and revenue potential of every acre within the city. The nascent anticipation of the correlation required has been referred to as urban design within city districts and city design within larger urban areas. Unfortunately, we have not had the correlated information sharing, data science, geographic systems analysis, and mathematical shelter capacity evaluation needed to advance beyond observation and opinion.

Our response to population growth, land use misallocation, shelter capacity deficiency, inadequate public revenue, and blight has been an annexation of agriculture and the Natural Domain to expand the Built Domain with something new. Annexation permits a city to expand with political approval when land is available. When it has been available, cities have expanded for new revenue that can prove inadequate over time, and with little concern for the land consumed. The new revenue seeds the budget and solves any immediate deficit for currently elected officials. If increasing public maintenance cost per acre exceeds the public revenue produced per acre by the annexed area as it ages, the political/financial solution becomes a problem for others in the future.

When land is not available for annexation, an encircled city can be strangled by a land use pattern and permitted texture (building height composition) that no longer delivers the average revenue per acre required to meet a city’s total annual expense per acre for all desired services. Rezoning, redevelopment, and increased taxation are immediate reactions that occur on a difficult journey to adjust a city’s land use pattern, shelter capacity, and permitted activity toward an improved average revenue yield per acre that meets a city’s total annual and projected expense per acre. Eminent domain is rarely considered a viable political solution when city services can be reduced as an alternative. At this point, decline can become
a visitor without an invitation.

Annexation of land for new revenue has often been an inadequate solution producing sprawl and consumption of agriculture, not to mention the Natural Domain. This occurs because many, if not all, cities do not have the data science, information sharing, geographic information, and shelter capacity evaluation technology needed to evaluate the total average revenue produced per acre on every block and zone within its boundaries; or the mathematical ability to predict the revenue that could be produced by a revised collection of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity alternatives within these boundaries. They may not even know their total average expense per acre to operate, maintain, and improve their community. This means that annexation will consume land in a limited incorporated area but its ability to offset a city’s total annual expense per acre will be a guess masquerading as an estimate that directly affects a city’s economic stability.

This will continue to be a political challenge until anticipation, funding, technology, research, measurement, and evaluation produces the knowledge needed to consistently correlate population growth and activity with the shelter capacity, intensity, and economic potential needed to sustain quality of life in a limited Built Domain on a planet with unwritten laws of survival.

Think back and consider that science began as contentious opinion based on anticipation that required proof to establish credibility. Anticipation has never been our strong suit, but it is a prerequisite for creative design. Design decisions remain fine art opinion, however, until research, measurement, mathematics, and evaluation produce accepted conclusions that enable others to replicate performance and success over generations. This is the effort needed to step from individual anticipation and talent to the leadership language needed to guide our performance addressing sprawl, environmental degradation, economic instability, and quality of life. Our success will be symbolized by the scope and quality of shelter we provide within the limited areas of a Built Domain.

Walter M. Hosack: February 2025

The Significance of Shelter Capacity Decisions

 The decisions beneath the shelter results that symbolize a culture.

Shelter capacity design decisions establish the foundation for shelter intensity, context, activity, and financial stability in the urban and rural places we build. These terms are mathematically predictable, and the results can be evaluated to define the leadership decisions/parameters needed to protect and preserve our source of life from excessive annexation and consumption.

Shelter capacity is gross building area in sq. ft. per buildable project acre. It is a mathematical function of the building design category chosen and a related set of correlated design specification decisions. Shelter intrusion is a mathematical function of the floor quantities under consideration. Shelter intensity is a mathematical function of the shelter capacity options predicted. The result is a mathematical forecast of shelter capacity alternatives related to the building design category, comprehensive design specification, and series of floor quantity options under consideration. I’ve referred to these predictions as the context implications of massing alternatives. Context evaluation and decisions set the stage for the design refinement that evolves from this foundation.

Movement, Open Space, and Life Support are divisions within the Urban and Rural Phyla of the Built Domain. They serve shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, activity, and context within the Shelter Division of the Built Domain.

The spectrum of shelter capacity choices has never had a quantitative measurement and evaluation system. This has led to random decisions and results that we have often referred to as “sprawl” and “excessive intensity”. We are expected to build shelter that can protect the activities and quality of life of growing populations from these results within geographic limits that can protect their source of life from excessive consumption and pollution.

Context measurement, evaluation, prediction, and regulation can lead us away from our self-defeating belief in unlimited growth and consumption. For example, gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion implications are affected by the values entered in cells F11 and F23 of Table 1. An increase in these values would reduce the intensity and context values calculated in the Implications Module. This reduces the shelter capacity of the land and alters the context implications calculated. I do not mean to imply, however, that is a consistently desirable result. I simply wish to point out that a change to any one or more of the values entered in the 26 shaded cells of Table 1 would change the implications calculated. Since the factorial of 26 is 4.03291E+26, this is the number of options that must be reconciled within acceptable parameters to produce the foundation needed for all shelter design decisions that follow. Shelter results symbolize the scope of evaluation undertaken. At the present time we do not understand context measurements any more than we understood the first blood pressure measurements. In my opinion, however, both extremes are life-threatening if left untreated.

Context measurement, evaluation, and direction can address the heart of our problem. How do we provide shelter capacity for the activities of growing populations, within sustainable geographic limits, without exceeding reasonable intensity, intrusion, and context parameters that we have yet to measure and define? This is the challenge that faces urban design at the tactical project level and city design at the strategic level. It will need a leadership language based on data science, geographic information systems, and architectural algorithms to define a path to the physical results that have always symbolized the success and survival of a culture.

Walter M. Hosack: December 2024

Architectural Period and Style Misdirection

TO THE READER: I have been revising the text in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It was originally written to replace “The Science of Urban Design” and I found myself rewriting the entire first chapter. I may never finish the revisions, and the extent of revisions may not qualify as a second edition, so I thought I’d publish this chapter. It expresses the intuition I have had for many years. The table and figure are at the end of this text.

Architectural Period and Style Misdirection

 

I think most of us classify buildings by their occupant activity. We refer to them as bank buildings, school buildings, office buildings, and so on. I’ll call this activity classification. I think most are also familiar with style classification. We refer to building appearance as Greek, Roman, Early Christian, Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Georgian, Colonial and so on. Neither activity or style classification has been equal to the precision needed to provide shelter for the activities of growing populations while also protecting their quality of life and preserving their source of life. This requires a different form of knowledge regarding the shelter capacity of land, the intensity implications of the options available, and the preservation required to protect our source of life. We cannot balance the demands of the Built Domain with an irreplaceable Natural Domain until we can accurately calculate the shelter capacity of land to accommodate the many activities of growing populations. The implications of these decisions will affect both our quality and source of life, and they will depend on our definitions of growth and consumption.

Shelter Capacity Evaluation is a scientific language that can lead to a sustainable relationship between the land we consume for shelter, movement, open space, and life support and the land we must protect as our source of life. It depends on “design category classification” to structure the evaluation on a systematic, mathematical basis. It is needed to address arbitrary demand that is presently consuming our source of life as it attempts to meet our shelter requirements without considering the consequences of sprawl and excessive intensity.

We have not been given the symbiotic, autonomic shelter anatomy needed. We are expected to derive the leadership language required to guide global design efforts toward the systematic examination, prediction, discussion, and regulation required to define the sustainable limits of land consumption, shelter capacity, intensity, and growth that apply to a Built Domain growing within a Natural Domain that does not compromise with excessive growth and consumption. We have been given the intelligence needed to pursue the discipline required, but we must choose to listen to instinct and anticipation that will depend on a leadership language for measurement, evaluation, decision, and direction.

Linnaeus began classifying the Natural Domain in pursuit of scientific knowledge long ago, but he was addressing a self-sustaining organism. The parasitic Built Domain will not be self-sustaining until we make it so. Classification, measurement, and evaluation of land consumption for growth and shelter capacity is only the beginning of a journey to the knowledge required.

CLASSIFICATION

I’d like to propose that shelter classification begins with a Built Domain composed of Urban and Rural Phyla. Each phylum contains a Shelter Division served by arterial divisions of Movement, Open Space, and Life Support. Unfortunately, arterial open space is more of a dream than reality at the present time. Inadequate provisions have simply increased the intensity we experience within an urban anatomy that suffers from its absence.

Building Design Categories

Seven building design categories based on the parking system present or planned encompass the spectrum of shelter design options involved when the objective is to predict the gross building area capacity of land per buildable acre consumed.

A building design category choice combined with optional values entered in the design specification template of its forecast model makes the calculation of gross building area per buildable acre, or shelter capacity, feasible. I’ve written about this often and request patience from previous readers as I recite this building classification system but would like to pause to make a point.

A building may be occupied by any activity complying with federal, state, and local regulations. The gross building area introduced to shelter activity consumes land. The gross building area option chosen per buildable acre consumed has a shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion and context implications that I’ll explain later.

The building design category forecast models that predict the shelter capacity of any land area include:

1)      G1 models that address buildings with adjacent surface parking on the same premise

2)      G2 models that address buildings elevated over surface parking

3)      S1 models that address buildings with an adjacent parking garage on the same premise

4)      S2 models that address buildings with an underground parking garage on the same premise

5)      S3 models that address buildings elevated over a parking garage on the same premise

6)      NP models that address buildings with no parking required

7)      PG models that address parking garages are a unique category that can be used for shelter during emergencies

A building design category is occupied by one or more specific activities within an activity group. The forecast models that predict shelter capacity for the Residential Activity Group are listed below.

1)      G1.R1 models address buildings for single-family residential occupancy

2)      G1.R1.S models address single-family residential buildings in a subdivision context

3)      G2.R1 models address single-family residential buildings elevated over surface parking on the same premises

4)      SUB1 models address universal subdivision calculation

5)      G1.R2 models address townhouse buildings with adjacent surface parking

6)      G2.R2 models address townhouse buildings elevated over surface parking

7)      G1.R3 models address apartments with surface parking and/or garages at grade on the same premises

8)      S1.R3 models address apartments with an adjacent parking structure on the same premises

9)      S2.R3 models address apartments with underground parking garage on the same premises

10) S3.R3 models address apartments above a surface parking garage

Building classification is only a means to an end. The objective is to identify the specification topics and values that determine the amount of gross building area that can be produced by optional building design category forecast models and design specification decisions for a given land area; or the buildable land area options that can accommodate a given gross building area objective based on a given building design category. The specification decisions within a building design category forecast model determine the shelter capacity of land per buildable acre consumed, and they have physical intensity, intrusion, and context implications. The objective is to demonstrate how the capacity of land to accommodate shelter can be accurately predicted under the conditions specified for a given building design category.

There are few things more fundamental than the capacity of land to provide food and shelter. A farmer can predict the crop yield from an acre of land and evaluate the results to build knowledge. It is time we learned to accurately measure, predict, evaluate, and limit our use of land for shelter capacity, since every acre we consume reduces the planet’s ability to support life.

FORECAST MODELS

Shelter capacity is a function of the forecast model chosen and the values entered in the shaded cells of its design specification template. Table 1.1 is an example of the forecast model for the G1 building design category when gross land area (GLA) is given. The values entered in the shaded cells of its Land Module identify land areas that must be subtracted from the gross land area given (GLA) to find the impervious land area remaining (IMPS) in cells F19 and G19.

The values entered in the shaded cells of the Core Module identify land areas that must be subtracted from the impervious area remaining (IMPS) to find the core land area (CORE) available for building cover and parking cover in cells F33 and G33.

The parking cover area per space planned or present (s) is indicated by the value entered in cell A35 of the Core Module. The building square feet permitted per parking space provided (a) is indicated in cell A36.

The relationship between the floor quantity options (f) entered in cells A44-A53 and the values (a) and (s) entered in cells A35 and A36 determines the gross building area options (GBA) that can be constructed in the core area remaining (CORE). These (GBA) options are shown in cells B44-B53. The master equation defining this relationship is shown in cell B39.

PLANNING FORECAST PANEL PREDICTIONS

Floor plan, or building footprint area (BCA), parking area (GPA), and parking space quantity options (NPS) are calculated in Columns B, C, D, and E of the Planning Forecast Panel based on the design specification values entered and the gross building area options (GBA) calculated in cells A44-A53. These are the design implications of the specification values entered into the forecast model, and they change whenever one or more shaded values are changed, but these quantities do not indicate their context implications. We have had to rely on opinion for evaluation and this has produced such arbitrary terms as “sprawl”, “excessive intensity”, “overbearing”, “balanced”, and “award winning”. This is not a vocabulary capable of measurement and leadership that can consistently guide the design decisions for many projects toward repeated success.

CONTEXT IMPLICATIONS

When land area is given, design specification values are entered within building category forecast models and mathematically correlated to produce gross building area predictions. These predictions have measurable shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion and context implications. They are calculated in the Implications Module of Table 1.1 using the equations at the top of each column. These implication measurements are related to the gross building area options (GBA) calculated in cells B44-B53. Implication calculations are like our first blood pressure readings. Their meaning will await a thorough evaluation of the conditions and quality of life of the context measured or produced.

Project context is only the beginning, however. Think of a project as a shelter cell in an urban design plan for shelter, movement, open space, and life support that combines to form a complete city. Urban design definition with the quantitative language of shelter capacity evaluation can lead hundreds of thousands of shelter decisions toward a Built Domain that does not depend on unlimited growth and consumption for survival. 

SITE PLAN IMPLICATIONS

An architectural site plan is an illustration of building cover, parking cover, pavement, and unpaved open space quantities arranged within a shelter project/property area. Building height and mass must be imagined from the footprint shown in the plan. Site plan graphic presentation/appearance, however, has distracted from the fact that a consistent, unique list of specification topics applies to every building category site plan, even though a topic may have an assigned value of zero in some plans. All site plans first differ by the topic quantities assigned and then by the arrangement and appearance of the context rendered. When these quantities are mathematically correlated, shelter capacity evaluation and the science of urban design decisions becomes feasible.

Figure 1.1 is an illustration of the topics and quantities that are listed in the Design Specification Template of Table 1.1, but the illustration alone prevents mathematical documentation and evaluation of the context illustrated. Evaluation of the plan and the finished project will be based on opinion. It has always been an unstable foundation for the accumulation and transfer of knowledge.

Leadership has learned that decision is opinion based on a foundation of knowledge. Urban design, city design, and city planning represent leadership seeking knowledge to defend opinion and determine direction. Figure 1.1 is an illustrated site plan that represents decisions without documentation. This lack of measurement invites argument and opinion without a leadership language that can document direction for evaluation.  

Table 1.1 is not based on Figure 1.1 but is an example of the design specification topics and mathematical relationships involved with the G1 building design category shown in Figure 1.1. Gross land area is given in in cell F33. Subtraction was used to distill the impervious cover remaining for use in the core area of the project for building and parking cover in cells F33 and G33. Gross building area options for the core area were defined using the master equation in cell B39.

The master equation defines the gross building area potential (GBA) of a distilled core land area (CORE) when occupied by the G1 Building Design Category. This potential is a function of the parking value (s) in cell A36; building footprint value (a) in cell A35; floor quantity value (f) in cells A44-A53; and core land area available (CORE) in cell F33. Ten options were shown in cells B44-B53 of Table 1 based on Equation G1.L1 in less time than it would take to sketch one.

Tailoring land area to its gross building area potential has not been that important. Land has been plentiful, and its shelter capacity has only been a concern when it appeared inadequate; but the intuitive are beginning to question our pursuit of growth and consumption on a planet with limited resources.

In the case of shelter, there has been no mathematical ability to equate demand with the shelter capacity and economic potential of any land area. This is an acute problem for Encircled Cities with no annexation opportunities and inadequate revenue potential. Unrestrained Cities will continue to consume agriculture and the Natural Domain with annexation, sprawl, and excessive intensity until we can accurately calculate the shelter capacity of land and correlate capacity and context with its economic potential.

The following chapters have been written for those who wish to consistently provide shelter capacity for growing populations within a geographically limited Built Domain that can protect both their quality and source of life. These chapters discuss the building design categories, specification topics, value options, context implications, and leadership decisions that have always preceded physical form, function, and appearance.

Context quantity decisions have been an overlooked function of talent. Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1 were introduced to make the point. Exterior context decisions have been overshadowed by the appearance produced, but they have a mathematical foundation that can be derived to build knowledge and lead the provision of shelter capacity within limited land areas. The following chapters discuss the building design categories, specification topics, master equations, and design decisions that define the physical context of shelter for social and economic activity in the Built Domain. 

Shelter Questions Facing Government, City Planning, Urban Design, and Economic Stability

 

How can we avoid consuming too much land to shelter growing activities that produce too little public revenue per acre when compared to a city’s total average annual expense per acre?

What is the quantity of shelter area in square feet per buildable acre (shelter capacity) that produces excessive, uncomfortable physical intensity, intrusion, and context in a city’s physical anatomy of shelter, movement, open space, and life support?

We won’t be able to avoid excessive consumption of land, or excessive shelter intensity on too little land, until we can respond to the questions above with correlated, quantitative answers based on measurement, research, knowledge and prediction rather than arbitrary opinion.

One of six building design categories must be chosen to respond to these questions, and values must be assigned to the design specification topics in the category’s forecast model to predict optional answers. A change to one or more values assigned to the specification topics in a forecast model produces another series of shelter capacity options and implication predictions. A forecast model uses the values or measurements entered to correlate their shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. Many of the options have undesirable implications; but they have never been identified with measurement and evaluation at existing locations. We have simply observed the results and responded with intuitive opinion regarding the form, function, and appearance presented.

Shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion measurements have physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic consequences; but these implications will never be discovered without the Shelter Capacity and Intensity Models needed to consistently measure existing examples and predict options. Consistent measurement and evaluation can lead to the discovery of design specification knowledge and evolving parameters for land area, building design category, and occupant activity decisions that can repeat success and avoid failure. At this point knowledge becomes scientific language with the ability to duplicate what began as an assumption. This is the leadership foundation an urban design plan needs to produce the quality of life and economic stability we desire within the places we build.

Consistent, comprehensive measurement and evaluation combined with shelter capacity and intensity prediction can help us build knowledge and use land wisely when we choose to shelter the activities of growing populations within limited geographic areas designed to protect both their quality and source of life. I have discussed this topic and its software in many essays over the years. Interested readers can find some of these essays on LinkedIn and a more extensive library on my blog, “Cities and Design”, at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. I hope to find a sponsor in the future for the publication of Shelter Capacity and Intensity software on a subscription web site that will make it a useful design discussion and decision language for all those concerned with the provision of shelter for the activities of growing populations on a planet with limited land area that we must learn to symbiotically share.

Walter M. Hosack: Thanksgiving 2024

Urban Design for Economic Stability

 

The relationship between land use allocation and its revenue generating potential within cities is very loosely understood and more a matter of opinion than fact. Current knowledge has been an inadequate foundation for a planning/urban design strategy seeking to establish the long-term economic stability of cities.

The knowledge needed to plan for financial stability is available but located in separate public silos. The cooperation needed to correlate this information has not been attempted -- to my knowledge. A farmer can tell you that separating income evaluation from crop allocation and yield assessment is financial roulette, but cities have not understood that they are farms with crops of shelter capacity and activity called zones and intensity that must be adequately allocated to anticipate the combined revenue needed to ensure their financial stability and desired quality of life over time.

On second thought, cities may understand the challenge but have not comprehensively addressed the financial problem with data science, geographic information systems, shelter capacity evaluation, revenue correlation, and urban design of land use allocation.

Land use plans for compatible adjacent activity have not adequately anticipated the three-dimensional shelter capacity, intensity, and activity compositions required to produce a financially stable habitat, social “quality of life”, and desirable physical context for growing populations within a limited Built Domain. This is the potential of urban design. Without it, we will continue to sprawl, consuming land for new revenue to meet increasing growth and expense with consumption until we meet the planet’s Law of Limits.

BACKGROUND

In my experience a county has been the repository for all public revenue collection within its boundaries, and has recorded this information by parcel number and street address. In some cases, cities may have assisted. The county has not been interested in correlating its information with a constituent city’s street addresses, zoning districts, census blocks, and census tract designations since the information is not related to their mission and involves time-consuming compilation that can randomly change. This deprives cities of essential information because a city is a farm “… and a farmer can tell you that separating income planning from crop allocation and yield assessment…” is management without a strategy that can easily produce decline. (I’ve purposely repeated the text italicized.)

County real estate tax information is publicly accessible but personal income tax information is classified. A city, however, cannot accurately manage the revenue from its land use activity, shelter capacity, and physical intensity allocation decisions without more complete county information regarding the characteristics and economic performance of every acre within its boundaries, because this is the foundation for its financial stability. The challenge is to make relevant county revenue information available to local jurisdictions for evaluation and land use/design allocation while protecting the public expectation for privacy, integrity, and accuracy.

The separation of land use activity from measurement of its physical intensity and economic productivity per acre is an error that farm economics should make obvious.

It is possible for a city to create a database of zoning district, census block, and census tract designations related to every street address; to link this database with county revenue information; and to write database queries that correlate tax information with its related census block, tract, or zone locations while also protecting county source information. Comparison of economic productivity per acre to a city’s average annual expense per acre can indicate where attention is needed to improve a city’s average economic performance. The ratio of area productivity deficits to surpluses discovered will be an indication of prior planning decision success and the future land use capacity, activity, intensity, and context decisions needed to improve a city’s average economic productivity per acre. There will always be subsidies, but their presence will remain hidden at increasing risk to the future as they increase with age.

SUGGESTION

The objective is to protect county revenue information from disclosure when required, but to make it available to cities who cannot make informed decisions without it. These cities must gain a better understanding of the relationship between the acres in their jurisdiction and the revenue produced by the occupant activity and intensity they permit.

County real estate tax information is available to the public. A read-only version could be linked to a city’s street address and zoning database for local planning purposes if the local database exists. Income tax information is more problematic. Some cities track county income tax receipts in a secure location to ensure accurate county accounting. This private information could be related to a city’s street address database and compiled by zone, census block, or census tract at this secure local location to protect individual privacy. The protected income tax information could be queried by zone, census block, census tract, or other geographic area and combined with property tax revenue for the same area. This would enable planning/urban design evaluation of the relationship between city land, its shelter capacity, physical intensity, occupant activity, and average revenue per acre available to support its operations, maintenance, improvements, and debt service expense.

Relational databases, data science, geographic information systems, shelter capacity evaluation, and urban design are some of the tools a city needs to understand and plan for a sustainable economic relationship between its land, the revenue it provides, and the context it creates to serve the quality of life desired.

Measuring the past produces knowledge. Accurately predicting future shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and revenue options represents an opportunity to build on knowledge and produce desirable, economically stable urban design compositions within limited areas. The building design categories and design specification options located in the collection of forecast models entitled, “Shelter Capacity Evaluation”, have been derived with this objective in mind. It is not enough to understand a problem without the tools needed to examine options and define solutions. I have discussed them on many previous occasions and simply reference them here.

Economic development projects are tactical solutions. The battles will be endless until a goal can be recognized, and a strategy defined with a language capable of leading the efforts of many. The following is a list of information needed to begin understanding the performance of land within a city’s boundaries in my opinion. As I’ve just mentioned, however, understanding is only the beginning. In this case it means that a parasite must learn to adapt on a planet that has not been designed for unlimited growth and consumption. An adequate leadership language is needed to begin.

MUST KNOW

1)      Total annual revenue received by a city from all sources

2)      Total taxable acres in city

3)      Total gross building area in sq. ft. per city zone

4)      Taxable buildable acres per city zone

5)      Total revenue per city zone

6)      Number of separate city zones

NOTE: a zone is a collection of planned, compatible activities within a defined zoning district that is one area in a city master plan.

APPLICATION

1)      Gross building area per zone (GBAz) divided by the number of taxable buildable acres per zone (BACz) equals taxable gross building area sq. ft. per zoning acre, or shelter capacity per zone (SFACz).

2)      Revenue per zone (REVz) divided by the total taxable shelter sq. ft. in the zone (SFACz) equals the revenue per taxable shelter sq. ft. per zone from the zoning activity, shelter capacity and intensity present (RVSFz).

3)      Revenue per zone (REVz) divided by the taxable buildable acres in the zone (BACz) equals the revenue produced per zoning acre by the taxable of activity, capacity, and intensity in the zone (RVACz).

4)      Total revenue per taxable acre per zone (RVACz) divided by number of zones (Zn) equals average city rev per taxable acre (CRAC).

5)      Total annual city expense (CXP) divided by total taxable city acres (CAC) equals the average city expense per taxable buildable acre (CXAC).

6)      Avg city rev per taxable acre (CRAC) must equal total city expense per taxable acre (CXP). When it doesn’t, budget cuts are required to correct the imbalance and decline becomes an increasing matter of opinion.

The revenue per taxable, buildable acre in a zone (RVACz) may be greater than or less than a city’s total expense per taxable buildable acre (CXAC). “A comparison … can… indicate where attention is needed to improve a city’s average economic performance. The ratio of zoning area productivity deficits to surpluses will be an indication of prior planning success and the future land use capacity, activity, intensity, and context decisions needed to improve a city’s average economic productivity.” (I’ve purposely repeated the text italicized.) The language of shelter capacity evaluation has been created to assist in the consideration of a city’s land use potential. It can also be used to express a city’s leadership decisions in correlated values that can be followed by design to reach a strategic goal.

FINAL NOTE

A city that grants tax abatements without a comprehensive understanding of the revenue “yield” produced by the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context present or planned on each buildable, taxable acre of land within its boundaries is operating on assumption, hope, and history that has never been a solid foundation for the anticipation, planning, and design needed. Continued annexation of land, agriculture, and the natural domain have been, and are, expedient Ponzi solutions motivated by the lack of knowledge and excessive assumption involved.

Walter M. Hosack: November 2024

Land Use and Urban Design

 Two-dimensional Plans and Three-Dimensional Shelter Compositions

The use of land for social activity and the use of land to shelter activity has led Zoning to believe that both are “land uses” that can be addressed with the same methods and language, but the use of land for compatible activity and the intensity of physical shelter constructed to protect occupant activity on land involves two separate languages. The first involves traditional legal identification and regulation of separate topics. The second involves the mathematical correlation of design specification topics and values to achieve a strategic planning objective.

Separation of activity on land involves the concept of compatibility. Separation of shelter for occupant activity on land involves levels of physical intensity that produce spatial context, but intensity and context have not had adequate planning and design definition.

It was possible to successfully argue that a policy permitting home locations adjacent to factory locations threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. This introduced the concept of compatible relationships. Master plans, zoning district plans, and lists of compatible activities per zone followed to resolve the many potential conflicts involved.

Density and the floor area ratio were used for definitions of physical intensity and context. Both measure results but give inadequate design direction. The results have often been sprawl or excessive intensity because density and floor area ratio values do not replace the many design specification topics, values, and building design category decisions that must be correlated to define shelter intensity and context options for any given land area and activity group. These specification decisions cannot be led as separate topics because they do not act independently. The values involved must be comprehensively correlated to produce accurate shelter capacity, intensity and context options for consistent leadership direction.

Shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion topics and values have not been defined, measured, correlated, or evaluated to build design knowledge over generations, but this is the knowledge that can consistently lead to the quality of life implied by the phrase, “to protect the public health, safety, and welfare”. This phrase should include, “…within geographic limits defined to protect both our quality and source of life” in my opinion.

I have discussed the building design categories, specification topics, topic values, and architectural algorithms that produce shelter capacity, intensity, and context options for occupant activity on any given buildable land area in many previous essays. I have referred to it as shelter capacity evaluation, and earlier as development capacity calculation, but won’t repeat myself here. I would simply like to argue that the intensity and context of urban spaces/places formed by quantity combinations of building mass, parking, pavement, unpaved open space, and movement affects our physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life.

The context of places can be measured, evaluated, and predicted with the quantitative language of shelter capacity evaluation. These places are occupied by activity options that have public and private financial implications. The correlation of context and activity within the zones of a city has public economic implications that determine a city’s financial stability, but context has been an accidental result of private investment intent. Public revenue has not been a private investment priority.

The context topic has been called urban design. It deserves measurement and evaluation to build the knowledge needed to predict, defend, and lead the second generation of decisions that will define the external places and spaces we inhabit and can afford to maintain. The context quantities that result will be symbolized by the final appearance introduced and debated by the language of fine art.  

Walter M. Hosack: November 2024

Photo credit: Jakriborg, juni 2005

Shelter Design Leadership Decisions

 

We have not been able to consistently match a given land area with desirable quantities of gross building area, floor quantity, parking, pavement, and unpaved open space to avoid the context we refer to as either “sprawl” or “excessive intensity”. Many designers have felt that building appearance could overcome the level of intensity, or balance introduced, since they are not in control of intensity decisions; but architectural success is a function of both context and appearance. It is a physical symbol of the priorities of its time, and it currently serves an emphasis on growth and consumption.

I should pause to explain a few terms used in this essay.

1)    Shelter capacity is equal to gross building area in sq. ft. per buildable acre occupied.

1)     The maximum gross building area potential of  a given buildable land area is a function of the values entered in the design specification template of a building category forecast model.

2)     Architectural intensity is equal to shelter capacity times the percentage of impervious cover planned or present divided by 10,000.

3)      Architectural intrusion is equal to floor quantity divided by five.

4)      Architectural context is equal to intensity plus intrusion.

We have never had equations and forecast models capable of accurately predicting the gross building area potential of a given buildable land area based on a comprehensive set of design value decisions and a chosen building design category. (I can’t footnote this so please see my note at the end of this essay.) This means that we have never been able to correlate population growth and shelter demand with desirable context compositions of shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion on a given land area whose cellular growth is limited to prevent consumption of our source of life.

Context measurement and evaluation of existing design specification values related to a given project and building design category can define the parameters needed to produce the balance we seek. It can also define what we seek to avoid.

Context prediction based on a building design category and its related design specification decisions can be used to lead both public and private shelter design toward the physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic context we seek. This leadership will improve based on the knowledge gained from context measurement and evaluation recorded in a common, comprehensive mathematical language.

Context measurement and evaluation represents knowledge accumulation and the foundation for leadership language. Its conclusions can be used to defend context prediction. The combination can improve the contribution of design to the political decisions concerned with population growth, shelter capacity, and environmental preservation.

SUMMARY ARGUMENT:

1)      The gross building area potential of a given buildable land area is based on a building design category choice, the value decisions entered in the design specification module of its forecast model, and a choice among the floor quantity options planned or permitted and entered in the model.

2)      An incredible number of shelter capacity options are available based on the building design category chosen and the design specification decisions entered in its forecast model as I have discussed in previous essays, and many of these options are undesirable.

3)       Gross building area options combine with occupant activity options on a given land area to produce public and private financial implications. These economic options also have measurable physical intensity, intrusion, and context implications.

4)      A common, correlated design language is needed to reconcile the private profit and public revenue implications of design specification decisions since they produce the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion and context of the project spaces/places we form into neighborhoods, districts, and cities.

5)      Without a common leadership language, government will continue to pursue development, annexation and redevelopment to reconcile shelter demand and revenue deficiencies based on a strategy of hope and history. it has not proven to be an adequate foundation for anticipation. Private enterprise will continue to pursue development, annexation and redevelopment in pursuit of profit without concern for land consumption and public revenue deficiencies that may appear years after project completion and profit success.

6)      The private and public sectors do not have a common leadership language capable of reconciling private profit and public revenue objectives with the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context decisions needed to produce a desirable quality of life.

7)      Data science is needed to correlate occupant activity with the revenue results produced per sq. ft. of gross building area occupied. The revenue implications of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, context, and activity design decisions cannot be predicted without this information. Real estate developers have estimated the profit and expense potential per sq. ft. of activity for decades if not centuries. Government has no comparable library of knowledge that can be used to evaluate the public revenue and expense implications of a private development proposal, but it assumes these implications over the lifetime of the project when it is approved. In other words, a farmer understands the yield per crop and acre better than a city understands the yield from its activities and zones. These relationships, however, determine the quality of life each can afford over time.

The urban design objective is to correlate population growth, shelter composition and financial stability within sustainable limits that protect our quality and source of life. The objective cannot be pursued with the language of fine art. It will require the mathematics of shelter capacity evaluation. It is a tall order that challenges our parasitic growth in a Darwinian version of symbiotic adaptation. Success will not be a divine gift, however. We are expected to continue building the knowledge and understand the discipline required to shelter and survive.

Walter M. Hosack: November 2024

FOOTNOTE: Nor have we had equations capable of accurately predicting the buildable land needed for a given gross building area objective based on a comprehensive set of design value decisions and a chosen building design category.

THREE QUESTIONS from an ARCHITECT

 

Walter, your attempt to establish a mathematical basis for development is admirable. (1) You must not be alone - have others attempted the same thing? In the end, physical objects are built which conform to the desires of people with money who build them. (2) In one sense, is there even urban design in the US? (3) Do you distinguish between urban planning and urban design?

(1)   I’m not aware of any other attempts at a mathematical basis for development but I am not an academic. Development has always had a mathematical foundation, but it has never been reduced to an effective leadership language. Zoning was our first attempt to lead development decisions, but its mathematical development vocabulary has been incomplete, uncorrelated and often contradictory. This is what I have been attempting to improve with the building design category classification, design specification templates, and implication measurements/predictions of “shelter capacity evaluation”. We cannot predict shelter design alternatives and lead shelter design decisions without a correlated mathematical vocabulary. The result of inattention will be continued annexation and consumption of land without anticipation of its consequences.

(2)   I think you will find landscape architecture more focused on urban design since it involves the exterior spaces/places created by compositions of building mass/shelter capacity, parking, pavement, unpaved open space, and movement systems within urban areas. These divisions do exist within some public planning departments but the absence an adequate leadership language forces them to focus on project proposals rather than three-dimensional plans for economic stability that can afford a desirable quality of life. Architects seem to be focused on the internal context and exterior building appearance needed to satisfy the shelter requirements associated with a client’s activity. Exterior urban context seems to be more of an afterthought related to the building floor plan required and the land available. This makes the urban places created a matter of chance that continues to depend on annexation to correct inadequate physical, social, and economic decisions.

(3)   To me there is a great difference between urban planning and urban design. In my opinion, the language of planning has been concerned with the two-dimensional compatibility of social activity. It has been unable to effectively address or discuss the physical and economic implications of shelter capacity decisions beyond appearance and has failed to adequately address or define “context” in terms capable of leading hundreds of thousands of designers toward desired objectives. The only option in these cases has been annexation for more projects and hope for a financially successful future. It is a comprehensive problem that cannot be addressed by individual investors. It can only be solved with a city planning language that has mathematically correlated urban design leadership potential.

I don’t believe the problem of unlimited shelter growth on a planet with limited land area can be solved by individual investors without public leadership. In my opinion, the public and private interests involved have not been able to speak to each other in a language that can reconcile their interests. The private sector attempts to anticipate with the pattern language of design while the public sector attempts to regulate with the written word and miscellaneous, conflicting dimensional specifications. The language of shelter capacity evaluation reconciles this conflicting message with forecast models and embedded architectural algorithms that can be used to measure, evaluate, predict, regulate, and build knowledge. It is a common language that can be shared by public and private interests to break down mistrust with correlated predictions and mutual understanding.

Walter M. Hosack: November 2024