CITY DESIGN INTELLIGENCE

 

The following quote written on LinkedIn by Alec Melkonian, a Harvard Graduate School of Design student, got my attention. After reading the following questions, I had to acknowledge that design intelligence often attempts to justify preceding, estimated development decisions. Since I have been working for quite some time to derive a common, mathematically based leadership language for public and private design and development leadership cooperation, I found the questions perceptive.

“The question driving me is simple, yet demanding: what if design intelligence doesn’t follow development, but structures it?

What if land, ecology, and systems are engaged at the level where value is defined, decisions are made, and projects are set in motion?”

In response to the first question, development begins with a land survey that defines a commodity for sale. We have continued to subdivide these areas into smaller parcels without an accurate mathematical ability to calculate the gross building area options or implications involved. Shelter capacity estimates and assumptions have filled the void. Design intelligence has been challenged to see if it can fit these assumptions into the area purchased, given the parameters established by isolated, statutory, and often conflicting zoning ordinance regulations. This will not change without the mathematical ability to accurately predict gross building area options in square feet per buildable acre, or shelter capacity, for any given buildable land area and building design category. These options are now mathematically predictable and measurable.

The shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of gross building area predictions can be calculated and evaluated based on a consistent set of design template specification options. Comparison and evaluation of these implications can build the library of knowledge, expression, and leadership worthy of the term “design intelligence”. It is needed to guide many to provide shelter for the activities of growing populations within the geographic limits needed to protect our quality and source of life.

Cities are a collection of individual parcels. Many of these are represented by site plans for building footprint, parking, miscellaneous pavement, and open space. Most aggregations are separated by arteries of movement. These shelter cells may expand or multiply upon request to consume the surrounding area without limit at the present time. Open space relief from the intensity created by building mass, parking, and miscellaneous pavement within a cell reduces the intensity of shelter planned or permitted for each cell, but has often been considered a drain on investment potential.

The values entered in a design specification template for a given building design category, including the percentage of unencumbered open space planned or required, determines the gross building area options forecast by the category’s master equation. Additional template equations interpret the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of these gross building area options.

When the design specification values entered in a template represent an existing project, the implications calculated measure its capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context on a consistent scale of evaluation. This measurement and prediction yardstick is the tool needed to support context opinion with comparison, evaluation, and conclusions that place appearance in a supporting role. The result is context measurement of mass and space that is currently referred to as project composition. The context of the composition created by the spatial arrangement of building mass, parking, pavement, and open space has been unmeasurable until now but intuitively recognized and referred to as “overbuilt”, “excessive”, “blighted”, “sprawling”, or “desirable” and so on. The challenge has been to derive a method of measurement that can classify these opinions for consistent leadership reference and guidance.

Urban Design

Urban design is concerned with physical compositions of shelter, movement, open space, and life support that aggregate to form neighborhoods, districts, cities, and regions. These options also have measurable social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications that are a function of these shelter capacity measurements and predictions.

I have demonstrated in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”, that gross building area potential can be measured, evaluated, predicted, and translated into a consistent shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context measurement system. In my opinion, it is needed to ensure that we use every buildable acre of land wisely to shelter the activities of growing populations within geographically limited areas defined to protect their quality and source of life.

Excessive shelter capacity produces the Dickensian intensity of 19^th century tenement life. Minimal shelter capacity produces unlimited sprawl that threatens to consume agriculture and the Natural Domain with misguided concepts of unlimited annexation. It is our task to define the middle ground with the mathematical credibility and design intelligence required.

What if land, ecology, and systems are engaged at the level where value is defined, decisions are made, and projects are set in motion?”

Value is defined at the parcel level of property ownership. If ecological and environmental distinctions were made, they would produce at least two distinct geographic areas in my opinion: the Built Domain and its source of life, the Natural Domain. This distinction would have immediately established two categories of land value. We have simply considered the planet to be “without end” and without need for the distinction. All land has been available to those with the power to claim ownership. Preservation remains a hotly contested political issue. The Natural Domain, and agriculture within the Rural Phyla of the Built Domain, are still considered consumable by many. As a result they remain fair game for acquisition, annexation, and places “where projects are set in motion” with value relatively unrelated to ecology and environmental systems at the present time.

If a distinction were made between the Built Domain and Natural Domain, it would begin to establish a “priceless” category of value for the geographic areas designated as essential to survival on a limited planet. Agriculture would also be recognized as an irreplaceable asset of immeasurable value within the remaining Built Domain. The Natural Domain would become a place to visit.

Shelter capacity options have not had a mathematical method of precise calculation, nor have they been evaluated based on their intensity, intrusion, and context implications. This has prevented the formation of a more informed leadership language and library of knowledge. It is why I wrote “The Equations of Urban Design” in 2010. I believed that the design of shelter capacity within a limited Built Domain can only begin with an accurate ability to calculate the shelter capacity options related to a given land area; that this ability depends on a choice from six building design categories; and that these calculations have measurable context implications that transcend opinion over appearance.

I also came to realize that capacity may be occupied by any permitted activity; and that managing the combination on land within corporate limits has economic (as well as physical, social, psychological, and environmental) implications that can also be mathematically built on gross building area, shelter capacity, and intensity measurements and predictions.

In other words, the sum of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity present or planned for every acre of municipal land produces average annual revenue per buildable, taxable acre. The collection represents a city’s investment portfolio, but it has struggled to financially plan the economic return from this portfolio given its current level of data management and urban design sophistication. In other words, it has not been able to correlate its physical composition of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity with the average revenue per acre needed to equal or exceed its current and projected average cost of operation, maintenance, improvement, and debt service per acre. The result has often been budget reductions of little benefit to the entire population.

What if land, ecology, and systems are engaged at the level where value is defined, decisions are made, and projects are set in motion?”

It will all begin in my opinion with the separation of Built and Natural Domains and the ability to predict optional shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options at the parcel level of urban and city design within the Built Domain. This will not happen without political agreement that public health, safety, and quality of life is involved; and it will not happen until the efforts of public and private development can be mathematically correlated with the common and consistent equations of shelter capacity evaluation, or Tegimenics, in my opinion.

Walter M. Hosack, April 2026

PS: Any reader interested in more detail regarding shelter capacity evaluation, or Tegimenics, may be interested in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design” available on Amazon.com.

The Correlation Required to Lead Strategic Shelter Design Decisions

The shelter capacity, or gross building area capacity per buildable acre of land, has not been mathematically predictable. The result has been arbitrary consumption based on the erroneous assumption that land is an expendable and inexhaustible resource. If we are to limit the land consumed for shelter on a planet that we must share, site planning for shelter will require correlated mathematical decisions that accurately define the shelter capacity of land for growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect our quality and source of life.

The equation derived to measure and predict the gross building capacity of land for the G1 Building Design Category is an illustration of the correlation required for measurement and prediction that can be used to calibrate the implications involved. (The G1 Building Design Category includes all buildings served by a grade parking lot around, but not under, the building on the same premise.) This equation and all others derived in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”, illustrates the correlation required to improve the leadership decisions and implications that surround our consumption of land for shelter capacity. I’ve introduced this equation on many occasions and repeat it here for reference.

                                       GBA = ((af) / (a + fs)) * CORE      G1.L1 equation

When:

1)       (GBA) equals gross building area in square feet.

2)      (a) equals the square feet of gross building area planned or permitted per parking space provided.

3)      (f) equals the floor quantity planned or permitted.

4)      (s) equals the total surface area planned or permitted per parking space.

5)      CORE equals the buildable land area (BLA) remaining for surface parking and building footprint (BCA) in sq. ft. after all other paved and unpaved surface areas are subtracted from the buildable land area available.

USE OF THE EQUATION

Table 1 is based on the premise that a designer knows the gross building area required and is entering percentage estimates in the gray cells of the table to estimate the core land area needed in cell F34. (Core land is the land remaining for building footprint and parking on the buildable land of a property.) Transposition of Equation G1.L1 produces the equation needed to estimate the buildable land area required, except when common open space is provided. (This exception will be explained in the ensuing text. In this example, buildable land area and shelter land area (SHA%) are equal and derived in cell F18 of Table 1. Shelter area is the land remaining after shared open space among property owners is subtracted from the buildable land area available.)

                                                                CORE = BLA%

                                                      BLA% = GBA * ((a+fs) / (af))                                                                                                      

                                              BLA = (((GBA * (a+fs))) / (af)) / BLA%                                                                                                    Equation G1.B1

Table 1 has been created to find the buildable land area options (BLA) that can satisfy the design values entered in the gray cells of its Design Specification Template. The panel has been specifically designed to illustrate the correlation between design specification values entered and the zoning requirements permitting gross building area in Col. A of the table. Keep in mind that a change to one of more of the design specification values entered will produce a new set of results in the Forecast Panel.

The percentage values entered in the shaded cells of the Design Specification Template are mathematically correlated to produce the CORE percentage needed in cell F34. In this case it is shown as 57.6% of the shelter area (SHA) calculated in cell F18. Shelter area can be considered the buildable land area needed (BLA) when no values are entered into cells F14 and F15.

When 57.6% is entered in Equation G1.B1 along with an (a) value selected from cells A41-A45, an (s) value selected from cells B40-L40, and the (f) value entered in cell (F36), the intersection of (a) and (s) in the table indicates the core area needed in acres; the shelter area needed in acres; and the buildable land area needed in acres.

The point is that all design decisions entered in the gray cells of Table 1 must be correlated with the (a) values stipulated by a zoning ordinance in Col. A to produce the results shown in the Forecast Panel of Table 1. Trial and error correlation without the equation involved cannot produce consistent results. They will always be based on random intuition, talent, and opinion rather than consistent measurement, research, evaluation, and application of accumulated knowledge.

An intuitive proposal will often attempt to limit the unpaved open space percentage provided in cell F12, the area per parking space (s) chosen in row 42; and argue over the gross building area permitted per parking space (a) in Col. A of the Planning Forecast Panel. The implications can be easily overlooked when plan review is based on a visual examination and a limited number of design specification topics.

In other words, the Forecast Panel results shown are produced by the mathematical correlation of all shaded cell values entered in the table. These values do not operate independently, but their mathematical relationships remain undefined in most, if not all, zoning ordinances. Trial and error are where we often find ourselves, and it has often led to unintended results.

The fact that mathematical correlation is ignored in a zoning ordinance guarantees that measurement, research, evaluation, knowledge accumulation, and leadership improvement will continue to depend on inconsistent intuition, opinion, and talent.

OBSERVATIONS

Table 1 is a mathematical definition of the intuitive process a designer uses to approximate the buildable land area required for a gross building area objective. When Table 1 and Equation G1.B1 are missing, shelter design becomes a guessing game over the values required to fit a shelter objective on a given land area. This includes the (s) value to be chosen and an argument over the (a) value that applies.

Current design efforts often attempt to minimize the (s) value chosen on row 42 of Table 1 in order to increase the parking spaces that can be provided. This maximizes the potential gross building area on the least buildable land area, but does not consider the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications involved.

TABLE 1

In this example, the gray cell values entered define one alternative for the shelter design objective entered in cell F36. The issue being evaluated involves the gross building area permitted per parking space provided (s) shown in bold in Column A of the Forecast Panel; and the parking lot design options represented by the parking lot area per space choices (s) entered in the gray cells on line 42 of the panel.

When a parking area per space (s) is chosen in Table 1, the buildable land required (BLA) decreases with every increase in the gross building area square feet permitted per parking space (a). This is the correlation any experienced designer would expect but cannot accurately predict.

When a parking lot area per space (s) increases on row 42 of Table 1, the buildable land area required also increases when the gross building area permitted per parking space (a) remains constant. Again, this is the correlation any experienced designer would expect but cannot accurately predict.

In both examples above, the variables entered in the gray cells of Table 1 from cell F5 to F37 have remained constant. The fact that any one or more of these values can also change should indicate the complexity of mental correlation involved with the simplest of building design categories.

INTENT

The intent in this essay is to illustrate the correlation between zoning ordinance regulation and the parking lot design options available. A greater (s) value indicates more parking lot area devoted per parking space and more ability to introduce landscape moderation for the pavement introduced. A greater (a) value indicates more gross building area permitted per parking space provided. Three rows of calculation are adjacent to each parking regulation (a) and beneath each parking design value (s). The first row at the intersection of the related cells indicates the core area calculated in response to the variables entered in the gray cells of the table. The second indicates the shelter area needed and the third indicates the buildable land area needed in acres. (Shelter area equals buildable area when the values in cells F14 and F15 are zero.)

The table is intended to show that we cannot leave shelter design decisions isolated and disconnected at a time when we are beginning to realize that every acre has a role to play in our sustainable future. The concept of “minimum reasonable standards” based on the intuition, talent, experience, and opinion of reasonable men is no longer adequate. Unwritten natural limits are involved. A credible leadership language based on mathematical correlation and a body of acquired, correlated knowledge is needed to avoid excessive shelter, movement, open space, and life support consumption of the Natural Domain, in my opinion.

CONCLUSION

Shelter design has been, and still is, an intuitive guessing game that attempts to fit a gross building area, or a subdivision, on available land area. The objective is often to answer the question, “will it fit” or “how much will fit”. The “highest and best use” of land has been an economic concern. We are only beginning to expand these questions to encompass the planet where we live -- and the realistic shelter capacity of a Built Domain that must learn to share the land with its source of life, the Natural Domain.

Equation G1.L1 and all others that are part of shelter capacity evaluation, or Tegimenics, have been derived to offer an alternative to the unlimited, uncorrelated, and approximate consumption of land that has often resulted in either sprawl or excessive intensity. Damage done by occupant activity is another issue.

The land required by the Natural Domain involves far more than scenic attractions, in my opinion. The question deserves a better answer that will accommodate all dependents.

POSTSCRIPT

The unpaved open space value entered in cell F12 of Table 1 deserves special mention. It is often ignored as an impediment to maximum shelter capacity achievement. The correlation is significant however, because paved and unpaved open space combine with landscape improvement to provide relief and reduce storm sewer capacity demand, as well as potential flooding. These are essential considerations in my opinion but can obstruct the quest for “highest and best” economic benefit.

I have no standards to recommend. I simply point to paved and unpaved pedestrian open space for pedestrian relief as a topic of pivotal concern that is worthy of context measurement, evaluation, and recommendation. It can only be provided at the expense of shelter capacity when considering some building design categories. In these cases, capacity can only be recovered with increased floor quantity. The correlation deserves our attention because the tenements of past centuries have proven that we can blindly respond to economic incentive without consideration for the context created.

City design and urban design will be about correlation. This includes the urban and rural phyla of a Built Domain that must share the land with its source of life, the Natural Domain. It continues with the correlation of shelter, movement, open space, and life support systems, or divisions, in both phyla. The correlation required will challenge our wisdom and intelligence. We need a mathematical language that can correlate the work required by many related professions.

Walter M. Hosack, March 2026

The Shelter Capacity of Core Land Area

 The shelter capacity of property depends on the core land area remaining for building footprint and parking lot area after all other site improvement topic areas are subtracted.

Shelter capacity is gross building area in square feet divided by the buildable acres occupied.

This principle is illustrated by Diagram 1, based on the G1 Building Design Category.

The G1 category is one of six in a building classification system based on the primary parking system used to serve building activity. The G1 category addresses all buildings served by a parking lot around, but not under, the building on the same premise.

Diagram 1 illustrates the principle noted. It shows a series of site plan topic rings surrounding a black rectangle designating the core area available for building cover (BCA) and parking lot area (PLA).

Site plan topics identified by the shaded cells of Table 1 c
an be measured in square feet or estimated as percentages of the land area involved. The topics in cells F4-F6 and F8 are subtracted from the gross land area given in cell F3 to find the buildable land area (BLA) remaining in cell F10. The entire process of measurement, or percentage estimation, and subtraction leads to the core area remaining in cell F33 and is explained in the italicized text below. The master equation that defines the shelter capacity of G1 core area under specified conditions depends on the identification of this quantity.

G1 CORE AREA DERIVATION

Gross land area is equal to the total land area defined to accommodate building construction or expansion, excluding future reserve areas.

Buildable land area (BLA) is equal to gross land area (GLA) minus the sum of unbuildable area (UNB), existing condition area (ECA), future expansion area (FXA), easement area (EAS), and public right-of-way area (ROW).

Unpaved open space (OSAU) is equal to a given percentage of buildable land area (BLA).

Impervious cover capacity (IMP) is equal to buildable land area (BLA) minus the unpaved open space present or planned (OSAU).

Impervious cover remaining (IMPR) is equal to total impervious cover (IMP) minus shared, or common, impervious cover present or planned (COSP).

Unpaved open space remaining (UOSR) is equal to total unpaved open space (OSAU) minus the common, or shared, unpaved open space present or planned (COSU).

Remaining shelter land area (SHA) is equal to the sum of the impervious cover remaining (IMPR) and unpaved open space remaining (UOSR).

Impervious cover (PSSP) present or planned in the shelter area (SHA) is equal to the sum of paved open space area (SOSP), miscellaneous pavement area (MPA), driveway area (DRA), exterior entry pavement area (EEP), and loading area (LDA) present or planned.

Unpaved open space remaining in the shelter area (UOSR) is equal to total unpaved open space (OSAU) minus the common or shared unpaved open space present or planned (COSU).

Core area impervious cover (CORE) is equal to shelter area (SHA) minus the sum of miscellaneous impervious cover area (PSSP) and remaining unpaved open space area (UOSR) in the shelter area.

G1 SHELTER CAPACITY

The shelter capacity of core land area, or the square feet of gross building area capacity (GBA) per acre of buildable land area (BLA), is defined for the G1 Building Design Category by the master equation derived in Table 2.7 of the book entitled, “The Equations of Urban Design”, by Walter M. Hosack. The equation states that:

GBA = ((af / (a+(fs))) * CORE                        Equation G1.L1

When:

s = estimated pkg. & circulation area per garage space in square feet

a = building square feet permitted per parking space

f = floor quantity

The equation shows that the gross building area (GBA) capacity of core land area (CORE) is a function of the (a), (f), and (s) values chosen for the coefficient in the equation. These are design decisions that are often limited by zoning ordinance regulations, but the ordinances have not understood, or been able to predict, their combined implications.

The (s) and (a) variables needed by the equation have been entered into shaded cells A35 and A36 of Table 1. The floor quantity variables needed (f) have been entered into shaded cells A44-A53. The equation in cell B39 produces the gross building area options (GBA) presented in cells B44-B53. These are converted into shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implication measurements in cells F44-J53 of the Implications Module. The equations used to produce the related measurements in Columns C-J of the Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module are referenced on line 43 of the table. This system of measurement makes it possible to consistently compare and evaluate implications that may represent “excessive intensity” and “sprawl” at the ends of a shelter capacity spectrum that can now be calibrated.

When the gray cell topics in Table 1 are consistently measured at existing locations, the comparable planning and implication data calibrated can be evaluated to build the shelter capacity knowledge and vocabulary needed to begin forming a leadership language. It is needed to lead the many involved toward shelter in limited geographic areas defined to protect their source of life -- the Natural Domain.

Shelter capacity measurement, prediction, and implication evaluation has been derived as a quantitative foundation for the evaluation of shelter capacity options within a limited Built Domain that will remain after definition of an essential Natural Domain. These options have implications that include, but are not limited to, the physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic results of option choices on the quality of life produced.

I have had the temerity to call the shelter capacity measurement and evaluation effort Tegimenics, and the body of leadership knowledge that can be consistently assembled in perpetuity, Tegimenology.

Walter M. Hosack, February 2026

PS: This discussion was limited to the G1 Building Design Category. The full discussion involving all six building design categories can be found in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It is available from Amazon.com.

PSS: During this essay I discovered an error in my book concerning Diagram 1 and its correlation with Table 1. Diagram 1 has been corrected in this essay.

HOW MUCH LAND?

 A post requesting applications for a sustainable development teaching position led me to ask myself the following questions. I’m not an applicant, but am posting them here for broader exposure. We need measurable shelter answers to focus these questions on the populations involved. I hope some are interested. 

How much land must be reserved to protect our source of life, the Natural Domain?

How much land will remain for the Urban and Rural Phyla of the Built Domain?

How much land must be reserved for the Rural Phyla of the Built Domain?

How much land remains for the Urban Phyla?

How many people can the Rural Phyla feed?

What quantities of land in the Urban Phyla will be consumed by its Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions?

How much land will remain for the Shelter Division of the Built Domain?

What average shelter capacity and intensity per buildable acre will be required to shelter the population that can be fed, and what are the physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic context implications?

Can the population calculated be sustained by the environment and ecology preserved?

Walter M. Hosack, February 2026

 

Improving City Planning and the Context of Place

 In my opinion, cities only know where they are. They have a limited concept of where they want to be. They know the annual revenue they receive and if next year’s budget must be reduced, but they do not understand the granular level of their revenue engine and the comprehensive physical adjustments that annexation, economic development, zoning, and redevelopment must produce to comprehensively improve their financial condition – and few things improve without the money required to undertake the effort.

Improvement will begin when the gross building area potential of land can be accurately predicted based on the six building design categories available, since gross building area can be occupied by any permitted activity, and the combination has significant shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, context, and revenue implications. I have discussed this in many essays. The following is my attempt to summarize.

GROSS BUILDING AREA OPTIONS

Gross Building Area Options (GBA) are a function of the building design category chosen and the values, including floor quantity alternatives, entered in its design specification template. For instance, the G1 Building Design Category equation for gross building area potential uses the values entered in its template to derive the values needed for its equation. (GBA = ((af) / (a+(fs))) * CORE). My point is that shelter capacity and intensity have mathematical definitions that can become part of an improved leadership language. The following are a few points that I’d like to emphasize.

SHELTER CAPACITY

Shelter Capacity (SFAC) is equal to the gross building area present or predicted (GBA) divided by the buildable acres occupied (BAC), excluding future expansion area. It can be used to calculate many implications including, but not limited to, intensity, intrusion, context, and revenue potential.

INTENSITY

Increasing shelter capacity indicates increasing physical intensity. A city has been concerned with the health, safety, and welfare of adjacent activity but it has not been able to accurately measure intensity. It has continued to be a problem without adequate definition. This has led to sprawl seeking to reduce intensity on one hand and excessive intensity seeking to increase revenue on the other. Many cities, if not all, have a limited ability to lead the intensity of shelter construction toward measurable goals capable of consistently repeating success, in my opinion.

Inadequate density and floor area ratio calculations will continue to consume our source of life in a vain search for financial stability until intensity definition and leadership improves. In other words, we have not been able to measure where we’ve been with a leadership language that can be used to chart an accurate course into the future.

BUILDING REVENUE POTENTIAL 

The annual municipal revenue produced by each taxable parcel or block within its jurisdiction is a function of the gross building area present, the occupant activity present, and the revenue produced per square foot. A city may know the gross building area present per parcel. It could record the activity present, but it does not record the revenue produced per square foot of activity on a given buildable land area, and cannot accurately predict gross building area options for a given buildable land area. This means that a city vaguely understands the productivity potential of land under its jurisdiction and cannot accurately evaluate shelter capacity options that can improve its productivity on a comprehensive basis.

Occupant Revenue per square foot is equal to total occupant revenue divided by the gross square feet occupied.

 

Building Revenue per square foot is equal to the sum of its occupant revenue receipts per square foot divided by the number of occupants.

 

Building Revenue Potential per acre of buildable land area is equal to its shelter capacity in square feet times the average revenue potential present or planned per square foot. 

Revenue potential is related to shelter intensity and activity. A city has been concerned with the health, safety, and welfare of adjacent activity but it has not been able to accurately measure intensity. This has led to sprawl seeking to reduce intensity on one hand and excessive intensity seeking to increase revenue on the other. Both have been pursued by government without an accurate ability to correlate the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, context, and revenue implications capable of consistently repeating success in my opinion, because cities have had limited information sharing, data management, mapping, and shelter capacity evaluation available. This has significantly limited their ability to comprehensively calculate the shelter capacity and revenue potential of land use decisions in their jurisdictions.

Inadequate density and floor area ratio calculations will continue to consume our source of life in a vain search for financial stability until this leadership improves. In other words, we have not been able to measure where we’ve been with a leadership language that can be used to chart an accurate course into the future.

If a city knows its total average annual cost per taxable acre, it could compare this cost to the annual revenue produced per taxable acre by each of its parcels, blocks, or zones if it had the required data. It is an evaluation that could indicate the leadership decisions needed; but information sharing, data management, mapping, and shelter capacity evaluation are a few of the tools needed to pursue the knowledge required for more informed leadership decisions.

SHELTER CAPACITY EVALUATION

Tegimenics, or shelter capacity evaluation, begins with a series of forecast models meant to measure and predict the gross building area capacity of buildable land based on a building design category choice, a template of design specification decisions, and a column of variable of floor quantity options. Since shelter capacity can be occupied by any permitted activity, the allocation of capacity over an entire city has significant physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications that precede more detailed definition.

TEGIMENICS

The method of calculating shelter capacity and its implications, or Tegimenics, represents a leadership language based on mathematics. It can improve our ability to chart a course for shelter that protects the activities of growing populations on limited land areas defined to protect their source of life, the Natural Domain.

I’ve written about facets of shelter capacity evaluation on many occasions. For the interested reader, these essays are located on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. The more recent are also on LinkedIn. The entire concept is collected in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It is available on Amazon.com. In hindsight, I wish I had titled the book, “Tegimenics, the Science of Shelter Capacity Evaluation”, but this has been a journey of incremental discovery seeking an intuitive destination. It has led to leadership language capable of measuring, evaluating, and defining shelter capacity options that can be part of any sustainable, symbiotic solution to the puzzle of our presence on the planet.

CONCLUSION

I am suggesting that shelter capacity design begins with the measurement, prediction, evaluation, and selection of desirable site plan quantities. These quantity decisions establish the foundation for the shelter pattern, form, function, and appearance that is molded from its recipe. The result is context of place. This combination of strategic and tactical leadership can be used to protect our physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life within geographic limits, but it will depend on a commitment to funding and improving the information sharing, data management, mapping, and shelter capacity evaluation needed to expand the knowledge available.

Walter M. Hosack, January 2026

Photo credit: Jacek Halicki

The Shelter Correlation Needed for a Sustainabe Future

The distribution of taxable activity in buildings throughout a city, and the real estate value of these buildings, is a primary source of revenue per acre. This yield must contribute to a city’s total annual expense per acre, but a city does not calculate its revenue on this basis. This has led to a disconnect between the land use compatibility objectives of city planning and the revenue objectives of local government. It has led, in my opinion, to many revenue-deficient land use plans and decisions when compared to their long-term public expense. The relationship of land use acres to revenue is easily overlooked, however, when excess and deficient contributions per acre are merged into the total annual revenue received by a city. This leads a city to overlook the fact that the shelter capacity of land combines with its occupant activity to determine the revenue the city receives, and too much land can be devoted to too little revenue within a limited municipal area. This can lead to annexation when land is available and stagnation or redevelopment when it isn’t. This has led me to search for a better method of measurement, prediction, and evaluation because shelter capacity determines the scope of feasible economic activity, and more accurate predictions can lead to less land consumption.

THE CITY

A city is a collection of shelter options with varying degrees of capacity served by arteries of movement, open space, and life support. The scope and variety of occupant activity permitted by zoning and shelter capacity determines a city’s revenue potential. The physical context and appearance of this capacity symbolizes its quality of life.

Attention to building, parking, pavement, and open space context has often been referred to as urban design, but the social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications of these physical design decisions have rarely been correlated with these measurable shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications.

THE NEED

The sustainable provision of shelter on the limited land of our planet will depend on our ability to accurately predict the shelter capacity of this land. We need to limit its consumption to protect its source of life, the Natural Domain. A more accurate ability to calculate shelter capacity in a limited Built Domain is needed to serve the activities of growing populations and conserve their source of life, the Natural Domain.

A city is a collection of shelter capacity decisions served by arteries of movement, open space, and life support on defined land areas that can be occupied by any permitted activity. The mathematical measurement, prediction, arrangement, and correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity can form the quantitative basis for further city design evaluation on limited land areas.

THE ATTEMPT

The shelter capacity of land is its gross building area potential per buildable acre. It is a function of calculations based on a building design classification system and choice, values entered in the category’s design specification template, and a column of optional floor quantity entries. I have written about these forecast models on many occasions and will avoid repeating myself by referring the reader to these essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and to my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”, available on Amazon.com.

THE OPINION

The distribution of shelter capacity and occupant activity among a city’s taxable acres determines the revenue a city receives and the quality of life it can provide, but the contribution from every taxable parcel has never been calculated or mapped based on the land consumed; nor has its revenue per acre been compared with the total annual cost of municipal government per acre – to my knowledge. This has made it difficult, if not impossible, to correlate the capacity and use of land with its revenue potential and quality of life within sustainable, symbiotic geographic limits. This competence will require improved information sharing, data management, shelter capacity prediction, mapping evaluation, urban design assessment, and scientific correlation before city design can become more than unlimited land consumption.

THE OPPORTUNITY

In other words, when revenue productivity from gross building area can be measured or predicted per acre for every parcel or block within a city; when it can be geographically mapped; and when it can be compared to a city’s total annual cost per acre; the economic implications of a city’s land use decisions will become apparent, and future planning decisions will be better informed.

THE CHALLENGE

It sounds simple enough, but we have not been able to accurately predict the shelter capacity of buildable land area, and we do not know the annual revenue that can be expected from various occupant activities. An investor can calculate the anticipated profit from an occupant activity, but an investor can sell a mistake. A city has far less ability to predict its risk and protect its investment. It is left with the result.

THE FOCUS

I have focused on deriving an accurate method of predicting the shelter capacity of land and calculating the physical implications of the predicted options. The definition of revenue potential per square foot of occupant activity is information that remains to be assembled unless I am mistaken. If it is available, it can be easily multiplied by predicted or measured shelter capacity options to find the revenue options implied.

THE OPORTUNITY

Shelter capacity measurement and prediction, or Tegimenics, can anchor the correlation of research and knowledge needed to lead us to the goal of life within symbiotic limits.

THE EXAMPLE

I’ll borrow Table 5 from my previous essay, now labelled Table 1, to create a simple example of shelter capacity evaluation. Table 1 is based on the information given at the top of the table and the design specification quantities entered in its gray cells. The gross building area predictions that result are calculated in cells B44-B53.

I have arbitrarily entered a square foot revenue prediction in cell K43 of Table 1. It is meant to represent total real estate, income, and other revenue related to the gross building area predicted. Multiplying this by the gross building area predictions calculated in cells B44-B53 produces the revenue predictions in cells K44-K53. (A square foot revenue prediction based on measurements from other similar activities would obviously be a better choice.) If this were repeated for every parcel in a city’s inventory, a picture of its current productivity and future potential would emerge, and the ability to evaluate and map alternatives would require a few keystrokes.

CONCLUSION

My point has been to illustrate the usefulness of gross building area predictions produced by shelter capacity algorithms and design specification templates when they are combined with other information related to these Tegimenic measurements, predictions, and implications.

Walter M. Hosack, January 2026

Correlating Zoning Design Standards

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

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

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

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

THE PROBLEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SUGGESTION

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

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

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

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

THE G1.L1 FORECAST MODEL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

Walter M. Hosack, January 2026

What is Shelter Intensity?

 Merriam-Webster defines intensity as: “the magnitude of a quantity (such as force or energy) per unit (as of area, charge, mass, or time)”.

When this definition is applied to shelter, “magnitude” means the quantities of gross building area (GBA), parking, and miscellaneous pavement present, planned, or predicted in square feet on a given property. The unpaved open space that remains is an offsetting influence. The building footprint, parking, and miscellaneous pavement area is referred to as the project’s “impervious area”. When considering
shelter, the “unit” in Webster’s definition of intensity is the buildable land area in acres (BLAC) devoted to the project, including all remaining unpaved open space, except for future expansion area (EXP).

Shelter capacity (SFAC) is a preliminary indication of magnitude equal to gross building area in square feet (GBA) per buildable acre (BLAC) occupied (SFAC = GBA/BLAC). When shelter capacity is multiplied by the percentage of impervious cover (IMP%) present or planned, the result is the intensity present (INT) on the buildable land area (BLA) of a project. Ten thousand is divided into the product of (SFAC*IMP%) to produce a manageable intensity measurement (INT) throughut the spectrum of options that is expressed by the equation:

                                   INT = SFAC * IMP% / 10,000 

Since shelter capacity (SFAC) is equal to (GBA/BLAC), the shelter intensity equation is significantly influenced by the square feet of building mass present on a given buildable land area. It is easy enough to measure gross building area (GBA) on existing property and to measure the shelter capacity (SFAC) of a given buildable land area (BLAC). When the impervious cover percentage (IMP%) is also measured, the intensity present can be calculated.

It is another matter to predict the capacity of land to accommodate gross building area. There are six building design category choices available and each involves a separate design specification template. It is now possible to calculate these predictions, but it remains impossible to ensure that the shelter capacity and intensity levels predicted will not produce excessive intensity. There has simply been no measurable and predictive format for research, knowledge accumulation, and leadership direction regarding shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and economic potential for every present and future parcel in a city’s anatomy.

Most cities will continue to struggle with planning and economic development until they have a clear understanding of the productivity of land and activity in their jurisdiction at the parcel, block, or zone level. At this point, they will be able to respond with informed urban design plans that can produce physical context and economic stability reflecting improved measurement, prediction, evaluation, and leadership direction.

Shelter capacity forecast models can predict the full range of gross building area options available for a given land area, but many are excessively intense and undesirable. This consideration will be at the heart of urban design evaluation and knowledge accumulation. Improvement will depend on the ability to make informed choices based on the implications predicted; the ability to correlate shelter capacity with the economic potential of occupant activity options; and the ability to assemble these choices into a complete, corelated plan that can be adjusted with continuing information sharing, data management, mapping evaluation, and urban design prediction.

For instance, I have mentioned in more than one essay that the average revenue per buildable acre of taxable activity is a function of its shelter capacity, intensity, and activity. The average revenue from all such acres should be equal to or greater than a city’s total expense per taxable acre. If it isn’t, budget reductions enter the picture.

I doubt that any city can assess the relationship of shelter capacity and intensity to financial stability at the parcel level of its anatomy with any degree of accuracy. It does not have the information sharing agreements, data management systems, and mapping format needed to understand, let alone evaluate and plan for the future of available land that will contribute to the revenue per buildable acre it needs over time.

At the heart of all this is a city’s mathematical understanding of its current physical plan and its ability to improve the economic productivity of this land. Understanding the adjacency relationships addressed by zoning is not enough. A city’s productivity improvement will depend on the relationships of shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and location on every parcel within its boundaries. The challenge is to understand these mathematical relationships so that they can be managed to achieve financial stability without excessive intensity on the land it governs.

In other words, the allocation of municipal land for capacity, intensity, and activity determines the total average revenue received by local government from the context created. A city’s ability to balance this equation at the parcel level of planning and urban design will determine its success in learning to live within financially stable, sustainable, and beneficial geographic limits.

If “parcel level” threatens your concept of privacy, then substitute the words, block, tract, or zone. These are the cellular levels of urban anatomy that must be mathematically understood before they can be organized to perform and produce a financially stable and sustainable anatomy that offers a desirable quality of life.

The scope is too great to cover in an essay. I’m including a revised Table of Contents for my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”, to outline the leadership language suggested for shelter capacity evaluation and direction toward financial stability and a desirable quality of life. The first eight chapters classify the building design categories involved. The master equations derived and associated with each chapter predict the gross building area potential of a given buildable land area based on the values entered in its design specification template, and the floor quantity chosen for evaluation.

The objective of a chapter is explained by the “Given” and “To Find” statement listed. The chapter must be read to understand the relationship of forecast models, design specification templates, and value entry options to the implications predicted.

Chapter 9-17 address the building design categories in Chapters 2-6 when they are occupied by various forms of residential activity. The combination of a building design category and activity topic is referred to as an activity group. In this case the building design categories and residential activities in Chapters 9-17 are collectively referred to as the Residential Activity Group. The objective of a master equation in these chapters remains listed in the “Given” and “To Find” statements associated with each chapter.

The point in these chapters is that a gross building area prediction for a given buildable land area and design specification is constant, but its occupant capacity is affected by the unique requirements of the activity involved.

Generic gross building area options, predictions, and implications represent strategic urban design decisions with economic implications influenced by their occupant activity. They require urban arrangement like pieces on a chessboard. These are the choices that establish the foundation of decisions on which cities are built.

Mathematical urban design recommendations that address shelter capacity, intensity, and activity decisions throughout a city can add desirable context among buildings to the scope of their potential contributions to its financial welfare and quality of life. It is a mathematical opportunity and potential leadership language at the present time. If you believe that we must learn to live within sustainable geographic limits that protect our source of life, you may agree that shelter capacity and intensity evaluation, or Tegimenics, is a topic that should be pursued.

Walter M. Hosack, December 2025