DENSITY and the CORONA VIRUS

NOTE: Tables 1 and 2 are located at the end of this text

I'm writing this during the Covid-19 plague because discussion has begun over the role of density and social distance in its propagation and prevention. We made progress during the 20^th century in addressing density’s relationship to health, safety, and welfare; but our ability to lead density toward a desired quality of life has been severely hampered by our inability to comprehensively define and correlate the components of its definition. I hope to add a few suggestions with this brief essay.


The term “density” has many meanings. In this case it refers to both population and dwelling unit quantity per acre. Excessive amounts have produced terms like “overdevelopment”, “excessive intensity”, and “congestion”. Low density has produced “suburban sprawl”. None of these terms indicate desirable results. They imply threats to either our quality or source of life.

Density is a product of correlated design specification decisions. It does not lead them and it cannot consistently produce desired results when the components of its definition are randomly and incompletely addressed.


Building Design Categories


Shelter density is produced by choices that begin with the selection of one building design category from a universe of six. The six are classified by the method of parking they employ and are: (1) G1 buildings served by grade parking around but not under a building; (2) G2 buildings served by grade parking around and under a building; (3) S1 buildings served by structure parking adjacent to a building on the same premise; (4) S2 buildings served with structure parking underground on any percentage of the buildable land area; (5) S3 buildings served with structure parking beneath a building footprint that may be above, below, or at grade; (6) NP buildings with no parking required. A building design category for parking that is not intended for human habitation is designated PG.


Shelter Capacity Specifications


A building design category choice leads to a specification template in a forecast model related to the choice. Values assigned to items and topics in the specification template are correlated by an architectural algorithm. Summations are used by a building category master equation to predict either: (1) Gross building area options for a given land area; or (2) Buildable land area options for a given gross building area objective.


G1 Building Design Category


As an example, Table 1 applies to the G1 Building Design Category when gross land area is given and gross building area options ae to be forecast. The values entered in its gray boxes define the land area and design concept under consideration. Any value or combination of values in the gray boxes may be modified to test alternate design decisions, but they cannot be isolated from their combined influence.


The values entered in the gray boxes of Table 1 define pavement, unpaved open space, parking, and floor quantity options that are correlated by an architectural algorithm to serve the master equation in cell B39. The equation predicts gross building area options in cells B44-B53 based on the floor quantity options entered in cells A44-A53. Companion building footprint and parking lot area options are predicted in the remaining columns of the Planning Forecast Panel. The secondary equations at the top of each column have been used for these predictions. A change to one or more of the values entered in the 27 gray boxes of Table 1 would produce a new table of gross building area predictions in its Planning Forecast Panel.


Implications


The results predicted in the Planning Forecast Panel have the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications forecast in cells F44-J53 of the table’s Implications Module. These implications vary with the floor quantity options in cells A44-A53 and are the measurable characteristics of density produced by correlating the 27 specification values entered in the Design Specification Template of Table 1. 


The first thing to notice in Table 1 is that there is no mention of dwelling unit quantity in the Implications Module. The calculation is not included because a G1 building is a “shell building”. It may be occupied by any permitted activity. In this discussion, the term “density” applies to gross building area per acre, or shelter capacity, and represents measurable quantities of intensity, intrusion, and dominance.


The values entered in the gray boxes of Table 1 represent the building design decisions associated with G1 density; and they must be correlated to lead the relationship of buildings, parking, pavement, and unpaved open space toward a desired objective. These are the site planning decisions that set the stage for all ensuing building form, function, occupancy, and appearance decisions. The extent of topics involved explains the broad spectrum of design possibilities that can be created, since one or more value changes will produce a new forecast of options - and not all are desirable.


Intensity


Physical intensity is created by the extent of building mass, pavement area, and floor quantity introduced per acre. It is offset by the amount of unpaved open space provided. Social density is produced by population quantity per acre. In other words, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance are created by building mass and its surrounding site plan support. Implication topics are the measurable characteristics of shelter density that can be led by a master equation that is served by design specification value decisions. Occupancy may vary over time, but the physical impact of building mass, pavement, open space, and floor quantity remains constant until physically modified, and I repeat that not all options are desirable.


Population density is a separate issue that is enabled by shelter capacity. Excessive population density and shelter intensity eventually produced the planning, zoning, and building regulations of the twentieth century; but the partial, uncorrelated regulations written to address over-development and blight have been unable to arrest the flight from excessive density and oppression. Flight from congestion and intensity continues to create sprawl that threatens our source of life. It has been relatively easy to ignore these conditions for the sake of population growth and economic development in the past because the planet was considered a “world without end”, but the corona virus is forcing us to consider the issue of physical and social distance more carefully. This will require an improved leadership language capable of correlating the design decisions that combine to determine the physical capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance of shelter that is served by movement, open space, and life support within cities.


We use the term “over-development” to describe physical excess when we see it, but have not been able to define the condition with leadership precision. Table 1 has just illustrated the 27 design specification items and topics associated with the definition when the G1 Building Design Category is involved. It illustrates the design specification quantities, architectural algorithm, and master equation that combine to calculate the three dimensional implications of correlated G1 shelter capacity design decisions. The issue of social distance and density is inextricably associated with these intensity decisions. When correlated, they represent a leadership recipe for the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance that emerges. These initial massing decisions are then shaped by thousands of additional form, function, and appearance choices. There is no “world without end”, and we must adjust our definitions of growth and intensity to protect a source of life that we currently threaten with our limited awareness.


Population density is enabled by the physical intensity of building mass, pavement, and unpaved open space that serves the population. Building design categories, design specification quantities, and master equations produce shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance options for these populations. These are the physical components of intensity that can be measured without reference to the occupant activity involved. In other words, it is a universal measurement system for the impact of shelter capacity within cities. This means that capacity can be led to produce the intensity and distance objectives we must define to achieve our public health, safety, and quality of life objectives. 


Our leadership language must improve before we can begin to guide shelter capacity in our Built Domain toward a relationship with the Natural Domain that protects our quality and source of life.


Apartments – the G1.R3 Activity Group


Table 2 introduces an apartment module on lines 34-48 to illustrate what happens when a G1 Building Design Category or “shell building”, is occupied by an R3 Apartment Use Group. The apartment occupancy proposal is added to Table 1 in cells A34-J47 of Table 2. I won’t go into great detail concerning this table because I have a limited objective.


My first point is to illustrate that the traditional residential density calculations in Col. N of the Implications Module result from the 51 design specification values entered in the gray boxes of Table 2. A density calculation does not lead the 51 decisions. It is a product of them. Random results will always occur when there are too many specification options without leadership direction. This is the case when a density limit is used without further correlated specification. 


My second point is that gross building area options predicted in cells B44-B53 of Table 1 have increased in cells B56-B65 of Table 2 because residential occupancy specifications have been added to the shell building specifications entered in Table 1. The intensity implications in cells J56-N65 of Table 2 have increased in response because reduced residential parking has permitted building mass to increase on an increased building footprint area. If you compare the “a” value entered in Cell A36 of Table 1 to the calculated apartment value “a” in cell J47 of Table 2, the reason for the increase becomes apparent. The value “a” defines the building square feet per G1 grade parking space planned, permitted, or required. A higher value permits more gross building area per parking space, and a reduced number of parking spaces permits greater land area for the building footprint. The value “a” in Table 2 has changed because the apartment occupancy defined in Table 2 has replaced the general occupancy statistics in Table 1. It is the only shell specification value that has changed, but the parking revision enabled by apartment occupancy has increased gross building area potential and had a significant impact on potential shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance.


Table 2 shows that there are 51 interrelated design decisions that affect gross building area potential when a G1 Building Design Category is occupied by R3 apartment activity. A density range from 28 to 68 dwelling units per shelter acre is possible, as shown in cells N56-N65, given the design specification values entered in Table 2 and the floor quantity options in cells A56-A65. The shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications vary as noted in cells J56-M65. None of the shelter intensity values calculated in cells K56-K65 may contribute to a desired quality of life on the gross land area specified in cell K3 however, since the social distance implied may contribute to a condition we have nebulously referred to as “over-development” and “congestion”. The point is that we don’t know without further measurement and research.


Summary


The Covid-19 plague has brought the issue of shelter intensity, over-development and social distance to our attention once again and exposed our continuing lack of knowledge. We do know that lower density produces sprawl that expands with population growth to consume increasing quantities of agriculture and the Natural Domain. We also know that excessive density produces intolerable congestion, but our efforts to define acceptable levels have failed to correlate the many building design categories and specification topics that combine to form a definition. We can’t manage what we can’t measure, and this leaves us with a concept of social distance and shelter density that is poorly formed with an inadequate definition. This, in turn, leaves us waiting for a vaccine that will allow us to revert to our old definitions of growth and economic success on a world without end. 


Density has measureable shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications that are produced by the quantities of building mass, parking, pavement, and unpaved open space introduced. Occupant activity may add social congestion, but a physical pattern is established by design decisions that begin at the site planning stage of shelter creation.


Shelter is served by divisions of movement, open space, and life support within the urban and rural phyla of our Built Domain. Shelter is capable of protecting any social activity and is governed by design specification values that can threaten our physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life when uncorrelated and unrestrained.

Covid-19 has given us a glimpse of the threat posed by inadequate social distance and excessive physical intensity occupied by social congestion, but sprawl is not a solution. It is a threat to a Natural Domain that is our source of life. The dilemma is forcing us to face public policy issues of growth, density, intensity, and geographic limits on a planet that is no longer a world without end.