Measuring the Intensity of Place

The spaces surrounding building mass in a project include varying amounts of service pavement, social pavement, and unpaved landscape open space. The spaces combine with building mass to form the physical intensity of the places we traverse. The intensity present produces a spectrum of emotional response that ranges from phobia through ambivalence to inspiration. The levels of stress created have not been correlated with the levels of intensity introduced, however; because the intensity of place has remained a perception without calibration. Density and the floor area ratio are the closest we have come to methods of measurement, but both have failed to completely hold the reins of leadership required. They are symptoms that result from more fundamental decisions. These decisions are the quantity choices that combine to form the intensity of mass and space that we find in our neighborhoods, districts, cities, and regions.

Dimensions have been used to measure building mass and space, but their percentage equivalents have often been overlooked as the project recipe involved. These quantities measure the intensity of place while dimensions are limited to the shape and size of the land available. I’d like to begin explaining myself by introducing Table 1. It itemizes the topics whose quantities are currently correlated by trial and error to produce the shelter capacity and intensity implied by illustrated site plans.

Table 1 applies to all buildings served by a grade parking lot around but not under the structure when gross land area is given. The measurements entered in the gray cells of Column G are those of the project entitled Bradenton Office. They are the traditional square foot measurements of architecture and subtraction is used to define a new area I’ve referred to as “shelter area remaining” in cell G17. It is composed of impervious cover in cell G19 and unpaved open space in cell G20. The amount of impervious cover available in G19 is found by subtracting the amount of unpaved open space in cell G11 from the buildable land area available in cell G10. It also represents the storm sewer runoff capacity required. The corresponding percentages in Column F track the quantity allocations measured in Column G. These percentages represent a project recipe that could be applied to a land area of any size.

The objective of the first seven gray boxes in Column G of the Core Module of Table 1 is to identify all miscellaneous pavements that reduce the impervious cover remaining for parking lot and building footprint area. The sum of these miscellaneous impervious areas is located in cell G30. It is subtracted from the impervious area available in cell G19 to find the impervious area remaining in cell G33. This is the core area that is available for surface parking and building footprint area.

The Bradenton footprint consumed 21,667 square feet of its core area as noted in cell C46. The three floors noted in cell A46 transformed the footprint into 65,000 square feet of gross building area as noted in cell B46. The remaining 109,330 square feet of core area was used for the parking lot measured in cell D46. Two-hundred and sixty parking spaces were provided in this area for an average of 420.5 square feet per space as calculated in cell A35. The parking space quantity provided was equal to a provision of one space for every 250 gross square feet of building area as calculated in cell A36.

Gross building area in this context is a generalized measurement referred to as building mass. Mass is equal to floor plan area times floor quantity when floor plan area is defined by a simplified building perimeter that ignores architectural articulation. The result is an indication of building volume, or mass that encloses all detail and combines with pavement to form impervious cover. It is offset by the unpaved landscape open space quantity provided.

The implications of the massing just measured are calculated by the equations in cells F43–J43 of the Implications Module. The first of these equations explains that the specification values entered in the gray cells of Table 1 combine to produce 12,428 square feet of shelter area per buildable acre. This is referred to as shelter capacity. The second explains that the shelter capacity calculated represents an intensity of 0.752 in cell G46. The third explains that the 3 story height produces an intrusion value of 0.6, and the fourth explains that the sum of intensity and intrusion produces a dominance value of 1.352. This is the point where evaluation can begin based on an objective classification system for the place or places created.

The project I chose for this example is located on a street with low pedestrian and vehicular volumes. If the volumes were greater, the intensity of 0.752 could have been multiplied by a factor greater than 1 for each mode and level of adjacent traffic. In fact, the basic intensity value could be multiplied by a number of related factors such as sound pressure level and air quality to refine the sophistication of the measurement.

I do not intend to offer an evaluation of the measurements presented. My objective is to demonstrate that it is possible to classify the places we create for evaluation, knowledge accumulation, and leadership consistency. Conclusions will always remain in the realm of opinion, but there are few verdicts that do not rest on this foundation. The challenge is to give them greater credibility with the method of knowledge formation employed.

The values entered in the gray boxes of Table 1 were primarily square foot areas. The values calculated in the white cells of Col. G were also square foot areas based on the equations in Col. H. These areas had their percentage equivalents calculated by equations that were not displayed to avoid confusion. These percentages are the keys to much greater planning and urban design potential that I will explain with Table 2.

Table 1 presented the capacity and intensity implications of one set of project measurements related to a given land area and three story building. Table 2 uses the same given land area, but illustrates the options that can be predicted when percentage values replace the square foot measurements entered in the gray cells of Table 1. These percentages are entered in the Table 2 gray cells of Col. F. Their square foot implications are forecast in Col. G by the equations in Col. H.

The master equation entered in cell B39 of Table 2 applies to Building Design Category G1 and has been added to predict gross building area options for the floor quantity options entered in cells A44-A53. The ability to accurately predict gross building area options in cells B44-B53 will become increasingly important as we attempt to coordinate shelter capacity with intensity in geographic areas that are limited to protect our source of life. I will show in Tables 3 and 4 that the gray box specifications in Table 2 can easily be modified to evaluate shelter capacity options for a limited land area based on the intensity and quality of life desired.

The master equation in cell B39 of Table 2 applies to Building Design Category G1 and indicates the pivotal points of shelter capacity discussion when gross land area is given. The core area in this equation is a function of the values entered in the gray cells of Col. F. It is found in cell G33 and will adjust whenever one of its constituent values is modified. The second and third factors in the discussion are parking related and entered in cells A35 and A36. The value in cell A36 is a zoning regulation that varies with the land use activity involved. The value in cell A35 reflects the total parking lot area that will be provided per space. It is discretionary above a minimum standard and indicates the extent of landscaping that will be included with the parking spaces provided within the parking lot perimeter. The fourth factor in the discussion is floor quantity. Options are entered in cells A44-A53 and related gross building area alternatives are calculated in cells B44-B53 by the master equation in cell B39. Related building footprint and parking design implications are predicted in the remaining columns of the Planning Forecast Panel.

The existing Bradenton Office project is classified by the data on line 46 of Table 2, but the table illustrates that an unlimited number of shelter capacity options were available during the planning stage since the calculations will change whenever one or more of the gray cell specifications is modified. Rapid calculation of these options will become increasingly helpful as we attempt to balance the shelter demand of growing populations with the quality of life produced by the increasing intensity required to avoid the sprawling consumption of land. Tables 3 and 4 have been created to illustrate how these options can be created with a few keystrokes.

I haven’t changed the land area under consideration in Table 3 in order to facilitate comparison with Tables 1 and 2, but have adjusted the three remaining points of primary discussion. The amount of unpaved open space planned in cell F11 has been reduced to 25%. The amount of parking lot area per space has been reduced to 400 in cell A35 (This means that little landscape area will be provided within the parking lot perimeter), and the parking requirement in cell A36 has been reduced to one space for every 300 square feet of gross building area. The result is an increase in gross building area potential from 65,000 square feet to 97,435 square feet and an increase in shelter capacity from 12,428 square feet to 18,630 square feet per acre when the same three story floor quantity is considered. Intensity increases from 0.752 to 1.397, however; and dominance increases from 1.044 to 1.997.

I don’t mean to imply that the intensity increase above is desirable. I am simply trying to illustrate the efficiency of land use evaluation that can be produced with a standard classification and measurement system for the Shelter Division of our Built Domain. For instance, Table 4 can be produced with a few keystrokes if the previous intensities are considered too high.

The open space value in cell F11 of Table 2 has been revised to 50% in Table 4. This single change means that intensity has dropped to 0.444 from 0.752, but three-story gross building area potential has also dropped to 46,398 square feet from 65,000 square feet because more unpaved open space is being provided. In fact, Table 4 predicts that the 65,000 square feet of gross building area in Table 2 cannot be reached with a ten-story building when the unpaved open space increases from 39.5% to 50% and all other specification values remain the same.

The Bradenton Office first appeared on pg. 219 of my book Land Development Calculations published in 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, but the measurements were disorganized compared to those in the attached tables. It also contained no shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, or dominance measurements and no master equation. The measurements in this essay document what we know intuitively. This is a suburban office building with more than average unpaved open space allocation and a modest three–story building height. The picture tells you that some attention has been paid to the grading and plant material added along the street frontage, and additional open space remains to the rear along a stream and its floodplain, but it will win no architectural design awards.

It will take thousands of these project measurements and evaluations to build a library of knowledge that can successfully lead real estate development toward shelter for the activities of growing populations on land areas that do not sprawl to threaten our quality and source of life.

There is much to learn about the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance of the places we create, and sprawl reveals our current lack of knowledge and leadership ability. When rigorously classified, there are only six building design categories providing shelter for activity across the planet, and a limited number of master equations that control the capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance they produce. If you would like to learn more, and become one of the knowledge-builders, please see my book, Equations of Urban Design, published in 2020 on Amazon.com.