The microscopic presence causing sprawl across the face of
the planet is an individual who needs shelter to survive. We understand
increasing demand and limited supply but have left its resolution to a
marketplace that does not understand the consequences of excessive consumption
any better than a parasite recognizes that it must moderate consumption to
become symbiotic. Neither understands the planet’s Law of Limits.
I have chosen shelter sprawl as a symbol for unrestricted growth
since most of us are instinctively aware that excessive land consumption for
shelter is a threat to our source of life, but ignore the fact that it is a
function of population growth. This has led me to believe that we must learn to
predict the shelter capacity of limited land areas before we can learn to
protect growing populations from excessive intensity while respecting and
preserving the planet’s Natural Domain.
For the purposes of this discussion, shelter is gross
building area (GBA). It continues to be provided with approximations, random
decisions and arbitrary rules of thumb that encourage the sprawl we pursue with
abandon, annexation, and debate. The equations required to more accurately
predict the capacity of land to provide shelter without excessive intensity within
limited geographic areas has been the subject of my work.
Gross building area can be used to shelter any population activity.
The gross building area per buildable acre provided is the shelter capacity utilized
on the land area involved. The shelter capacity introduced determines the
physical intensity; population capacity; psychological impact; economic
potential; and environmental implications of the project planned or present.
Proceeding without an accurate ability to calculate the implications of current
and proposed shelter capacity decisions will simply continue attempts to treat sprawl
without the knowledge and awareness needed for diagnosis and treatment.
When gross building area is occupied by human activity it
produces revenue per sq. ft. and a plethora of demands that must be financed by
the average revenue per acre produced. In many cases the project produces less
than a city’s average cost per acre to provide the essential services needed. Resolving
the imbalance by averaging this cost over its entire income stream becomes one
of a city’s recurring challenges. At this point the definition of “essential”
becomes a hot topic. The cause of the shortfall, if it is ever understood,
becomes lost in the debate over budget cuts to essential services and potential
annexation.
The problem begins because a city does not plan for
quantities of gross building area per acre nor correlate these quantities with the
occupant activity needed to produce revenue per acre equal to the quality of
life desired within its corporate limits. In other words, a city depends on the
revenue it receives from its inventory of land area, gross building area, and
occupant activity. The average annual
revenue received per buildable acre must equal or exceed its annual expense per
acre. I’ve emphasized the word “average” because all revenue from shelter
capacity and activity allocation is not equal. A government’s responsibility is
to manage the average, and it cannot do this with the isolated tools,
regulations, and information it has available.
The most obvious gap has been a city’s inability to
accurately predict the combination of gross building area and occupant activity
that can produce the average revenue per acre it needs to meet the expense per
acre required to protect and improve its quality of life within its corporate
limits. It will continue to randomly consume land with annexation in search of
this elusive “balance” until it improves its forecasting ability.
The prediction of gross building area capacity and intensity
options per buildable acre defines the scope of activity that can be
accommodated and the population that can be sheltered per acre. The combination
of shelter capacity, intensity, quality, location, and activity determines the
revenue that can be expected from the acres allocated, and allocation of
shelter capacity, intensity, and activity throughout a city plan determines its
economic stability. This explanation should bring the meaning of “balance” into
sharper focus since it requires more than the correlation of land use
compatibility and appearance. Residential housing deserves special mention in
this context. It is an activity subset of the shelter category and its preferred
low density allocations can produce revenue deficits per buildable acre -- when
compared to a city’s average expense per acre.
In all land use activity subsets, the shelter capacity of
land must be limited by the intensity levels we can accept within land areas that
are limited to protect our source of life and its many dependent species. This
may come into better focus when we begin to measure and understand the shelter
intensity levels that will not condemn our quality of life to the misery we see
in many parts of the world. It means, however, that population growth is not an
unlimited privilege. It requires shelter to survive, and shelter capacity has
limits defined by acceptable intensity levels; but we have not been able to
calculate these limits in consistently effective leadership terms. This is why
I have focused on the derivation of equations and forecast models that can be
used to measure and predict the shelter capacity and intensity options
associated with any given land area. I will continue to ignore the political
and religious implications of these shelter capacity and intensity predictions.
They have discouraged me from writing this earlier.
Options imply decisions that require knowledge. The mathematical
format of shelter capacity forecast models gives you the ability to build this knowledge
with observation, measurement, and evaluation of existing conditions – if you
choose to meet the challenge of limits we are expected to anticipate on a
planet in a universe that does not compromise with the formula it has been
given.
I have discussed the mechanics of shelter capacity
forecasting in my blog and in the book I mention at the end of this discussion.
I have also posted the more recent essays to Linked-In. I am repeating portions
of the last two in an attempt to amplify the message above in as brief a form
as I can manage.
EXCERPTS FROM
“CONFRONTING SPRAWL with an ADEQUATE LANGUAGE” (with modifications)
“It may be a surprise
to learn that there are only six shelter options available when classification
is based on the parking solution employed rather than the style applied, and
this makes shelter capacity prediction for limited land areas feasible. It also
helps to recognize that: (1) shelter is simply gross building area that may be
occupied by any activity when it conforms to local building code requirements;
(2) shelter quantity for any and all activity is a function of the gross
building area that is placed on a given land area; (3) gross building area per
acre is shelter capacity; (4) shelter capacity can be increased with floor
quantity options that are one of a number of initial design decisions that must
be correlated; (5) shelter capacity options represent levels of measurable
intensity; (6) current intensity levels are accidentally created with design
stipulations that remain incomplete and uncorrelated; (7) intensity management
with comprehensive, correlated design value decisions is needed to shelter
growing populations within geographic limits prescribed to protect their
quality and source of life; (8) intensity management topics apply to all
buildings; and (9) the social activity within a building does not determine the
physical intensity introduced but it may magnify the impact.
Building
classification by style has distracted us from these fundamental observations
for centuries. I’ve written about these six building design categories many
times, and repeat them here simply as a reminder. They are: (1) G1 buildings
with grade parking around, but not under, the building;(2) G2 buildings with
grade parking around and under the building; (3) S1 buildings with adjacent
parking structure on the same premise; (4) S2 buildings served by underground
parking structures; (5) S3 buildings with parking structures above grade under
the building; (6) NP buildings with no parking required. I have also included a
set of shelter capacity and property demand forecast models for independent
parking garages (PG) in a book I will mention at the end of this essay even
though I don’t consider them buildings for human habitation unless dictated by
an emergency.
My emphasis on parking
rather than building style and appearance stems from my effort to accurately
forecast the gross building area capacity of an acre of land when floor
quantity options are correlated with the other pivotal design decisions
involved. These are the options for growing populations that we are expected to
balance within limited geographic areas to share the planet with all that
depend on it for survival. It is a deceptively simple proposition. It is
complicated by the number of opinions, variables and decisions that must be
correlated. Our mistake has been to overlook some of these decision topics and
consider the remainder independently.
Shelter capacity
forecasting depends on the simple subtraction of design specification values.
They are entered in the shaded cells of a forecast model related to a chosen
building design category and given land area. This subtraction proceeds from
the given land area given to the core area remaining for building and parking
area. Subtraction is performed by an embedded algorithm that correlates all
values entered to arrive at the core area remaining. A master equation related
to the building design category calculates a range of gross building area
options for the land area, topic values entered, and range of floor quantity
options introduced. A change to one or more of these values changes the gross
building area predictions calculated by the forecast model. These are the
shelter capacity options available for the land area based on the design
specification values entered. The intensity represented by each prediction is
calculated with a separate equation in the model.
The forecast model
format and its mathematical foundation introduce a comprehensive, correlated
leadership language that can also be used to accurately measure existing
physical conditions. The evaluation measured and recorded can then be used to
lead future design specification decisions with improved knowledge. We cannot
do this without a language that has the potential to lead with fundamental,
comprehensive shelter design specifications. It is now possible to predict the
options available and evaluate the consequences implied with the organized
measurement, evaluation, and documentation needed to build knowledge long
before appearance becomes an issue.
TABLE 1
I have included Table
1 in many essays and am repeating it here as an example of a complete,
correlated set of design specification topics and values for the G1 Building
Design Category.
There are 26 shaded
cells in Table 1 for the G1.L1 forecast model. Each value entered in a shaded cell
is correlated by an algorithm, and a master equation in cell J47, to produce
the gross building area options in cells B44-B53. I mention this to make the
point that regulating each shaded value independently is a hopeless exercise
without the leadership potential needed to produce total average revenue per
acre equal to or exceeding a city’s average expense per acre within its
geographic limits without budget reductions.
The shaded cells in
Table 1 are not intended to replace an entire zoning ordinance. They are
intended to replace independent design specification topics with the
correlation needed to lead shelter capacity toward its intended intensity and
occupancy goals. (See “The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance”)
Gross building area
prediction is the first objective in Table 1. The other predictions in the
Forecast Panel add initial detail needed by a designer. The Implications Panel
measures the consequences of the values entered in the Design Specification
Template. The final intensity and dominance columns of the Implications Panel
measure the results produced by the shaded cell values entered and their gross
building area predictions, to make evaluation and knowledge accumulation
feasible.
It should be obvious
that language and knowledge accumulation is limited by the vocabulary
available. Shelter intensity has been a term without adequate definition ever
since its presence was recognized with instinct, intuition, awareness, and
observation. Density and the Floor Area Ratio have been easy to measure but they
report results from design decisions and do not lead them. This lack of
correlation has prevented us from providing the shelter massing and intensity
leadership required to improve the physical pattern that shapes our quality of
life. Current zoning stipulations have simply led to variance appeals and
sprawling annexation in search of elusive physical, social, and economic
balance.”
EXCERPTS FROM “LAND
USE and DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY CORRELATION” (with modifications)
“The public revenue implications
of the gross building area forecast in Table 1 are easiest to explain by
looking at the options predicted in cells B44-B53. If $10 of revenue were
expected per sq. ft. of gross building area, the total annual revenue would
range from $48,843 to $73,511 depending on the floor quantity chosen. Since the
buildable land area noted in cell F10 is 100% of the gross land area given in
cell F3, the total revenue projections would be divided by 5.230 acres to find
the revenue potential per acre provided by the city’s inventory. This would
range from $9,339 to $14,055 per acre. A simple comparison with the city’s
annual expense per acre would indicate the contribution or subsidy implications
of the land and building options contemplated.
The results that
evolve from fundamental design specification decisions have been overlooked for
centuries. The Implications Module in Table 1 illustrates one method of
measuring the impact of these decisions. When these measurements are combined
with the financial evaluation mentioned in the paragraph above, it will become
easier for a city to evaluate the combined impact of its shelter design
decisions. A city that understands these implications for every parcel within
its jurisdiction is a city that is prepared to evaluate the land use and urban
design decisions that will affect its future.
If a city does not
understand the economic implications of land use and shelter capacity
allocation, it will continue pursuing random economic development projects
without the comprehensive strategy needed to lead its physical decisions to
foreseeable financial improvement in a revenue and expense equation that
determines its quality of life and the demands it places on its limited source
of life.
CONCLUSION
I hope I have shown
that it is entirely possible to mathematically correlate land consumption with gross
building area capacity, activity, economic potential, and quality of life
within limited geographic areas when the leadership topics for each building
design category classification are comprehensively defined and correlated with
the algorithms, value decisions, and master equations required. The goal is to constructively
define a limited Built Domain without excessive and continuing reliance on
annexation. I think we all understand at some level of comprehension that
limits are required. It remains to define them with a language that can lead us
to consistently positive results.
I have contributed the
conceptual framework and technical information needed to continue this
discussion in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It is available on
Amazon.com but the title may have been an unfortunate choice since the book is
not consumed with equations. They are simply the foundation on which the
conceptual, predictive, measurement, and evaluation format is based. I have
also published over 190 essays regarding this topic at my blog www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and posted the more recent on Linked-In.
The blog has been visited by over 32,000 readers.
There is a lot of work
to be done to reach the only goal that matters. Symbiotic survival is not an
option. It is a mandate that will not be met until our habitat ceases to be a
threat to ourselves and its source of life – the Natural Domain.
Escape to Mars will
simply prolong our mistaken assumptions regarding land ownership prerogatives,
shelter capacity, and population growth.”
No comments:
Post a Comment