The Pattern of a Master Plan

 A plan is a pattern. Building mass emerges from

a plan and produces perceptible physical intensity on the land occupied. Mass is gross building area in square feet for occupant activity. I’ve referred to the square foot quantity of gross building area introduced per acre of buildable land as shelter capacity and intensity that can be measured and predicted. Capacity and intensity combine with activity to produce public revenue per buildable acre. In other words, the majority of municipal revenue produced in most cases is a function of the shelter capacity, intensity, and land use activity allocation options chosen for every acre of buildable land within the shelter division of a master plan.

THE SHELTER DIVISION

A city plan that does not convey the shelter capacity, activity, and intensity correlation required to provide adequate average revenue per buildable acre within its municipal boundaries will manage its budget over time through a rear view mirror as a consequence. At some point in time this guesswork faces one of two options: (1) annexation of undeveloped land and sprawl for new revenue that again becomes inadequate over time -- when land is available. This option leads a city to slowly consume its source of life in pursuit of the correlation it cannot calculate and monitor; or (2) redevelopment of land within a fully developed, encircled city with no annexation potential. This unpopular alternative remains its only method of revising existing shelter capacity, intensity, and activity allocation to increase the revenue needed to reverse decline and improve its quality of life.

It is not difficult to understand that shelter capacity in square feet of gross building area per buildable acre times the revenue potential of occupant activity per square foot will yield revenue potential per acre for a given activity. Unfortunately, land use allocation for activity has not been correlated with the shelter capacity and intensity potential of land to produce revenue per acre ratios equal to a city’s total annual expense per acre. The inevitable result involves public service reduction.

The building category classification, design specification templates, and master equations needed to measure and predict these options now exist, but the information gathering and evaluation procedures needed to support this effort with an increasing foundation of knowledge remains unassembled.

I’m not aware of any city with the correlated information management systems, relational databases, measurement protocols, shelter classifications, forecast models, predictive equations, and assessment program needed to undertake the knowledge accumulation required to support the level of city design suggested, but I am no scholar.

The effort hasn’t been that important because land has been considered a commodity “without end” that can be purchased, granted, or converted with few restrictions prior to the 20^th century. We are slowly beginning to realize that land is actually a source of life that can be consumed. This has made preservation a greater concern, but we have not begun to accurately predict the land use, massing, and intensity correlation needed for economic stability within a limited Built Domain designed to protect our quality and source of life.

This has led me to argue that we must improve our understanding of the shelter capacity of land; the occupant activity ratios required for economic stability; and the intensity options needed to serve growing populations within limited land areas that do not threaten their quality of life; since every acre we consume for shelter to survive is an acre we remove from our source of life.

In other words, the square feet of gross building area per acre and the revenue it produces per square foot of occupant activity determines the contribution of the acre to the total annual cost of city services per acre. To be successful, city design must accurately provide ratios of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity that combine to produce average revenue per buildable acre equal to a city’s average cost per acre to provide a desirable quality of life -- without the physical handicaps associated with excessive intensity, intrusion, physical dominance, and sprawl.

In summary, the building design categories and equations of city design produce shelter capacity / intensity options defined by the values entered in their design specification templates. The gross building area options produced have been generically referred to as building mass options.  The massing ratios of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity adopted for every buildable acre in a city represent its recipe for economic stability. I have mentioned these in my previous essay and will avoid repetition here.

The organization of massing ratios has been variously referred to as urban design, place-making, urban texture, urban composition, landscape architecture, site planning, architecture, and so on. For the most part, these terms have been land owner focused, project-oriented, and concerned with initial construction cost and profit potential. Public revenue has been a remote or nonexistent consideration.

THE MOVEMENT DIVISION

I’ve referred to movement in all its forms as a division of the Rural and Urban phyla of the Built Domain. It serves the Shelter Division. I am not referring to movement systems that connect these domains and cannot help traversing the Natural Domain.

Movement systems have served as a framework for the color identification of land use categories in master plans. I’ll have to admit that I have always wondered about the justification for the land use quantities and intensities proposed for these activities, since inadequate economic contribution over time can often prompt requests for annexation and/or redevelopment as city expenses and populations increase.

A master plan often focuses on its movement pattern. The pattern serves as a guide for the land use allocation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity based on concepts of compatibility, but these are concepts that have often contributed to budget deficiencies and sprawl.

Movement systems have been encouraged to penetrate agriculture and the Natural Domain to serve growing populations. This has had to occur before the land use quantities required for shelter capacity, activity, intensity, economic stability, and quality of life within a limited Built Domain could be accurately predicted. Sprawl has been an inevitable symbol of the lag between civil engineering and city design leadership.

The mathematical foundation for measurement, evaluation, prediction, knowledge accumulation, and leadership of the Shelter Division has had to depend on instinct, intuition, talent, and opinion. The result has been an attempt to respond to market demand without an adequate frame of reference. The result has often been sprawl. Redevelopment has rarely been accepted as a reasonable alternative when agriculture and the Natural Domain are not available for annexation. In this case, decline becomes a greater possibility.

THE OPEN SPACE DIVISION

I’ve referred to public and institutional open space in all its forms as a division of the Rural and Urban Phyla of the Built Domain, and as another essential artery supporting life in this abstract world. Unfortunately, it has often become pockets of relief and an expression of charity. Its role as a vital artery providing life support to the populations of both the Natural and Built Domains at all levels of scale remains to be acknowledged with a scope that can make the difference.

THE LIFE SUPPORT DIVISION

I will continue to refer to this division as an artery. It includes all above and below ground services required to serve the power and utility demands of the other divisions in the Built Domain. I am not referring to the methods of acquisition and production of energy currently under great scrutiny in the Natural Domain. I am only including it as an essential division of the Built Domain that has great significance and deserves adequate correlation within the urban pattern, texture, and composition being considered within a limited Built Domain.

CONCLUSION

Private sector special interest cannot be expected to plan or predict the public interest in adequate revenue and quality of life within limited areas; or the extent of the Natural Domain that must be protected as our source of life. The health, safety and welfare of a population remains an issue, however. The dimensions of concern have simply expanded and the leadership language required must improve in response.