A Transition from Zoning to Urban Design

 

The word “balance” in city planning, urban design, landscape architecture, architectural design, and so on has been a goal without a definition and a criticism without adequate explanation. Zoning law attempted the first definition in an effort to protect the public, health, safety, and welfare. Its original intent was the separation of incompatible activity. It also recognized at the time that shelter intensity, intrusion, and dominance could combine to produce inadequate light, air, and ventilation that also threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. It was relatively easy to list activities permitted in a zone to avoid incompatibility. It has been impossible to consistently avoid excessive shelter intensity, intrusion, dominance and sprawl. The ingredients of intensity have never been comprehensively understood and their interaction has never been mathematically correlated. As a result, the laws produced without correlation have not been able to restrain excessive shelter intensity at one end of the spectrum, sprawl at the other, and annexation of agriculture and the Natural Domain for both.

The problem began with a failure to distinguish between zoning regulations that are independent and those that require mathematical correlation to achieve a common objective. Independent regulations do not depend on each other. As an example, you may not park an RV in your driveway for more than 24 hours and you may not erect a fence in your front yard. These are independent, cumulative requirements. The list goes on and continues to accumulate.

It has been a mistake to consider building height and parking quantity requirements as independent. In fact, it has been a mistake to consider any of the topics identified by a shaded cell in Table 1 as independent for the G1 Building Design Category. They must be mathematically correlated to define the gross building area potential of a given land area and the intensity produced. At the present time, we simply do ot understand what the intensity measurements in Col. G imply because we have not measured existing conditions. The failure to do so has wasted land and accounted for innumerable variance requests, public hearings, and contentious results seeking to reconcile the independent contradictions encountered. The result has often been excessive intensity, sprawl, and unlimited annexation of agriculture and the natural domain.

BACKGROUND

The items identified with a shaded cell in Table 1 are keystone urban design topics. Their values combine to determine the intensity, or “balance”, present or proposed. They do not lend themselves to independent regulation without first determining their mathematical correlation.

This is the first time I have stressed the word “correlation”, but I have discussed the building design categories, forecast models, architectural algorithms, and master equations that make it possible on many occasions. I’ll attempt to briefly summarize for any new readers by borrowing excerpts from previous essays and referring to Table 1.

 BUILDING DESIGN CATEGORIES

I’ve written about the six building design categories in the Shelter Division of the Urban and Rural Phyla of the Built Domain many times, and repeat them here simply as a reminder. They are: (1) G1 buildings with grade parking around, but not under, the building on the same premise; (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.

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

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 shaded value entered in a cell is correlated by an algorithm to produce the values needed by the master equation in cell J47. This equation produces 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. The isolated values chosen will often conflict unless served by the mathematical correlation provided by the algorithm and master equation.

The shaded cells in Table 1 are not intended to replace an entire zoning ordinance. They identify the design specification topics that require correlation to lead G1 shelter capacity toward its intended intensity, activity, and economic development goals. (Keep in mind that the gross building area capacity of land may be occupied by any activity.)

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 have missed many of the controlling topics that must be correlated to provide shelter massing and intensity leadership. Every designer intuitively understands the principle of correlation. It is what he/she does. Unfortunately, the process can be too easily disrupted by independent zoning regulations that do not recognize the correlation required to consistently produce a balanced shelter pattern and composition to support a desired quality of life.

FORECAST PANEL

Gross building area prediction in cells B44-B52 is the first objective in the Forecast Panel of Table 1. They area keystone values that set the stage for all ensuing design decisions; and are the basis for shelter capacity calculation in cells F44-F53. (Shelter capacity equals gross building area divided by the buildable acres calculated from cell G10.) The other predictions in the forecast panel add essential design detail to the forecast.

IMPLICATIONS MODULE

The Implications Module measures the consequences of the values entered in the Design Specification Template of Table 1. The final intensity and dominance columns in the panel measure the results produced by the correlated values entered in the shaded cells of Table 1. These values make measurement, evaluation and knowledge accumulation feasible.

The shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance impact of the gross building area options in cells B44-B53 is calculated with the equations on line 43 of the Implications Module. I am not providing an evaluation of these impact measurements since this is a hypothetical example; but measurement, evaluation, and accumulated knowledge is the leadership promise offered by this system of building classification, design specification, planning prediction, and implication measurement.

CONCLUSION

A zoning ordinance is a collection of laws governing permitted site plan, building height and occupant activity on land within a zoning district of a government jurisdiction. Its original intent was the separation of incompatible project activity that threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. It was also recognized at the time that shelter intensity, intrusion, and dominance could combine to produce inadequate light, air, and ventilation that also threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. It was relatively easy to list the activities permitted in a zone. It has been impossible to avoid excessive shelter intensity, intrusion, dominance and sprawl with our current measures of density and the floor area ratio.

The ingredients of intensity, intrusion, and dominance have never been comprehensively understood and the interaction of these ingredients has never been mathematically correlated. Table 1 was introduced to give you a glimpse of the topics and correlation involved for one building design category. The independent, incomplete zoning laws written without correlation have simply produced contradictions, variance requests, and excessive intensity at one end of the spectrum with sprawl at the other; and annexation of agriculture and the Natural Domain for both. These regulations are not correlated to lead project design decisions toward cumulative project compositions of building mass, parking, pavement, and unpaved open space that combine to produce economic stability and a balanced quality of life within geographic limits.

Architectural Awareness

I began as an architect and city planner believing that architectural appearance could trump the excessive intensity often permitted by local zoning ordinances since I was either: (1) stuck with the land a client owned and asked to make it work; or (2) asked to predict the development capacity of potential land areas that needed to work. I slowly realized that urban design leadership and economic development was not the goal. The comprehensive mathematical correlation required was not understood by the framers of these legal requirements. Zoning was still attempting to separate incompatible land uses and provide adequate light, air, and ventilation with incomplete, independent, and often conflicting design regulations. They were not a leadership guide with clear massing objectives linked to economic development goals with forecasting models that could predict alternatives and the intensity implied with a few keystrokes.

Unfortunately, urban design topics are not isolated but some are independent zoning topics. They all require mathematical correlation, however. This correlation will directly affect the activity and intensity we encourage as well as the financial stability we produce. We cannot lead the Shelter Division of our Built Domain toward any strategic objectives that preclude consumption of agriculture and the Natural Domain until we can predict the correlated implications of our shelter design decisions.

Zoning Laws

Zoning laws are independent and cumulative but not correlated at the present time. It is like a language limited by intransitive verbs. The design specifications and architectural algorithms of development capacity forecasting models are the transitive values needed to create an urban design language that can step from monosyllables to leadership and knowledge. For instance, building height regulations are not coordinated with parking requirements. Each is an ingredient. The conflict often generates time-consuming variance requests. Zoning laws simply do not recognize the mathematical correlation required to provide an adequate leadership foundation. The result has too often been excessive intensity, sprawl, and unlimited annexation of agriculture and the natural domain for more of the same.

Master Plans

A master plan is a two-dimensional plan created to separate incompatible land use activities. Zoning regulations amplify the intent of the plan. This includes three-dimensional requirements intended to provide adequate light, air, and ventilation to the street. The problem has been a lack of mathematical correlation that could lead to the physical, social, psychological, environment, and economic relationships implied by our historic reference to Built Domain “balance”.

Summary

“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 of an urban design language is based. I have also published over 200 essays regarding this topic at my blog www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. It has been visited by over 38,000 readers.

There is a lot of work to be done to reach the only goal that matters. Our habitat must cease to be a threat to ourselves and its source of life – the Natural Domain.”

Walter M. Hosack: September, 2023