I was recently asked the question in this title and thought I’d publish my answer.
INTRODUCTION
Urban design begins with mathematical relationships between
the geometry of building mass and the two-dimensional quantities of building
footprint, pavement, parking, and unpaved open space. They are combined and
arranged to form a building site plan. Elevations are needed to define the
building mass implied by the building footprint in the site plan. A collection
of these plans defines the shelter anatomy of neighborhoods, districts, cities,
and regions served by arteries of movement, open space, and life support.
(Arteries of public open space are more of a dream than reality but their
absence compromises the health of the anatomy in my opinion.)
It’s time to learn about the mathematical correlation
required to understand and lead the shelter compositions we create within a
randomly growing urban anatomy. We cannot lead without a more precise,
comprehensive, and correlated mathematical language capable of the measurement,
evaluation, debate, prediction, and planning required to guide our habitat
toward a symbiotic relationship with its source of life.
There are only six building design categories when
classification is based on the parking system planned or present. This
classification makes shelter capacity measurement, evaluation, planning, and
forecasting mathematically predictable. (Shelter capacity is gross building in
sq. ft. divided by the buildable acres of the property.) I have mentioned these
categories in many essays and request patience from those familiar with the
topics as I repeat them here. They are: Buildings with surface parking lots
around, but not under, the building on the same property (G1); Buildings with
surface parking around and under the building on the same property (G2);
Buildings with an adjacent parking garage on the same property (S1); Buildings
with underground parking on the same property with or without supplemental
surface parking (S2); Buildings with structure parking under the building on
the same property with or without supplemental surface parking (S3); and
Buildings with no parking required (NP).
Buildings are classified by design category in the attached
Table of Contents. I’ve included the table to illustrate the range of forecast
models currently available to measure, evaluate, predict, plan, and lead the
formation of shelter within geographic limits defined to protect their source
of life.
The master equations noted in the attached Table of Contents
have been derived under separate cover for future evaluation. The forecast
models shown greatly improve the models I included on a CD in my first book, Land
Development Calculations, 2001 published by McGraw-Hill. I have had
requests for the first edition CD from some who can no longer find it with a
used book. As far as I know, the second edition still contains a more
complicated CD and is available from both McGraw-Hill and Amazon.com.
I cannot provide copies of the first edition CD on request because:
(1) It was prepared using an older version of Excel and I’m not sure it will
still run. (I haven’t used it for years); and (2) The CD was often copied. As a
result of this experience, I will only provide the new algorithm-based forecast
models to an investor willing to place these inter-active models on a
subscription based web site.
The gross building area options predicted per buildable acre
by these models is based on optional design specification value entries. The
results are a keystone consideration, since they define the shelter capacity,
intensity, and revenue/income potential per acre. The type of activity planned
or present within gross building area determines the economic potential of the shelter
capacity options and intensities predicted per buildable acre. This potential
revenue per acre can be compared to a city’s total annual expense per acre when
its annual budget is divided by the taxable, buildable acres within its limits.
The relationship between a buildable acre and the gross
building area present, planned, or predicted determines the shelter capacity of
the acre. Occupant activity determines its revenue potential, and gross
building area may be occupied by any permitted activity. A land use plan solely
focused on compatible activity relationships leaves its economic future to
chance since gross building area results are left to chance.
Economic development does not need to be a reaction to
budget deficits. It can be part of a forward-thinking master planning effort when
its decisions are mathematically driven. In other words, shelter capacity and
activity must be mathematically correlated before economic potential can be
more than hope that has never been a substitute for strategy.
It all begins with the choice of a building design category
for a given land area and the optional values assigned to the design specification
topics within its forecast model. Embedded algorithms correlate these values
with the floor quantity options entered to produce a table of gross building
area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications. The
activities that can be accommodated by these gross building area options have
economic options and implications. It is in both the public and private sectors
interest to correlate these shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options
to produce economic results capable of consistently supporting a desirable
quality of life within geographic limits that protect their source of life.
The gross building area capacity of a buildable acre is a
function of the building design category chosen and a limited number of design
specification topics and value options. This specification palette, however,
produces a relatively infinite number of desirable and undesirable shelter
capacity and intensity possibilities. Correlating these options to produce
physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic security without
threat to our source of life is the challenge we face on a planet that does not
compromise with ignorance.
THE ANSWER
The transition from zoning to urban design will begin with
the recognition that zoning has a mathematical foundation that must be
distilled and correlated to become a successful leadership language. It has
been a step in the right direction but urban design specifications are not like
social regulations. They require mathematical correlation. I have often found
that the currently absolute and incomplete zoning design regulations have
simply led to contradiction and confusion. This appears to have contributed to
the sprawl and excessive intensity we find in many of our cities.
Think of urban design as a mathematically correlated policy
statement for each cell in an urban anatomy that cannot continue to randomly
metastasize without consequence. This growth has been referred to as urban
form, urban pattern, and urban composition, but these terms give the mistaken
impression of organization. The only appropriate and accurate term has been
“sprawl” enabled with legal annexation as an expedient solution for the growth
we encourage with an inadequate understanding of the consequences.
Mathematical urban design decisions have physical, social,
and economic implications that remain to be discovered through measurement,
evaluation, and debate. The policy decisions adopted will be symbolized by the
form, function, and appearance built on this foundation.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment