The decisions beneath the shelter results that symbolize a culture.
Shelter capacity design decisions establish the foundation
for shelter intensity, context, activity, and financial stability in the urban and
rural places we build. These terms are mathematically predictable, and the
results can be evaluated to define the leadership decisions/parameters needed
to protect and preserve our source of life from excessive annexation and
consumption.
Shelter capacity is gross building area in sq. ft. per buildable
project acre. It is a mathematical function of the building design category
chosen and a related set of correlated design specification decisions. Shelter
intrusion is a mathematical function of the floor quantities under
consideration. Shelter intensity is a mathematical function of the shelter capacity
options predicted. The result is a mathematical forecast of shelter capacity alternatives
related to the building design category, comprehensive design specification,
and series of floor quantity options under consideration. I’ve referred to these
predictions as the context implications of massing alternatives. Context evaluation
and decisions set the stage for the design refinement that evolves from this
foundation.
Movement, Open Space, and Life Support are divisions within
the Urban and Rural Phyla of the Built Domain. They serve shelter capacity,
intensity, intrusion, activity, and context within
the Shelter Division of the Built Domain.
The spectrum of shelter capacity choices has never had a
quantitative measurement and evaluation system. This has led to random
decisions and results that we have often referred to as “sprawl” and “excessive
intensity”. We are expected to build shelter that can protect the activities
and quality of life of growing populations from these results within geographic
limits that can protect their source of life from excessive consumption and
pollution.
Context measurement, evaluation, prediction, and regulation can
lead us away from our self-defeating belief in unlimited growth and consumption.
For example, gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion implications
are affected by the values entered in cells F11 and F23 of Table 1. An increase
in these values would reduce the intensity and context values calculated in the
Implications Module. This reduces the shelter capacity of the land and alters the
context implications calculated. I do not mean
to imply, however, that is a consistently desirable result. I simply wish to
point out that a change to any one or more of the values entered in the 26
shaded cells of Table 1 would change the implications calculated. Since the
factorial of 26 is 4.03291E+26, this is the number of options that must be
reconciled within acceptable parameters to produce the foundation needed for
all shelter design decisions that follow. Shelter results symbolize the scope
of evaluation undertaken. At the present time we do not understand context measurements
any more than we understood the first blood pressure measurements. In my
opinion, however, both extremes are life-threatening if left untreated.
Context measurement, evaluation, and direction can address the
heart of our problem. How do we provide shelter capacity for the activities of
growing populations, within sustainable geographic limits, without exceeding
reasonable intensity, intrusion, and context parameters that we have yet to
measure and define? This is the challenge that faces urban design at the
tactical project level and city design at the strategic level. It will need a
leadership language based on data science, geographic information systems, and
architectural algorithms to define a path to the physical results that have
always symbolized the success and survival of a culture.
Walter M. Hosack: December 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment