ZONING POTENTIAL for URBAN DESIGN LEADERSHIP

 A Note to Michael Ytterburg, Architect

You have touched on a potential urban design leadership language, but it is in the hands of those who do not understand the comprehensive mathematical correlation required to avoid contradictory physical design direction. Without adequate leadership, project design decisions and direction can arbitrarily consume the land while producing either random sprawl or excessive intensity. This is particularly true when annexation opportunities are available. When they aren’t, excessive intensity on limited land area becomes a very real possibility.

Land-locked cities have not had annexation alternatives. This has often forced them to struggle with decline, limited economic development, eminent domain, and excessive physical intensity in an effort to meet their current expenses and debt obligations. It has been very difficult to define the scope of economic development required to comprehensively correct a deficit; but shelter capacity evaluation as part of a digital master planning effort beginning at the parcel level of our presence can be translated into an economic development strategy embedded in a zoning ordinance for any city.

Zoning is a concept without an adequate mathematical language, tools, and information; but it has the potential to lead us toward a desirable quality of life within limited geographic areas defined to protect our source of life. It will not evolve, however, without a complete overhaul by those familiar with the physical design vocabulary and correlated mathematics needed to consistently lead others toward desirable shelter capacity decisions based on measurable research and evaluation.

Zoning was a hard fought legal battle to define two types of freedom - individual freedom to pursue initiative and collective freedom to oppose individual oppression. It began as an attempt to reduce the suffering of vulnerable populations crowded into shelter symbolized by excessive physical intensity, pollution, disease, and decay. It was eventually recognized that this threatened everyone’s health, safety, and welfare. We are now beginning to recognize that the ambiguous term “welfare” includes our physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic quality of life at the very least - while we continue to argue over the line separating individual from collective freedom.

BUILDINGS

A building can shelter any activity. The combination has been called a “land use”. Building mass combines with floor quantity, parking quantity, pavement, and unpaved open space to produce project shelter capacity and physical intensity to shelter activity within a mathematical spectrum of options that has sprawl at one end of the scale and excessive intensity at the other. The terms “land use” and “density” may have confused the fact that physical design is used to shelter social and economic activity. It symbolizes the leadership decisions taken with its silent presence, but they remain undocumented and uncorrelated by an adequate mathematical leadership language. The result has been random sprawl as a reaction to the excessive intensity of the past and more excessive intensity and sprawl pursuing the goal of profit at any price by exploiting the weaknesses of uncorrelated zoning ordinance leadership.

The concept of citizen participation may have assumed that sprawl and excessive intensity are defined and regulated by the dimensional stipulations scattered throughout a zoning ordinance. In addition, the assumption may have been that annexation could solve all inadequate zoning definitions of city planning intent by consuming additional land area, but we are becoming aware that our inability to accurately predict the shelter capacity of land for growing populations is consuming land that is our source of life. I believe that most recognize, at least intuitively at this time, that land is not a consumable commodity and unlimited resource.

Populations produce density. Buildings produce shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance based on the design specification values chosen to define a project strategy. Density has confused the physical design issue. It is only related to residential activity. A residential building may be designed to shelter many optional densities depending on the average dwelling unit area planned and the related design specification values under consideration. From a physical design perspective, project building mass, height, parking, pavement, and unpaved open space combine to determine one shelter capacity implication expressed as gross building area per buildable acre. This measures the impact of strategic shelter design decisions in a project and their impact on the surrounding area. The physical relationships become obvious when occupant activity is recognized as a separate topic limited by the shelter capacity available.

Projects combine to form urban design areas, districts, cities, regions, and conurbations. We are not even close to correlating the design specification decisions involved based on measurement and evaluation that can produce strategic shelter design knowledge and consistent leadership decisions. The design specification topics involved have not even been comprehensively listed unless you have read about shelter capacity evaluation. The shelter goal is to lead these strategic decisions toward urban design results that can shelter the activities of growing populations within geographic limits that protect their quality and source of life – the Natural Domain.

Shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance are mathematical implications produced by mathematically correlated design decisions entered in a shelter capacity template. The implications measured or predicted are the foundation for all ensuing levels of design decision associated with site planning, architectural form, function, and appearance. The values entered in a template represent a strategy that is refined with more detailed design decisions, tactics, and tasks that combine to define the construction needed to produce a final product. The product symbolizes the knowledge of a culture and expresses it in a silent message to the future.

ZONING

The zoning code is a planning document with an inadequate design leadership language. A building code is a document that leads the tactical construction decisions required to reach the design strategy and objectives established. It is not a strategic document from a planning perspective. I originally struggled with this issue because I found the zoning ordinances I read a hopeless tangle of procedure and activity regulations with contradictory physical design specifications scattered throughout. I wished for an ordinance that would separate its design standards for ease of reference and leadership direction, and eventually realized that the text could be separated into the following sections:

1)      Management

a.      Purpose

b.      Operations

2)      Definitions

3)      Land Use

a.      Area regulations

b.      Activity regulations

c.      Existing conditions

d.      Nuisance regulations

4)      Design

a.      Context regulations

b.      Object regulations

5)      Enforcement

I wrote “The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance” in 2010 for my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com to suggest the steps required to reorganize and adopt this rearrangement. My intent was to improve the transfer of information among those the ordinance was attempting to lead. A more detailed explanation was included in Chapter 20 of my book, “Land Development Calculations”, 2010. I did not attempt to reconcile the contradictions I found among zoning ordinance design specifications, however. My focus was on content reorganization. For instance, most experienced designers are familiar with the contradictions among permitted density, building height, and parking regulations in most, if not all, zoning ordinances. They often require reconciliation with contested variance requests fought over the concept of consistent legal application, but the consistent application of a contradiction has made everyone ignore the mathematical problem. I knew the problem could be solved with equation derivation, algorithms, and forecast templates created to correlate the specifications involved and reduce measurement, prediction, and implication evaluation to a simple entry of design value decisions. The template decision topics and values could then be used to predict options and measure existing conditions to define their capacity and intensity implications for comparison and evaluation. I’ve called the effort Shelter Capacity Evaluation. It is intended to introduce consistent measurement, evaluation, correlation, prediction, and communication to all leadership efforts concerned with shelter capacity and urban design for social and economic activity on limited land areas.

The intent is to improve the knowledge and leadership provided based on information that only research can provide and mathematics can document with the credibility required to balance the debate between individual and collective freedom that will determine our response to the universal Law of Limits we face.

I have written about shelter capacity evaluation templates on many occasions and mention them again because they collectively represent a language that can be introduced to the design section of zoning ordinance reorganization. Keep in mind that a zoning ordinance is not simply about compatibility among neighboring activities. It attempts to lead the strategic decisions of shelter design that determine a shelter project’s place within the physical sprawl/excessive intensity spectrum. At the present time it does this with an incomplete understanding of the scope, building design category, and design topic relationships that must be correlated before leadership decisions can make a difference.

Our goal is survival. Our strategy will involve food, water, fire, air, shelter, land, and population objectives that prompt skepticism and argument at least and aggression at worst. The last three can be quantitatively addressed with shelter capacity evaluation. Two are new to the list. The first four involve environmental preservation. The campaign will require new awareness, trait modification, and commitment to the search for knowledge and wisdom in a world of emotion that accompanies the gift we have been given.

POSTSCRIPT

Think of a city’s Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions as arteries serving a Shelter Division within a Built Domain that must serve increasing shelter capacity demand from growing populations. Unfortunately, we have been too short-sighted to see open space as a necessary artery in the Built Domain or as the growth medium of our Natural Domain. We have also avoided seeing unpaved open space quantities as critical ingredients within every project site plan in the Built Domain. It has always been an avoidable expense or an expedient form of currency taken from a planet that is not a helpless victim.

Walter M. Hosack: December, 2023

THE ANNEXATION THREAT

My concern is that annexation will continue, even if populations remain stable or decline, because it is a legal expedient that empowers new shelter construction and profit potential without the many complications associated with redevelopment. The problem is compounded because shelter is one product of a multi-faceted development industry that prefers consumption of agricultural land in the Built Domain and virgin land in the Natural Domain as its platform for construction. It is simply easier than redevelopment and often more profitable. 

Profit has been the motive and consumption has been the behavior required to reach the objective since we first began trading for more than survival. The problem that we all wish would disappear is that unlimited consumption of limited resources makes no sense, but may not affect those who happen to be first in line. 

So what is the shelter capacity of a Built Domain limited in geographic area that has the goal of protecting our quality AND source of life? It is a question that confronts everything we have learned regarding the economic principle of supply and demand. It implies limits that apply to all other species, but we continue to ignore the lesson that has surrounded us since the beginning of time. We all know there is a natural law of limits. We just hope it will be a problem that future generations will solve. Our financial advisors have already informed us, however, that hope is not a strategy. 

We have been struggling with the air and water pollution produced by human activity for quite some time. Climate change is a somewhat more recent concern that currently generates fierce debate over its cause and the role of human activity. I have been concerned with another threat that is produced by the unlimited conversion of agriculture and the Natural Domain for human activity. It concerns the pavement, open space, and life support systems we construct to serve the shelter we build to protect the activities we depend on for survival. We have called the progression of this physical pattern sprawl; and have recognized its unhealthy characteristics, but have had no ability to define and defend an alternative in mathematical terms equal to the economic arguments that perpetuate an annexation pattern of shelter for activity that has the potential to become a plastic bag over the face of the planet. 

In other words, human  activities require shelter to survive. Adjusting activity to eliminate pollution and stabilize the climate will continue to ignore the advance of sprawl. Unfortunately, it is produced by unrestrained social and economic interests that pursue profit based on consumption in the only way they understand. 

I have written this in response to a specific question I received and will not attempt to go into further detail that has been covered in my essays and books. I’ll simply close with something I’ve previously written to address the question I posed at the beginning of this essay. 

“…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 on 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 the habitat we build ceases to be a threat to ourselves and our source of life – the Natural Domain.” 

Walter M. Hosack: February, 2023

Zoning Plan Review

 

The Policies That Attempt to Lead the Cities We Build

Comprehensive Zoning Plan, Skopje, N. Macedonia, from Wikipedia

Zoning plan review precedes building permit review. It determines compliance with the activity proposed for the zone involved, the site plan detail submitted, and the building height requested before the technical characteristics of construction are examined;
but it follows no prescribed pattern because zoning regulations are not only independent but often scattered throughout the chapters of its ordinance. The sum of these independent requirements and locations inevitably defeats the correlation needed to achieve consistent leadership objectives on limited land areas. Design results depend on a long series of interrelated decisions that abhor leadership contradictions. For instance, permitting mid-rise building heights with surfaced parking requirements only builds exaggerated expectations, frustration, and elimination of unpaved open space.

The shaded cells in Table 1 indicate the pivotal zoning topics that require correlation for the G1 Building Design Category. This category includes all buildings with surface parking around but not under the building on the same premise. If you have read my previous essays you have read about the other building design categories and related forecast models that classify the scope of shelter options available.

It is also possible to use the format of these models as a zoning plan review standard that correlates these pivotal topics to establish leadership parameters for all ensuing site planning and building design decisions. The shaded cells in Table 1 identify these topics for the G1 building design category. It may be occupied by any activity acceptable to the zoning district involved and depends on the given gross land area in cell G3.  

Table 1 could be used as an application form for completion by an applicant and consideration by a zoning plan review specialist, or as a worksheet for completion by the specialist. A single square foot entry is expected in each shaded cell of Table 1, except for the range of floor quantity options that can be entered in cells A44-A53 for comparison and evaluation.

The embedded math in Table 1 correlates the values entered in its shaded cells to produce Table 2. The maximum gross building area alternatives forecast in cells B44-B53 reflect the options associated with the values entered. The values entered are simply examples for this discussion. If the maximum floor quantity permitted in the zone is 3, the maximum gross building area permitted would be the 22,226 sq. ft. as shown in cell B46. A larger gross building area would require a modification to one or more of the design specification values entered in the shaded cells of the Land and Core Modules of the predictive model or a request for variance approval.

The area values entered in cells G3-G6, G8, G13, and G14 of the Table 2 Land Module will vary with the site plan submitted. The correct information, however, is critical to the success of any project because it is used to identify the buildable land area remaining and the unbuildable land area that must be protected.

For the purposes of this example, the area entered in G11 must produce a percentage in cell F11 greater than or equal to 40% unpaved open space. This means that the capacity of the storm sewer present or planned must be equal to the runoff discharge from no more than 60% project impervious cover unless storm water retention or detention systems are installed. (In single family residential areas the impervious cover design standard for a storm sewer is often 30%. This means that 70% unpaved open space is expected. When this is consistently exceeded for whatever reason, flooding becomes an increasing risk in areas where there is a mismatch between the sewer capacity constructed and the total impervious cover permitted.) It is imperative, therefore, that a city records and maps the runoff capacity for every storm sewer in its jurisdiction, since the remainder determines the baseline unpaved open space percentage required -- in the absence of more sophisticated storm water retention and detention design. This, however, puts the entire burden of unpaved open space provision on the storm sewer capacity percentage, and it may not be adequate to relieve the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance proposed, since this is not its purpose.

All shaded cell values in cells G23-G28 are discretionary, except for the loading area requirements in cells G27 and G28. The value in G27 is generally specified in a zoning ordinance but the value in G28 can be discretionary.

The value in cell A36 is a city parking requirement assumed for this example. Parking requirements often become a source of disagreement because they have a great impact on the gross building area that can be constructed, particularly when the G1 and G2 Building Design Categories are involved.

The value in cell A35 is generally a discretionary value for the parking lot area provided per parking space. It is equal to the entire parking space, aisle, and circulation area divided by the number of parking spaces provided, but does not include access roads/drives with no adjacent parking spaces. A value less than 400 can indicate an increasingly unworkable parking lot design. It can occur when a designer seeks to maximize the number of parking spaces provided to justify a larger gross building area at the expense of maneuverability and unpaved open space. A value greater than 400 can indicate increasing landscape attention within the parking lot perimeter or more space wasted by the difficult geometry of the land area. The value calculated is significant because every surface parking space increases the gross building area that can be constructed; but expanding the parking lot within a limited core area reduces the remaining building footprint area. It is a balancing act in design that often sacrifices unpaved open space when it is not a specific requirement.

The floor quantity options in cell A44-A53 are generally limited by city regulations for a given zoning district. The options listed represent discretionary decisions up to and beyond that limit. Those beyond would involve a variance request. In this example I have chosen a three story limit. A city regulation, however, rarely discourages requests for variances when a builder/owner/developer seeks to improve the financial yield from a property. This is when shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance become issues that have previously been terms without mathematical definition.

Some of the most common site plan variance requests concern the parking requirement in cell A36 and the floor quantity limit just mentioned in cell A45. These two requirements significantly influence the gross building area that can be constructed on any G1 and G2 core land area. As a result, their limits often come under intense scrutiny.

I have not mentioned the unpaved open space percentage requirement in cell F11 as a frequent variance request because it is often overlooked as a requirement, even though it is a city’s first line of defense against flooding.  Zoning setback areas are often assumed to be yards that perform this function, but most zoning ordinances permit portions of these areas to be paved. I personally don’t believe that they were ever intended to protect a city’s storm water relief capacity. They establish building separation standards. If unpaved open space were commonly stipulated, I have no doubt that it would become a common variance request. The justification for the minimum requirement would begin by being based on storm sewer capacity; but the amount may not provide relief from the building capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance proposed since this is not its primary purpose. In a combined context, unpaved open space may become more defensible as it struggles to adequately reduce the physical intensity of building mass and pavement we live around and within.

The Implication Module in the Table 2 forecast model measures the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications of the values entered in the shaded cells of the model’s Land and Core Modules. At this time these Implication Module calculations are like the first blood pressure measurements. Leadership knowledge will accrue as measurements accumulate, evaluation begins, and conclusions are reached. At this point a diagnostic language will emerge with the leadership ability to prescribe minimum results that define the shelter capacity of land within limited geographic areas and more justifiable limits.

Shelter capacity is gross building area per buildable acre. A city that does not have an urban design plan for shelter capacity nor correlate the gross building area quantities requested with the occupant activity needed to produce average revenue per acre equal to or greater than its cost per acre will continue to struggle with its budget. In other words, a city depends on the revenue it receives from its inventory of shelter capacity, intensity, quality, location, and occupant activity on the acres within its boundaries. The average revenue it receives per buildable acre must equal or exceed its annual expense per acre to deliver the quality of life it desires. An urban design plan is expected to define the combination of shelter capacity, intensity, quality, location, and activity that will deliver the revenue needed from the acres available. Zoning plan review is expected to ensure that the land use compatibility envisioned by its master plan and the economic security envisioned by its urban design plan is enabled by the project plan under zoning review.

If an applicant is disappointed with the gross building area limit calculated for his/her application, the spreadsheet format of Table 2 permits him/her to explore the implications of discretionary value modifications and variance requests with the plan review specialist. This is possible because a change to one or more values entered in Table 2 will change the forecast and implications predicted. At this point, both can productively discuss these options. Confrontation can be converted to cooperation using the forecast model, but it may not eliminate variance requests from stipulated requirements when discretionary changes do not satisfy the applicant.  These requests will have less chance of approval, however, as knowledge accumulates and the correlated nature of their requirements is understood.

The calculation check in cell G21 should not be overlooked. All applications are expected to account for every square foot of site plan area involved. This is no more than common sense, but not necessarily a common summation since unpaved open space has not often been calculated. It has simply been the land left after building and pavement objectives have been satisfied.

I am not suggesting that a city discard its zoning concerns with health, safety, and compatibility, not to mention sign regulation, fence height, setback encroachments, swimming pool safeguards, and so on. I am simply suggesting that the topics mentioned in the Land and Core Modules of Tables 1 and 2, for the G1 Building Design Category, are those that influence the massing, intensity, intrusion, and dominance of the shelter capacity we build with little leadership direction and concern for the population and world around it. We have believed that land is a commodity and the currency of freedom -- rather than a gift and a source of life that must be protected for all species with the knowledge we must acquire.

CONCLUSION

I am repeating a conclusion I’ve written previously and will probably continue to do so.

“…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 on 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 the habitat we build ceases to be a threat to ourselves and our source of life – the Natural Domain.”

Walter M. Hosack, January, 2023