HOSACK BLOG INDEX 10.9 - 23.4

 I thought it might be helpful to publish a complete list of my blog essays to date as one complete document for ease of reference. The essays in italics were written after publication of the collection in “Symbiotic Architecture”. The italicized titles are only available on my blog and on Linked-In. Some, but not all, of the earlier titles are available on Linked-In. SEE 25.6 UPDATE

	Walter M. Hosack
Year/Mo/Order
10.9.1	Replacing Density
10.9.2	The City is a Farm
10.10.1	Examining Architecture Part 1
10.10.2	The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance
10.10.3	The Limits of Shelter Capacity
10.11.1	The Variance Contradiction
10.12.1	Land Use Plans & Ponzi Schemes
11.1.1	Hidden Implications of Design Decisions
11.1.1	Strategy is Missing from Economic Development
11.2.1	A Tool for Containing Sprawl
11.4.1	Design Specifications & Shelter Intensity
11.4.2	Parking Lot Design Implications
11.5.1	Dwelling Unit Design Implications
11.6.1	Measuring Design Excellence - Sullivan & Wright
11.7.1	The Symbiotic City
11.8.1	Symbiotic Architecture
11.9.1	City Design for Economic Stability
11.10.1	Citizen Participation is not Leadership
11.10.2	City Design with Space
11.10.3	Design for Survival
11.10.4	Education
11.10.5	Education Preamble
11.10.6	Pitch and Catch
11.10.7	Predict Shelter Options within Limited Built Domain
11.10.8	Protecting the Planet
11.10.9	Talent and Leadership
11.11.1	A New Language for Architecture & City Design
11.11.2	Strategic & Tactical Architecture
11.12.1	Improving Arguments for Architecture & City Design
11.12.2	A Tool for Containing Sprawl
11.12.3	An Overlooked Threat to the Family of Man
11.12.4	Conceptual Design & Architectural Scope
11.12.5	Land is a Critical Design Element
11.12.6	The Public Benefit of Architecture
12.1.1	City Design Synopsis
12.1.2	City Design-Urban Design-Architecture
12.1.3	Context, Capacity & Intensity
12.1.4	Examining Architecture Part 2
12.1.5	Form Follows Invention
12.1.6	Logic & Knowledge in Design
12.1.7	Parking Variances - A Glimpse into the Future
12.1.8	Population and Intensity
12.1.9	Questions About City Planning & Architecture
12.1.10	Recalling Michelangelo
12.1.11	Shelter, Survival and Design
12.1.12	Sustainability
12.1.13	Vitruvius Revisited
12.2.1	A Common Imperative
12.2.2	Intensity is Measurement for Survival
12.2.3	The Problem w City Planning
12.2.4	What is Architecture?
12.3.1	Introduction to Intensity
12.3.2	Recalling Linnaeus
12.3.3	The Symbiotic Goal
12.4.1	John Muir & Architecture
12.4.2	Response to the Problems with City Planning
12.4.3	Taking the Pulse of Architecture
12.5.1	First Prority of Architecture
12.6.1	Architectural Education Dialogue Part 1
12.6.2	Architectural Education Dialogue Part 2
12.6.3	Architectural Education Dialogue Part 3
12.6.4	Core Issues Parts 1-2 Szymanik Inquiry
12.6.5	Five Categories of Architecture
12.6.6	Harnessing Architectural Curriculum Pt 1-2-3
12.6.7	The Other Architectural Puzzle CG1B
12.7.1	Criticism, Questions & Ideas
12.7.2	Relevance
12.7.3	Replacing the Floor Area Ratio
12.7.4	Seriously
12.7.5	The Significance of Gross Building Area
12.8.1	Searching for Answers
12.8.2	Shelter, Space & Intensity
12.9.1	Plan with Architectural Intensity
12.10.1	The Influence of Design Decisions
12.10.2	Quantifying Intuition
12.11	The Built Domain
13.1.1	Problem Solvers
13.1.2	The Many Faces of Architecture
13.3.1	Free Enterprise & Architecture
13.4.1	Symbiotic Knowledge
13.5.1	Sound Bytes from Architecture
13.6.1	Commentary - Part 1
13.6.2	Leadership & Design
13.9.1	The Design Decisions That Matter
13.9.2	The Greatest Invention
13.10.1	Repositioning
13.11.1	Fundamental Questions
14.1.1	Sustainability & First Ring Suburbs
14.1.2	To the Philippines & Malaysia
14.1.3	Traffic Lights
14.2.1	Scoundrels in Law
14.4.1	Tacit Knowledge
14.5.1	Reply to Tacit Knowledge Comment
14.11.1	A Plan Review
15.1.1	Lesson from the Duomo
15.1.2	Reconsidering Architecture
15.1.3	Two Questions with Follow-up
15.2.1	A Fork in the Road
15.2.2	Architectural Practice and Profession
15.2.3	Comments Worth Pondering
15.2.4	Survival
15.3.1	Design Leadership
15.3.2	Two Question Follow-up
16.7.1	Advertise The Science of City Design
16.7.2	Excerpts from The Science of City Design
16.7.3	The Science of City Design
16.8.1	City Planning & Design Basics
16.8.2	Repeating Success
16.9.1	Pop-up Urban Projects
16.9.2	Shaping the Future With Opinion
16.9.3	Urban Renewal
16.10.1	Removing the Blindfold from Economic Development
16.10.2	The Human Scale
16.11.1	Land Use & Urban Form
16.11.2	Power, Policy & Planning
16.12.1	Architecture, Agriculture & Planning
16.12.2	Graduating from The Floor Area Ratio
17.1.1	Restoring the Health of Cities
17.2.1	Arguing for a Science of City Design
17.2.2	Strategic Architecture
17.2.3	Surface Parking Limits on Shelter Capacity
17.2.4	The Concept
17.2.5	Updating a Comprehensive Plan
17.3.1	Adapting Our Cities to Reality
17.3.2	Improving the Influence City Planning & Design
17.4.1	Addendum to What is Architecture
17.4.2	Townhouse & Apartment Density Exposed
17.5.1	A Cautionary Comment
17.6.1	A Debate Over Architectural Beauty & Taste
17.7.1	Grenfell Tower
17.7.2	Replacing Density - Updated
17.7.3	Zoning Conflict & Opportunity
17.8.1	Competing to Consume
17.8.2	Core Area Restrictions on Shelter Capacity
17.8.3	The Future of Cities
17.8.4	Understanding a Building Footprint
17.9.1	Leading Shelter Capacity, Intensity and Context Results
17.9.2	The Future of Shelter
17.10.1	Comparing Shelter Des Decisions 11.4rev
17.10.2	G1.R1 Single-family Detached Home Dilemma
17.12.1	Reply to Architectural Criticism
18.1.1	An Expanded Role for Architecture
18.1.2	Architectural Capacity & Shelter Intensity within a Limited Built Domain
18.2.1	The Least a Smart City Should Know
18.3.1	Elected & Appointed City Planning & Design Decisions
18.3.2	Facing Reality on a Finite Planet
18.3.3	Open Space Metric
18.6.1	Learning to Lead the Formation of Cities
18.7.1	Visualizing the City
19.1.1	Correlating Economic & Real Estate Development
19.3.1	A Question from Kabul
19.3.2	Back Cover
19.4.1	Planning Our Presence
19.4.2	Response to Bill Gates re Land Consumption
19.5.1	Shelter Design Basics
19.6.1	A Collision of Architectural Opinion
19.6.2	Shelter Sprawl
19.8.1	Unstable Land Use Allocation
19.9.1	Larry Discussion
19.10.1	Benefit of Land Use-Urban Form Correlation
20.3.1	A Farmer Knows More
20.4.1	Density and Covid-19
20.4.2	Planning with Economic Development Homework
20.8.1	Zoning Design Specifications
20.10.1	Contributing Knowledge
20.12.1	Measuring the Intensity of Place
21.2.1	Design Decisions that Determine Apartment Density
21.3.1	Design Decisions that Determine Single-Family Detached Housing Density
21.3.2	Design Decisions that Determine Townhouse Density
21.4.1	Design Decisions that Determine Single-Family Subdivision Density
21.7.1	Land Use & Development Capacity Correlation
21.8.1	Shelter, Sprawl, and Survival
21.10.1	The Equations of Urban Design
21.12.1	Not Published - Architecture - Fine Art
22.2.1	Concerning Our Presence on the Planet
22.3.1	The Consequences of City Design Decisions
22.7.1	Urban Design
22.8.1	A Scientific Approach to Zoning Plan Review
22.9.1	Shelter Capacity
22.12.1	The Land We Take for Granted
22.12.2	Confronting Sprawl with an Adequate Language
23.1.1	Interpreting the Planet's Law of Limits
23.1.2	Zoning Plan Review
23.2.1	Annexation
23.2.2	The Public Policy - City Design Disconnect
23.2.3	The Implications of Shelter Capacity Design Decisions
23.4.1	The Decisions Needed
23.4.2	The Pattern of a Master Plan

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.

The Decisions Needed to Shelter the Activities of Growing Populations Within a Limited Built Domain

 

If you agree that we need shelter to survive on an unstable planet, and that the Natural Domain is a source of life that must be protected, then the remaining question concerns the land area that must be devoted to the Natural Domain; and the Built Domain area that remains to accommodate shelter for the activities of a growing populations seeking a desirable quality of life. I will leave this question to others far more qualified to answer.

My objective is to explain the tools needed to measure and predict shelter capacity and intensity options for any limited land area, given the assumption that the Built Domain cannot continue to expand and consume its agricultural land and the land of the Natural Domain indefinitely. This is the knowledge we will need to more accurately consider the shelter potential of any land area in any designated Built Domain.

Shelter begins as building mass we call gross building area. Gross building area produces shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance that can be measured and predicted. Gross building area may be occupied by any activity and molded to achieve any appearance. The more fundamental point is that gross building area per buildable acre, or shelter capacity, combines with occupant activity to determine the scope of revenue potential per buildable acre; but excessive intensity can undermine the quality of life desired. Different activities produce different revenue quantities per square foot. This means that revenue per buildable acre is a function of the gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, and activity introduced. The combinations combine to form neighborhoods, districts, cities, regions, and so on; but cities have not had the information management systems, predictive algorithms, and development control needed to reconcile the productive capacity of municipal land per acre with the annual expense per acre required to deliver all desired services. At this point, the debate over “essential” services begins in every city hall facing budget cuts.

The gross building area introduced per acre of buildable land area occupied is referred to as shelter capacity. The shelter capacity of a cell, or land area, is a function of the building design category chosen and the design specification values entered in its forecast model. Shelter capacity decisions have intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications that can be calculated, evaluated, and predicted at the cellular level of shelter formation.

It helps to recognize that gross building area is a universal measurement; that gross building area divided by the buildable acres occupied is a measure of shelter capacity; that shelter capacity can be occupied by any activity; that shelter capacity can be used to measure or calculate the physical intensity, intrusion, and dominance present or planned; that physical intensity produces a host of social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications; and that the intensity planned for activity within the Built Domain contributes to the physical, social, and economic relationships established.

Built Domain Classification

Built Domain classification begins with its urban and rural phyla. It continues with the shelter, movement, open space, and life support divisions within each phylum. The shelter division contains the building design categories listed in Table 1. This relatively limited list can be occupied by any activity group we currently refer to as a land use category. The separation of building design category and capacity from land use activity serves to explain a relationship that can be correlated to produce a desired economic yield per acre when shelter capacity forecasting is available.

The specification topics related to each building design category represent the initial language of shelter capacity design. I will introduce Table 2 as an example in a moment. The values assigned to the shaded values in a forecast model represent the parameters being considered to lead all ensuing design decisions. These values define the gross building area options under consideration. The intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications of these decisions are also calculated in each forecast model to permit the evaluation required to build knowledge and establish leadership direction.

Building Design Categories in the Shelter Division

Building design category classification begins with the parking system under consideration. The parking decision, including a “no parking” option, defines the building design category under consideration, since the parking system is directly related to the gross building area that can be created on a given land area. There are a number of variables involved in addition to parking as you will soon see, but the principal determinants of shelter capacity prediction are the core buildable area available, the building design category, parking requirement , floor quantity, and unpaved project open space percentage being considered.

Design Specification Values

When building classification is based on the parking system involved, the number of potential building design categories is limited. This makes measurement and mathematical prediction of gross building area and shelter capacity options for all categories feasible in a short period of time – when using design specification values in the spreadsheet format of a forecast model. It is, after all, shelter capacity, intensity, and activity that must be economically correlated on every acre within municipal boundaries to protect its quality and source of life. The social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications of these predictions will remain unknown until evaluated by many related but currently independent professions. This means that independent professional observations can be correlated with the design specification values involved. Sprawl has failed to achieve this correlated goal, even though it may produce immediate economic benefit that proves temporary over time.

Forecast Model Example

I’ve introduced Table 2 is an example of a forecast model I’ve introduced many times. It pertains to the G1.L1 predictive model. This is shorthand for a forecast model that applies to all buildings served by a surface parking lot around, but not under, the building (G1) when gross land area is given (L1).

Table 2 is an example of the design specification vocabulary used to measure and/or predict the shelter capacity of a given land area. The shaded areas indicate decision locations for optional value entries that are correlated by the model’s algorithm to produce the gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, and activity implied. A change to one or more of these value decisions produces a revised template calculation. These shaded value decisions control the formation of cellular capacity for shelter activity, intensity, and revenue within cities.

Core Land Area

I’ve referred to the buildable land area remaining for building cover (footprint) and parking cover on a given gross land area as the core area. It is found through a process of subtraction that begins with the value entered in cell F3. The shaded values entered from cell F4 to F29 are subtracted to find the core area remaining (CORE) in cell F33 and G33. This is a key variable in the master equation noted in cell B39.

The master equation also depends on the parking variables (s & a) entered in shaded cells A35 and A36 and the floor quantity variable (f) entered in shaded cells A44-A53.

Planning Forecast Panel

The Land Module and Core Module variables entered in the shaded cells noted are used to calculate the gross building area options in cells B44-B53 of the Planning Forecast Panel. Additional design information in the panel can be calculated using the gross building area values predicted.

Implications Module

The shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications of the design specification values entered in the shaded cells of Table 2 are calculated in its Implications Module based on the gross building area options predicted in its Planning Forecast Panel. The implication equations involved are noted on line 43 of the Implications Module.

Conclusion

Table 2 has been included to generally illustrate the predictive format used for all forecast models listed in Table 1. They have all been created to both measure existing design specification values for evaluation of existing conditions and to predict the correlated implications of contemplated design specification values. The concept is similar to our first blood pressure measurements. In the beginning, these measurements were just an idea. The identification, collection, evaluation, correlation, and sharing of measurement and observation began to improve the diagnostic ability of medicine. The measurement and prediction of shelter capacity makes this possible for all the disciplines associated with the evaluation and planning of a Built Domain that must become capable of coexisting with its source of life while ensuring its quality of life within geographic limits.

The Implications of Shelter Capacity Design Decisions

These decisions need greater attention from all who depend on shelter for survival. There is no alternative. We must learn to accurately predict the capacity of land to provide shelter for the activities of growing populations. Our past and present use of this limited resource has often produced excessive intensity and sprawling consumption of agriculture and the natural domain without producing economic stability within a jurisdiction. This has occurred because jurisdictions have had to rely on limited estimates, preferences, and special interests for decisions that have not had the scope needed to correlate shelter capacity, intensity, and activity with its economic implications. An adequate mathematical foundation of established, correlated procedure has been missing. It should make sense, however, that unlimited consumption of a limited resource is unrealistic. However, we continue to consume land without the ability to accurately measure, predict, evaluate, and lead the capacity and intensity options we must correlate to shelter and sustain the activities and growing populations within symbiotic geographic limits.

It is possible to measure, evaluate, and mathematically predict shelter capacity options and the intensity alternatives they represent for specified land areas. This brief essay is intended to outline an approach that can permit us to pursue the knowledge we must acquire to survive on a planet with limits we are expected to decipher.

Shelter capacity is a function of the building design category chosen and design specification values assigned to its forecast template. The building height, mass, pavement, open space, and gross building area resulting from these decisions produce a measurable
level of intensity, intrusion, and dominance. This is the pattern and texture urban designers refer to as urban composition. The result can be occupied by any building code conforming activity.

We are all aware that some of these historic physical patterns have been threats to our health, safety, and welfare; and that some continue to this day. Improvements have been made, but we remain unable to consistently lead shelter patterns toward correlated capacity, intensity, and activity objectives that will achieve pre-defined physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic objectives. There has simply been no ability to accurately define shelter capacity and intensity objectives for activities that can be correlated to produce an urban design plan with economic development objectives.

Activity groups, currently called land use classifications, occupy building design categories. Gross building area in square feet defines the scope of an activity project. Gross building area divided by the buildable acres occupied produces a measurement of the shelter capacity planned or present. Shelter capacity divided by 43,560 and multiplied by the impervious cover percentage present is a measure of the physical intensity implied. Physical intensity is often magnified by the level of occupant activity present; and the combination of capacity and activity has many undefined implications.

Profit and public revenue per buildable acre are measures of the yield from the combination of capacity, activity, and intensity present in a project or jurisdiction. In other words, the relationship of average yield to average expense per acre defines the success of both public and private investment in any defined area. The future will depend on improving our ability to predict the shelter capacity of land, the intensity limits that must be respected, and the occupant activity assortment needed to shelter and sustain growing populations within geographic limits that can protect their quality and source of life.  

This capability will begin with a building classification system based on the fundamentals of shelter planning. The building design categories involved are listed in Table 1 as the titles of chapters 2-7. The master equations noted in this table below each chapter title depend on the values given and derived in the template noted to the left of each equation. The objective of each template is based on the proposition noted to the right of the master equation. In all cases, the goal of each equation is to begin the journey toward a determination of the gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance options implied by the values or measurements entered against the topics in a forecast model related to the building design category under consideration.

A forecast model produces shelter capacity options based on the range of floor quantity options entered. The results are translated by the equations in a model’s Implications Module to find the intensity, intrusion, and dominance implied by each option. At this point evaluation can begin. A leadership language can evolve and knowledge can be acquired that is equal to the design direction and correlation required. Until then, we will continue to observe symptoms that threaten our health, safety, and quality of life; the quality of life for all other species; and the source of life that we have taken for granted without adequate foresight for too long.

CONCLUSION

I will not 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 fundamental question behind 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 for analytical diagnosis and knowledge formation 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, our companions on the planet, and our source of life – the Natural Domain.”

Walter M. Hosack: February, 2023

PS: The following is a list of abbreviations used in the “Propositions” column of Table 1. A complete list of abbreviations used in all equations can be found in the chapters of my book.

APTMOD=           apartment module

AVGBLOT=          average buildable lot area

AVGHOME=        average home area

AVGLOT=             average lot area

BCA=                    building cover area (footprint)

BLA=                     buildable land area

BLOT=                  buildable lot area

CORE=                  core area for building and parking area

DU=                      dwelling unit

EHOME=              existing home area

(f)=                        floor quantity

GBA=                    gross building area

GLA=                     gross land area

GPGA=                  gross parking garage area

HOME=                home area

(l)=                        parking garage level quantity

LOT=                     lot area

NDU=                   number of dwelling units

TH=                       townhouse

The Public Policy - City Design Disconnect

 “Long Island Republican warns of 'suburban uprising' over New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's plan to rezone land to allow greater density for affordable housing” – Headline quote from: Business Insider

Greater density generally involves taller buildings and increased floor quantity to shelter larger populations on the same land area. This is the assumption I’ve made from the headline I quoted above. I’ve also assumed that the proposal threatens the visual, social, psychological, environmental, and economic compatibility of the neighborhood, and that the threat is symbolized by the massing contrast involved. Aesthetics and composition are weak arguments. Social and psychological arguments are fraught with claims of prejudice. Environmental and economic arguments suffer from their dependence on opinion, so the debate often surrounds the shadows that will be cast and the scope of population and traffic volume that will be introduced. The increased demand on storm sewer capacity is often overlooked because the impervious cover capacity percentage of the system has not been recorded. The debate becomes a battle over isolated technical detail because the proposal has no strategic design objective based on knowledge that is larger than the proposal itself; and no adequate leadership language based on knowledge that can repeat success and avoid failure. The results have been symbolized by decline and sprawl.

I have no doubt that the proposal mentioned will produce unanticipated change in the surrounding area over time. I also doubt that there will be a language and plan that can lead others to an objective that is greater than the immediate, isolated proposal. The motivation has always been expediency that attempts to resolve an immediate problem without the tools, data, knowledge, and language needed for the leadership required over time.

Floor quantity is one of a number of design specification topics that must be correlated on individual properties to form a shelter pattern referred to as massing composition. The problem is that there has been no language capable of producing the correlation required over large areas subject to independent motivation and discretion. Successful results remain undocumented, so we extol site plan and building appearance without understanding the mathematical decisions beneath the success and failure we observe as symptoms of health and disease. These are the decisions that can be used to prescribe and lead without plagiarism of appearance. A host of technical decisions follow.

I won’t belabor the point because I have written extensively about the topic of urban design documentation, evaluation, knowledge accumulation, and leadership definition with an improved classification, measurement, prediction, and leadership language. I’ll simply close at this point in an attempt to be brief.

Walter M. Hosack: February, 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

Interpreting the Planet's Law of Limits

 It is no longer enough to attempt to protect the health, safety, and welfare of growing populations when growth is considered a goal without limits.

The microscopic presence causing sprawl across the face of the planet is an individual who needs shelter to survive. We understand increasing demand and limited supply but have left its resolution to a marketplace that does not understand the consequences of excessive consumption any better than a parasite recognizes that it must moderate consumption to become symbiotic. Neither understands the planet’s Law of Limits.

I have chosen shelter sprawl as a symbol for unrestricted growth since most of us are instinctively aware that excessive land consumption for shelter is a threat to our source of life, but ignore the fact that it is a function of population growth. This has led me to believe that we must learn to predict the shelter capacity of limited land areas before we can learn to protect growing populations from excessive intensity while respecting and preserving the planet’s Natural Domain.

For the purposes of this discussion, shelter is gross building area (GBA). It continues to be provided with approximations, random decisions and arbitrary rules of thumb that encourage the sprawl we pursue with abandon, annexation, and debate. The equations required to more accurately predict the capacity of land to provide shelter without excessive intensity within limited geographic areas has been the subject of my work.

Gross building area can be used to shelter any population activity. The gross building area per buildable acre provided is the shelter capacity utilized on the land area involved. The shelter capacity introduced determines the physical intensity; population capacity; psychological impact; economic potential; and environmental implications of the project planned or present. Proceeding without an accurate ability to calculate the implications of current and proposed shelter capacity decisions will simply continue attempts to treat sprawl without the knowledge and awareness needed for diagnosis and treatment.

When gross building area is occupied by human activity it produces revenue per sq. ft. and a plethora of demands that must be financed by the average revenue per acre produced. In many cases the project produces less than a city’s average cost per acre to provide the essential services needed. Resolving the imbalance by averaging this cost over its entire income stream becomes one of a city’s recurring challenges. At this point the definition of “essential” becomes a hot topic. The cause of the shortfall, if it is ever understood, becomes lost in the debate over budget cuts to essential services and potential annexation.

The problem begins because a city does not plan for quantities of gross building area per acre nor correlate these quantities with the occupant activity needed to produce revenue per acre equal to the quality of life desired within its corporate limits. In other words, a city depends on the revenue it receives from its inventory of land area, gross building area, and occupant activity. The average annual revenue received per buildable acre must equal or exceed its annual expense per acre. I’ve emphasized the word “average” because all revenue from shelter capacity and activity allocation is not equal. A government’s responsibility is to manage the average, and it cannot do this with the isolated tools, regulations, and information it has available.

The most obvious gap has been a city’s inability to accurately predict the combination of gross building area and occupant activity that can produce the average revenue per acre it needs to meet the expense per acre required to protect and improve its quality of life within its corporate limits. It will continue to randomly consume land with annexation in search of this elusive “balance” until it improves its forecasting ability.

The prediction of gross building area capacity and intensity options per buildable acre defines the scope of activity that can be accommodated and the population that can be sheltered per acre. The combination of shelter capacity, intensity, quality, location, and activity determines the revenue that can be expected from the acres allocated, and allocation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity throughout a city plan determines its economic stability. This explanation should bring the meaning of “balance” into sharper focus since it requires more than the correlation of land use compatibility and appearance. Residential housing deserves special mention in this context. It is an activity subset of the shelter category and its preferred low density allocations can produce revenue deficits per buildable acre -- when compared to a city’s average expense per acre.

In all land use activity subsets, the shelter capacity of land must be limited by the intensity levels we can accept within land areas that are limited to protect our source of life and its many dependent species. This may come into better focus when we begin to measure and understand the shelter intensity levels that will not condemn our quality of life to the misery we see in many parts of the world. It means, however, that population growth is not an unlimited privilege. It requires shelter to survive, and shelter capacity has limits defined by acceptable intensity levels; but we have not been able to calculate these limits in consistently effective leadership terms. This is why I have focused on the derivation of equations and forecast models that can be used to measure and predict the shelter capacity and intensity options associated with any given land area. I will continue to ignore the political and religious implications of these shelter capacity and intensity predictions. They have discouraged me from writing this earlier.

Options imply decisions that require knowledge. The mathematical format of shelter capacity forecast models gives you the ability to build this knowledge with observation, measurement, and evaluation of existing conditions – if you choose to meet the challenge of limits we are expected to anticipate on a planet in a universe that does not compromise with the formula it has been given.

I have discussed the mechanics of shelter capacity forecasting in my blog and in the book I mention at the end of this discussion. I have also posted the more recent essays to Linked-In. I am repeating portions of the last two in an attempt to amplify the message above in as brief a form as I can manage.

 

EXCERPTS FROM “CONFRONTING SPRAWL with an ADEQUATE LANGUAGE” (with modifications)

“It may be a surprise to learn that there are only six shelter options available when classification is based on the parking solution employed rather than the style applied, and this makes shelter capacity prediction for limited land areas feasible. It also helps to recognize that: (1) shelter is simply gross building area that may be occupied by any activity when it conforms to local building code requirements; (2) shelter quantity for any and all activity is a function of the gross building area that is placed on a given land area; (3) gross building area per acre is shelter capacity; (4) shelter capacity can be increased with floor quantity options that are one of a number of initial design decisions that must be correlated; (5) shelter capacity options represent levels of measurable intensity; (6) current intensity levels are accidentally created with design stipulations that remain incomplete and uncorrelated; (7) intensity management with comprehensive, correlated design value decisions is needed to shelter growing populations within geographic limits prescribed to protect their quality and source of life; (8) intensity management topics apply to all buildings; and (9) the social activity within a building does not determine the physical intensity introduced but it may magnify the impact.

Building classification by style has distracted us from these fundamental observations for centuries. I’ve written about these six building design categories many times, and repeat them here simply as a reminder. They are: (1) G1 buildings with grade parking around, but not under, the building;(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.

My emphasis on parking rather than building style and appearance stems from my effort to accurately forecast the gross building area capacity of an acre of land when floor quantity options are correlated with the other pivotal design decisions involved. These are the options for growing populations that we are expected to balance within limited geographic areas to share the planet with all that depend on it for survival. It is a deceptively simple proposition. It is complicated by the number of opinions, variables and decisions that must be correlated. Our mistake has been to overlook some of these decision topics and consider the remainder independently.

Shelter capacity forecasting depends on the simple subtraction of design specification values. They are entered in the shaded cells of a forecast model related to a chosen building design category and given land area. This subtraction proceeds from the given land area given to the core area remaining for building and parking area. Subtraction is performed by an embedded algorithm that correlates all values entered to arrive at the core area remaining. A master equation related to the building design category calculates a range of gross building area options for the land area, topic values entered, and range of floor quantity options introduced. A change to one or more of these values changes the gross building area predictions calculated by the forecast model. These are the shelter capacity options available for the land area based on the design specification values entered. The intensity represented by each prediction is calculated with a separate equation in the model.

The forecast model format and its mathematical foundation introduce a comprehensive, correlated leadership language that can also be used to accurately measure existing physical conditions. The evaluation measured and recorded can then be used to lead future design specification decisions with improved knowledge. We cannot do this without a language that has the potential to lead with fundamental, comprehensive shelter design specifications. It is now possible to predict the options available and evaluate the consequences implied with the organized measurement, evaluation, and documentation needed to build knowledge long before appearance becomes an issue.

TABLE 1

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 value entered in a shaded cell is correlated by an algorithm, and a master equation in cell J47, to produce 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 without the leadership potential needed to produce total average revenue per acre equal to or exceeding a city’s average expense per acre within its geographic limits without budget reductions.

The shaded cells in Table 1 are not intended to replace an entire zoning ordinance. They are intended to replace independent design specification topics with the correlation needed to lead shelter capacity toward its intended intensity and occupancy goals. (See “The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance”)

Gross building area prediction is the first objective in Table 1. The other predictions in the Forecast Panel add initial detail needed by a designer. The Implications Panel measures the consequences of the values entered in the Design Specification Template. The final intensity and dominance columns of the Implications Panel measure the results produced by the shaded cell values entered and their gross building area predictions, to make evaluation and knowledge accumulation feasible.

It should be obvious that language and knowledge accumulation is limited by the vocabulary available. 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 report results from design decisions and do not lead them. This lack of correlation has prevented us from providing the shelter massing and intensity leadership required to improve the physical pattern that shapes our quality of life. Current zoning stipulations have simply led to variance appeals and sprawling annexation in search of elusive physical, social, and economic balance.”

EXCERPTS FROM “LAND USE and DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY CORRELATION” (with modifications)

“The public revenue implications of the gross building area forecast in Table 1 are easiest to explain by looking at the options predicted in cells B44-B53. If $10 of revenue were expected per sq. ft. of gross building area, the total annual revenue would range from $48,843 to $73,511 depending on the floor quantity chosen. Since the buildable land area noted in cell F10 is 100% of the gross land area given in cell F3, the total revenue projections would be divided by 5.230 acres to find the revenue potential per acre provided by the city’s inventory. This would range from $9,339 to $14,055 per acre. A simple comparison with the city’s annual expense per acre would indicate the contribution or subsidy implications of the land and building options contemplated.

The results that evolve from fundamental design specification decisions have been overlooked for centuries. The Implications Module in Table 1 illustrates one method of measuring the impact of these decisions. When these measurements are combined with the financial evaluation mentioned in the paragraph above, it will become easier for a city to evaluate the combined impact of its shelter design decisions. A city that understands these implications for every parcel within its jurisdiction is a city that is prepared to evaluate the land use and urban design decisions that will affect its future.

If a city does not understand the economic implications of land use and shelter capacity allocation, it will continue pursuing random economic development projects without the comprehensive strategy needed to lead its physical decisions to foreseeable financial improvement in a revenue and expense equation that determines its quality of life and the demands it places on its limited source of life.

CONCLUSION

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 at 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 our habitat ceases to be a threat to ourselves and its source of life – the Natural Domain.

Escape to Mars will simply prolong our mistaken assumptions regarding land ownership prerogatives, shelter capacity, and population growth.”

Walter M. Hosack: January, 2023