Correlating Zoning Design Standards

 NOTE: The shelter capacity of land is equal to the gross building area in square feet present or planned divided by the buildable project area in acres, except for future expansion area. The quantity introduced has many related implications such as but not limited to the scope of -- occupant activity, traffic generation, population capacity, revenue potential, construction expense, and return on investment implied by the square feet introduced.

Zoning ordinance regulations depend on itemized, independent standards that are not mathematically correlated in many if not all cases. A residential density limit that cannot be reached by the combination of applicable parking and floor quantity limits involved is a common current example. This has often produced contentious arguments, permitted exceptions, inconsistent precedent, excessive intensity, and sprawl that has limited its zoning effectiveness as a leadership language.

Shelter design depends on quantity decisions that become the foundation for all ensuing site plan organization, building form, and final appearance decisions. In a sentence, initial site planning quantity decisions such as parking area, pavement area, unpaved open space area, floor quantity, building volume, and final appearance have been intuitively evaluated and created for centuries, but the mental correlation involved has been considered a fine art endeavor. As a result, it has escaped the underlying mathematical definition that makes knowledge, prediction, evaluation, and accurate leadership guidance feasible.

Mathematically correlated design specification standards produce shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that can be measured for evaluation and predicted for future planning and urban design guidance. It has been my intent to define the terms shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context with mathematical specification values and template forecast models for a building design category classification system. The templates have been created to provide the mathematical format required for consistent measurement and prediction of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications based on the values entered. This format can lead the efforts of many toward shelter for the activities of growing populations within the sustainable, symbiotic geographic limits that are required.

THE PROBLEM

Table A from “The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance” is repeated at the end of this text. The point was to show that the organization of itemized standards in a zoning ordinance were disconnected when compared to the five chapter and nine section reorganization suggested in Table 2. The underlying motive at the time was to relocate all applicable design standards that were often buried with unrelated text throughout the ordinance.

Table 3 includes a sample dissection of a partial section in the sample ordinance chosen. The table illustrates the heavy lifting required to convert a section of the sample to the structure illustrated by Table 2.

Each topic in Col. B of Table 3 is dissected and referenced to the Table 2 sections that pertain, but the itemized format remains. The related Table 2 sections are noted in Col. A of the table. Some additional notes are also included.

Table 4 illustrates the distillation of all design standards from the sample ordinance, and they were not all found in one location. The result is a Table of Design Standards. It displays all relevant standards for one zone on one line in one consolidated location for ease of reference and consistency of application. Lack of adherence to a standard, however, still represents an itemized offense requiring variance approval by a Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Table 4 may represent a consolidated improvement over scattered design requirements in a zoning ordinance, but it does not correlate these complex standards to indicate their combined implications and realistically achievable gross building area results. At the present time each collection of line-item limits represents a puzzle that must often be solved with exception variances in some, if not many, cases. This is not leadership with a goal. It is regulation with an unknown future.

If city planning and urban design leadership is desired, the ability to correlate diverse requirements is needed to produce gross building area options that can reach shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context goals without inconsistent exceptions that compromise the quality of life desired.

THE SUGGESTION

Conceiving a method of measuring, evaluating, and correlating site plan quantity decisions has been my objective, since quantities are the foundation for all ensuing physical design, and we must move beyond the puzzles represented by Table 4 before we can provide the shelter portion of a sustainable, symbiotic goal.

Those of you who have read my previous essays know that I began by classifying two worlds on a single planet, The Natural and Built Domains. I theorized that the Built Domain anatomy contained Urban and Rural Phyla, and that each phyla contained a Shelter Division served by arterial divisions of Movement, Open Space, and Life Support, even though I admitted that arteries of open space in the Built Domain were more of a dream than reality.

I continued with the theory that shelter classification contained only six building design categories based on the parking system adopted, and that each responded to a specification template of topic variables that could be mathematically correlated to produce measurable and predicable gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. Implications could then be evaluated with a mathematically correlated leadership language, and knowledge could replace the presently itemized opinions of zoning.

This meant that mathematical shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context planning prescriptions could be used as a language that could lead shelter formation and organization toward protection of a city’s physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic health, safety, and quality of life.

THE G1.L1 FORECAST MODEL

I’ve used Table 5 on many occasions for many reasons. I’ll use it here to illustrate the point I’ve just made regarding architectural quantity correlation. Table 5 predicts the gross building area potential of a given buildable land area, excluding future expansion area, when using surface parking around but not under the building. The option is referred to as the G1 Building Design Category.

The first thing to recognize is that occupant activity occupies capacity and may be limited by the quantity available. For example, capacity is a function of the design specification values entered into the gray cell topics of the Table 5 template. These template topics vary with the building design category and activity group involved.

Table 5 involves generic topics for the G1 Building Design Category. It is unencumbered by specialized activity group functions that require additional template topics, such as residential activity. The generic shelter capacity of land is predicted in cells B44-B53. This is determined by the design specification values entered and mathematically correlated in the forecast model. A change to one or more of the values would produce a new prediction of gross building area options in cells B44-B53. This would also produce a revision to the capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications calculated in cells F44-J53.

Any value entered in a gray cell of Table 5 is a variable. For instance, the parking values entered in cells A35 and A36 are the most common since they change with the occupant activity involved and affect the gross building area that can be produced. The floor quantity values in cells A44-A53 may also be limited or expanded to influence gross building area potential.

The unpaved open space percentage entered in cell F11 is a variable that has often remained unspecified in a zoning ordinance since it can also limit achievable density, shelter capacity, and intensity, but this is a serious mistake. It should at least be correlated with the storm sewer capacity available, since inadequate correlation can contribute to capacity overload without more sophisticated engineering modifications.

Table 5 differs from Table 4 because it is based on an algorithm; and it immediately responds to the variables entered in its shaded cells with a measurement of their implications in its Forecast Panel and Implications Module. This means that design specification options capable of achieving the same shelter capacity objective could be easily explored by rebalancing the variables involved. This balancing discussion could even occur at joint public/private conferences with the model as the center of attention.

If I’ve made my point, the interactive concept of correlated shelter capacity evaluation illustrated by Table 5 can replace the static regulation of Table 4. In fact, it has the potential to amend regulation with cooperation among all parties concerned with the provision of shelter for population activity. I have only provided a glimpse, however. Table 5 is one in a series of forecast models that represent a suggested method of measuring and predicting the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of design specification decisions. This is information that could be used to build knowledge. The entire suggestion is presented in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design” that is available on Amazon.com. I’m including its Table of Contents as Table 6. The book discusses the building design categories, activity groups, and forecast models that use embedded equations to provide shelter capacity predictions for evaluation and guidance with a few keystrokes.

CONCLUSION

Some form of shelter capacity measurement and prediction is needed to build the knowledge and defend the guidance required to protect populations within geographic limits that recognize our responsibility to protect our source of life. Our current methods of zoning regulation are an inadequate response to the threat represented by annexation, excessive intensity and sprawl based on inadequate knowledge and mistaken assumptions. It will continue to consume agriculture and the Natural Domain until a leadership language equal to the knowledge and guidance required is pursued. I have simply made one suggestion in a discussion that deserves pursuit in my opinion.

Walter M. Hosack, January 2026

What is Shelter Intensity?

 Merriam-Webster defines intensity as: “the magnitude of a quantity (such as force or energy) per unit (as of area, charge, mass, or time)”.

When this definition is applied to shelter, “magnitude” means the quantities of gross building area (GBA), parking, and miscellaneous pavement present, planned, or predicted in square feet on a given property. The unpaved open space that remains is an offsetting influence. The building footprint, parking, and miscellaneous pavement area is referred to as the project’s “impervious area”. When considering
shelter, the “unit” in Webster’s definition of intensity is the buildable land area in acres (BLAC) devoted to the project, including all remaining unpaved open space, except for future expansion area (EXP).

Shelter capacity (SFAC) is a preliminary indication of magnitude equal to gross building area in square feet (GBA) per buildable acre (BLAC) occupied (SFAC = GBA/BLAC). When shelter capacity is multiplied by the percentage of impervious cover (IMP%) present or planned, the result is the intensity present (INT) on the buildable land area (BLA) of a project. Ten thousand is divided into the product of (SFAC*IMP%) to produce a manageable intensity measurement (INT) throughut the spectrum of options that is expressed by the equation:

                                   INT = SFAC * IMP% / 10,000 

Since shelter capacity (SFAC) is equal to (GBA/BLAC), the shelter intensity equation is significantly influenced by the square feet of building mass present on a given buildable land area. It is easy enough to measure gross building area (GBA) on existing property and to measure the shelter capacity (SFAC) of a given buildable land area (BLAC). When the impervious cover percentage (IMP%) is also measured, the intensity present can be calculated.

It is another matter to predict the capacity of land to accommodate gross building area. There are six building design category choices available and each involves a separate design specification template. It is now possible to calculate these predictions, but it remains impossible to ensure that the shelter capacity and intensity levels predicted will not produce excessive intensity. There has simply been no measurable and predictive format for research, knowledge accumulation, and leadership direction regarding shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and economic potential for every present and future parcel in a city’s anatomy.

Most cities will continue to struggle with planning and economic development until they have a clear understanding of the productivity of land and activity in their jurisdiction at the parcel, block, or zone level. At this point, they will be able to respond with informed urban design plans that can produce physical context and economic stability reflecting improved measurement, prediction, evaluation, and leadership direction.

Shelter capacity forecast models can predict the full range of gross building area options available for a given land area, but many are excessively intense and undesirable. This consideration will be at the heart of urban design evaluation and knowledge accumulation. Improvement will depend on the ability to make informed choices based on the implications predicted; the ability to correlate shelter capacity with the economic potential of occupant activity options; and the ability to assemble these choices into a complete, corelated plan that can be adjusted with continuing information sharing, data management, mapping evaluation, and urban design prediction.

For instance, I have mentioned in more than one essay that the average revenue per buildable acre of taxable activity is a function of its shelter capacity, intensity, and activity. The average revenue from all such acres should be equal to or greater than a city’s total expense per taxable acre. If it isn’t, budget reductions enter the picture.

I doubt that any city can assess the relationship of shelter capacity and intensity to financial stability at the parcel level of its anatomy with any degree of accuracy. It does not have the information sharing agreements, data management systems, and mapping format needed to understand, let alone evaluate and plan for the future of available land that will contribute to the revenue per buildable acre it needs over time.

At the heart of all this is a city’s mathematical understanding of its current physical plan and its ability to improve the economic productivity of this land. Understanding the adjacency relationships addressed by zoning is not enough. A city’s productivity improvement will depend on the relationships of shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and location on every parcel within its boundaries. The challenge is to understand these mathematical relationships so that they can be managed to achieve financial stability without excessive intensity on the land it governs.

In other words, the allocation of municipal land for capacity, intensity, and activity determines the total average revenue received by local government from the context created. A city’s ability to balance this equation at the parcel level of planning and urban design will determine its success in learning to live within financially stable, sustainable, and beneficial geographic limits.

If “parcel level” threatens your concept of privacy, then substitute the words, block, tract, or zone. These are the cellular levels of urban anatomy that must be mathematically understood before they can be organized to perform and produce a financially stable and sustainable anatomy that offers a desirable quality of life.

The scope is too great to cover in an essay. I’m including a revised Table of Contents for my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”, to outline the leadership language suggested for shelter capacity evaluation and direction toward financial stability and a desirable quality of life. The first eight chapters classify the building design categories involved. The master equations derived and associated with each chapter predict the gross building area potential of a given buildable land area based on the values entered in its design specification template, and the floor quantity chosen for evaluation.

The objective of a chapter is explained by the “Given” and “To Find” statement listed. The chapter must be read to understand the relationship of forecast models, design specification templates, and value entry options to the implications predicted.

Chapter 9-17 address the building design categories in Chapters 2-6 when they are occupied by various forms of residential activity. The combination of a building design category and activity topic is referred to as an activity group. In this case the building design categories and residential activities in Chapters 9-17 are collectively referred to as the Residential Activity Group. The objective of a master equation in these chapters remains listed in the “Given” and “To Find” statements associated with each chapter.

The point in these chapters is that a gross building area prediction for a given buildable land area and design specification is constant, but its occupant capacity is affected by the unique requirements of the activity involved.

Generic gross building area options, predictions, and implications represent strategic urban design decisions with economic implications influenced by their occupant activity. They require urban arrangement like pieces on a chessboard. These are the choices that establish the foundation of decisions on which cities are built.

Mathematical urban design recommendations that address shelter capacity, intensity, and activity decisions throughout a city can add desirable context among buildings to the scope of their potential contributions to its financial welfare and quality of life. It is a mathematical opportunity and potential leadership language at the present time. If you believe that we must learn to live within sustainable geographic limits that protect our source of life, you may agree that shelter capacity and intensity evaluation, or Tegimenics, is a topic that should be pursued.

Walter M. Hosack, December 2025

Site Plan Relationships and Housing Leadership Decisions

Diagram 1 focuses on the role of open space and movement in and around a single-family residential site plan. The diagram eliminates open space normally devoted to setback areas in a typical single-family residential site plan. It also adds a dedicated pedestrian right-of-way separated from vehicular movement. The intent is to reduce the land required for a home of any size and improve its pedestrian setting; but future expansion would be limited to floor quantity increases, assuming adequate initial structural design.

The atrium concept of Diagram 1 is as old as Rome. It is a departure from Rome because pedestrian access is separated from the plan’s vehicular access to create a social side and service side for the dwelling. The size of the dwelling unit is a variable issue.

The strategy depends on the concentrated use of core open space, the elimination of border setback areas, and the separation of conflicting pedestrian and vehicular movement. The arrangement returns to an ancient atrium pattern but attempts to recognize the vast changes in movement conflict and spatial expectations that have taken place. The plan, however, is not the message nor is it the size of the dwelling unit. The message is the relationship of spaces involved, and the potential reduction of lot area per dwelling unit represented. When a “small home” is involved, the reduction could be significant but it is not an infill suggestion.

If you have been associated with design, you know that there are many answers to the same question, which in this case is affordable lot and housing area.

The diagram is not presented as an architectural solution. Lot area quantities and relationships are the message. These quantities include open space, building height, footprint area, parking area, miscellaneous pavement area, and the role of pedestrian and vehicular movement. They all consume irreplaceable land and they all contribute to the cost of housing. Careful consideration and correlation are needed now that construction cost and land consumption are becoming more visible issues-- as well as correlation with existing housing patterns and adjacency expectations. Based on this:

1)      What are the site plan quantities and relationships that combine to produce a desirable single-family residential quality of life on the least land?

2)      What is a desirable pedestrian relationship with the movement systems that serve the dwelling unit?

HISTORY

Lot size has puzzled me ever since I lived on a 30 x 102-foot lot with a 10-foot front yard setback, a detached garage with driveway to the street that barely scraped by the house, and an alley to the rear that was not wide enough to accommodate a turning radius into a garage. It was one of the larger lots on the street. Other lots were narrower and could not provide driveways, nor could the narrow alley serve their outbuildings with adequate turning radii. I assume horses had no problem in the past. The increase in cars forced houses to use curb-parking on both sides of a two-way street. It made the street a one-way movement system that depended on courtesy and deference to function. The result was frustration, anxiety, and a risk to children. We were warned at home and at school that darting between parked cars could result in injury or death. They expected us to take this seriously.

When we moved to a 50 x 120-foot lot with a 25-foot front yard setback I subconsciously felt relieved but did not realize it may have been from lower density. I later learned that a more affluent suburb had banned 50-foot-wide lots. I have always assumed that this occurred because the lot width did not accommodate attached garages, and that detached garages constrained the rear yard area.

Mandatory lot widths increased to 60, 75, 90 feet and above in this affluent suburb in response to the zone involved. Attached garages with driveways to the street became the norm and curb parking was only needed for overflow visitor demand. Setback areas increased, even though increased yard areas were rarely used and contributed more to the appearance of affluence than to functional need. The standard front yard depth was 40 feet. Side yards also increased but lot depth remained at 120 feet. Curb appeal increased and rear yards benefited from the removal of detached garages, but suffered from the increased front yard depth.

In my opinion, the historic front yard setback concept introduced visual consistency to unify disparate building styles and plans. The side yard setback attempted to reduce the depressing compression of 1 to 3-foot side yard “slots” often found among 19^th and early 20^th century buildings. The rear yard setback attempted to offer a limited degree of single-family relief from the prior intensity of multi-family apartments and tenements. The concept of a “lot” attempted to offer land ownership to more than a privileged few.

YARDS

The location of setback areas on lots is worth considering, since our current front, side, and rear yard concepts add considerable cost to a housing objective that is now being asked to be affordable, but “affordable” is relative, setbacks improve the consistency of piecemeal appearance, and infill solutions have their own potential problems.

SITE PLANS

Every site plan is a cell in a shelter organism. It is served by arteries of movement, open space, and life support that combine to form a Built Domain that is attempting to consume its source of life, the Natural Domain. (I have previously admitted that open space arteries are more of a dream than reality.) The size of each residential cell and its internal quantity relationships, including the home “footprint”, determines the land area consumed and its relationship to its neighbors.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Affordable housing will simply be another residential cell in the Built Domain. Its characteristics as an infill solution should be carefully considered to ensure that it does not become malignant. It may be that new neighborhoods and/or zones are required. If new land is taken for the purpose, the risk of continuing sprawl for low density, “affordable”, housing will remain. There are no easy answers in my opinion. This may be why many countries use far more multi-family housing and why the pedestrian orientation of their ancient streets is admired.

URBAN DESIGN

The problem deserves urban design attention on a much larger scale, but this represents a dramatic departure from the piecemeal answers provided by our present approach to single-family residential housing and the sprawl it has produced.

The piecemeal approach was a greater problem in the past. It produced adjacency conflicts that led to public health, safety, and welfare concerns. Master plans and zoning districts were established in response to this piecemeal freedom. The concept is needed in my opinion, but its strict definition of “adjacency” is undergoing refinement, and its ability to mathematically evaluate economic stability at the cellular or census block level of neighborhoods and districts is relatively nonexistent. This is why I have used the term “malignant”. It will remain a matter of opinion until urban design can improve its mathematical definitions.

Walter M. Hosack, December 2025

WHAT IS TEGIMENICS?

I was asked to explain the word “tegimenics” in a post but was restricted by its character limit. I’m adding a few words to provide a short, and hopefully better, explanation.

Tegimenics is a new term encompassing the building design categories, forecast models, design specifications, algorithms, and master equations of shelter capacity calculation and evaluation. Shelter capacity is equal to gross building area in square feet divided by the buildable land area occupied. Results have measurable shelter intensity, intrusion, and context implications. The term is borrowed from the Latin word for shelter: tegimen. I've called the urban design knowledge and leadership language that can be assembled from this specification and measurement, evaluation, and prediction: Tegimenology. If interested, please see my book, "The Equations of Urban Design" available on Amazon.com and 270+ essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. The more recent are also located on LinkedIn. A list of these essays is a recent submission to my blog and to LinkedIn.

I should begin by explaining that everything flows from the building design categories, forecast models, and design specification values entered in consistent forecast model formats. The results are predictions, or measurements, of the gross building area options related to floor quantity choices and a given buildable land area. The implications of these predictions are calculated in each forecast model. I've compared these implications to our first blood pressure readings. Research can identify those that are healthy to improve our ability to provide shelter for the activities of growing populations in limited geographic areas defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

SUMMARY

Tegimenics is an umbrella term for shelter capacity measurement, prediction, comparison, and evaluation in city planning, urban design, landscape architecture, architecture, engineering, government, real estate investment, real estate law, urban geography, and other affiliated professions.

Is Architecture a Profession?

 

This is in response to a post on LinkedIn regarding a federal contention that architecture is no longer a professional degree eligible for annual professional education loan limits.

I am not defending architectural education in its current form since I don’t believe it emphasizes the correlation required to lead the contributing professions involved in enough detail -- without the apprenticeship and experience required after the degree award. This does not mean an architect should be an engineer. It means that he/she must be able to evaluate the attributes of all system decisions and equipment choices as part of his/her consultant leadership effort. There may be little popular appreciation for this strategic training since popular opinion rarely considers more than single-family housing.

A plan is a strategy. In architectural terms it is called programming and schematic design during its evaluation, discussion, and formation. Its formal definition involves the correlation of many regulatory, technical and engineering professions. They labor with architectural coordination to shape the plan into a set of contract documents that define the tactical objectives involved. Bidding the plan secures the lowest, but not necessarily the best, price for the campaign. At this point a second wave of tactical mobilization begins with a clearly defined goal. Both strategy and tactics require leadership.

The Normandy invasion is remembered for the tactical action involved. The same is true for architecture. It is remembered for the form and appearance produced, not the strategy involved.

A professional army depends on strategic leadership. Anything less increases the chances of failure. Construction is a battle with an army in the field. Its strategic plans are essential, but they have often led to sprawl and excessive intensity. In my opinion, two the causes are inadequate shelter capacity knowledge and professional advice that has been subject to both investor and popular veto based on a lack of convincing, credible knowledge in the hands of either advocate.

I am not applauding our current success. I do not believe, however, that further deemphasis on the professional measurement, evaluation, comparison and correlation required to build the knowledge required for a  sustainable future will be encouraged by de-emphasizing the acquisition of strategic knowledge. It is the invisible foundation for planning decisions and tactical shelter construction activity.

Choose whatever adjective you prefer for architecture if you wish to argue over “licensed profession” but fund its education in relation to the role shelter knowledge must play in protecting the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect agriculture and their source of life from destruction, pollution, and consumption.

Architectural plans are part of shelter planning on the planet. They define a cellular strategy that combines to form a physical anatomy that we further define with city planning, urban design, landscape architecture, engineering, real estate development, geography, politics, environmental science, economic development, and so on. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts, and we deemphasize its sustainable relationship to the Natural Domain when we discourage pursuit of the professional knowledge required to understand the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

PS: In my opinion, architecture must become a growing, transferable, mathematical, leadership language of shelter capacity research, evaluation, correlation, and knowledge. Part of this opinion is based on my belief that pictures and sculpture are fine art, but that architecture is shelter. It is far more relevant to the decisions we face, and its appearance will symbolize our success or failure.

The challenge we face is an improved ability to correlate the tactical efforts of many. It is anticipation, creativity, and strategic leadership in its most complex form in my opinion. Call it what you will but focus on the objective and fund it accordingly unless you take our presence on the planet for granted.

WM HOSACK BLOG LIST SEPT. 2010 THROUGH NOV. 2025

 

The following update list attempts to assist those who may be interested in the essays I have published since 2010. It includes all published on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and those published on LinkedIn since July 2016.
Those published from October 2020 to April 2023 have been published in my book, Symbiotic Architecture, available on Amazon.com. I plan to continue with updates as needed and hope the list proves useful.

Revenue Implications of Shelter Capacity and Land Use Activity Investment

The land is a city’s source of income. If it doesn’t deliver average revenue per taxable acre equal to its total annual expense per taxable acre, the annual deficit must be reconciled with budget reductions or depletion of its “rainy-day” fund.

I doubt that many cities even know their total annual expense per taxable acre or their total annual revenue per taxable acre. It would be easy to calculate expense per gross acre, but it would be more difficult to calculate by taxable acre, and even more difficult to calculate by taxable, buildable acre. It would be relatively meaningless information, anyway, if it were not contained in a database format of additional information organized by street address, parcel number, census block, census tract, and zoning district number at the very least. (Delete or compartmentalize street address and parcel number if privacy is a concern.) This would allow geographic information mapping of database information at the cellular level of the urban anatomy. Comparing revenue to expense at this level is one way to evaluate the economic health of its various blocks, tracts, and zones. It is the only way, in my opinion, to identify the scope of land use area/activity and additions/adjustments needed to improve a city’s average revenue per taxable, buildable acre. It represents digital urban design, economic planning, mapping, and geographic evaluation at the cellular level of the urban anatomy, but it relies on information sharing arrangements and agreements. Annexation or redevelopment without this information will continue with hope as a strategy based on a lack of analytical data and evaluation. It will produce continuing consumption of agriculture and our source of life, the Natural Domain. Much investment in research, evaluation, debate, and leadership remains if we hope to respect the planet’s unwritten Law of Limits.

At the present time we lack information sharing agreements and reliable data regarding the revenue that can be expected per square foot of gross building area and activity. Until then, the shelter capacity of land and its revenue potential per square foot of activity cannot be usefully linked to improve our ability to shelter the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect their quality and source of life.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

photo credit: BLM Wyoming

PS: The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 Our capacity to shelter all forms of activity will always depend on the gross building area potential of the land involved and the site plan that serves it. 

The land required for housing revolves around what is defined as a dwelling unit. The correlation of land and dwelling takes on greater importance when the issue is “affordable housing”. The potential to provide this housing involves many physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic factors that I’ve collected under the phrase “shelter capacity evaluation”, or Tegimenics. My focus has been on the measurement and evaluation of the physical factors I am qualified to address.

Table 1 defines a detached 2-story dwelling shown in Fig. 1. It was built in 1903 on a 30x105 foot lot and was built at a time when many lots were 20-25 feet wide or less and did not have enough lot width for the driveway shown. I’ve chosen Fig. 1 because the lot size, home area, and site plan would now be considered small, but not necessarily desirable. The density is 13.8 dwelling units per gross acre as shown in cell F5 of Table 1. It is still not small enough to meet the tiny-home standards I’ve encountered, but is more affordable than many others because of its age, condition, and location. This may not be the affordable housing many are seeking, but its design specification in Table 1 raises several issues relevant to the topic.

The Lot, Pavement, and Building Modules of Table 1 contain approximate specification values from memory that define the fundamental characteristics of the home illustrated by the Fig. 1 site plan. The specification values entered in the shaded cells of the Lot, Pavement, and Building Modules produce the gross building area options shown in cells B41-B49. The value in cell B43 represents the existing home example.

The current small-home arguments I’ve read would seem to challenge the need for the garage shown and specified in cells F25-F27 of Table 1 and the driveway area shown and specified in cell F19. Elimination would mean that the lot size could be further reduced and the density increased. Curb parking is not shown in Fig.1 but is present up and down this street. It turns the two-way street into an alternating one-way system that depends on courtesy and deference to function. It is separated from the home by a 10-foot-deep front yard. The immediate questions concerning this property are:

1)   Can the garage and driveway be eliminated in future plans?

2)      Is the unpaved open space provided in cell F13 adequate in relation to the building mass and pavement present?

3)      Are movement, open space, and life support services adequate?

4)      What is the measurable shelter capacity of the project?

5)      What is the measurable intensity of the project?

6)      What is the measurable intrusion imposed by the floor quantity present?

7)      What is the measurable context of the correlated site plan and building features?

8)      Does this plan contribute to the quality of life of the occupants and surrounding neighborhood?

The calculations related to the physical questions involved are provided in the Implications Module of Table 1, but the data do not provide answers.

The purpose of Table 1 is to show that mathematical evaluation of shelter design decisions, once thought intuitive, is feasible when the calculations are reduced to the strategic foundation on which shelter, form, function, and appearance emerge. Prior to the derivation of Tegimenic equations, however, this analysis has taken place in the creative minds of designers following a random format of trial and error at the drawing board or CAD station. The result has too often been sprawl at one end of the intensity spectrum and excessive intensity at the other.

Figure 2 and Table 2 have been provided to show how small home modification and expansion over time on limited lot areas in response to unknown motivation can lead to compression and deterioration often associated with inner-city neighborhoods. It is a difficult issue because shelter is a fixed asset that does not adjust easily. Any reevaluation that leads to redevelopment, urban renewal, and eminent domain has been political disaster in many cases, but any additional land consumption for affordable housing reduces agriculture and the natural domain that is our source of life.

In my opinion, a successful search for affordable housing will depend on our ability to correlate the many mathematical design decisions involved with the shelter capacity of land for diverse occupant activity. In other words, affordable housing represents one of many demands for land area.

The correlation of land area for shelter capacity, occupant activity, movement, open space, and life support determines the economic stability of the whole. Random experiments responding to market preferences have not balanced the economic equation in my opinion. Affordable housing is not an independent part of this equation. It is not an independent dollhouse like that shown in the cover picture. It is a cell that must be combined to contribute to a healthy anatomy. If you share this opinion, you may realize that information sharing, data science, shelter capacity evaluation, financial analysis, and mapping correlation are some of the tools needed to begin building credible arguments for the shelter capacity equations and proposals needed to correlate urban form, design logic, and data modeling within geographic limits defined to protect both our quality and source of life.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

PS: The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

photo courtesy of: tiny home girl

Combating Shelter Sprawl and Excessive Intensity

The quantity specification for a residential site plan determines the density that will be produced.

The Density Forecast Panel in Table 1 is a function of the project quantity definition provided in the shaded cells of the Land, Pavement, and Apartment Program Modules above, unpaved open space quantity choices from shaded cells A46-A64 in the panel, and floor quantity choices on line 44 of the panel. All density options calculated from these options in the Density Forecast Module are a function of the 68 shaded value decisions and options shown, and a change to one or more of them will change the density results calculated in cells C46-M64 of the Density Forecast Panel.

Table 1 should illustrate that 68 shelter design decisions lead to a density result in this example, and that density does not lead any of them. It is a hurdle that too often creates a guessing game with sprawl and excessive shelter intensity of questionable benefit to an entire municipal economy, and a threat to agriculture and the Natural Domain it consumes, as too-frequent results. Shelter capacity evaluation guided by Tegimenic forecast models and government leadership is one option, but it will not be easy to learn to live within limits.

The 260+ essays I have written on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and my book, The Equations of Urban Design, are available to those who wish to pursue new efforts to lead shelter for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life.

PS: Please see Table 2 for the calculated intensity and context implications of the Density Forecast Panel calculations in Table 1. As I’ve said before, these calculations are like the first blood pressure readings taken without the research needed to understand their health insights.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025

Shaping Urban Pattern, Form, and Space for Shelter Capacity and Economic Stability within Limited Geographic Areas

 Urban Pattern, Form, and Space -- Learning to Live Within Limits

I’ve mentioned in some previous essays that I believe our goal must be to shelter growing populations within limited geographic areas that contain economically correlated urban design compositions of shelter capacity, intensity, and occupant activity. In my opinion, it is the only way we can avoid random, sprawling, and excessive consumption of agriculture and the Natural Domain. We cannot do this until we can mathematically measure, predict, evaluate, and lead shelter capacity, intensity, and physical context for activity toward economic stability within these limits.

This is why I have pursued the mathematical language of shelter capacity evaluation and have discussed its evolution in 260+ essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com. The more recent have also been published on LinkedIn. The effort has been summarized in my book, The Equations of Urban Design, that is available on Amazon.com. I regret the title, which should have been “Shelter Capacity Evaluation”, since the book is not about the algorithms and equations embedded in shelter capacity forecast models. It is about a template format and design specification topics related to six building design categories that enable the consistent definition, evaluation, and prediction needed for shelter knowledge accumulation and leadership direction.

We will continue to struggle with sprawl and excessive intensity until we can quickly and efficiently calculate shelter capacity options and their implications based on improved information sharing, data science, mapping evaluation, and mathematical correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity options with their economic implications. The result can be correlated decisions in a language capable of consistently leading our design efforts toward the physical pattern, form, and spatial solutions required for financial stability and quality of life within sustainable geographic limits.

Shelter density is an attempt to define a cake with a partial recipe of unmixed, uncorrelated ingredients. Is it any wonder that the result often fails to satisfy? Table 1 is my initial attempt to illustrate the correlation required for consistent leadership success. It illustrates a language and format of correlated mathematical expression that can help us measure existing conditions, evaluate shelter options, build knowledge, and pursue leadership direction in terms that can produce consistent success.

TABLE 1

Table 1 applies to the G1.R3 Residential Activity Group.* All zoning ordinances contain some of the shaded cell topics in the Land and Pavement Modules of Table 1, but I doubt that most if not all of the ordinances contain the entire list; and I doubt that those included are mathematically correlated to expose their combined implications and/or contradictions.

*G1.R3 refers to the residential apartment activity group (R3) when served by surface parking around, but not under, the building(s) on the same premises (G1).

The shaded topics in all three modules of Table 1 are interrelated and mathematically correlated to either measure or predict the implications presented in its Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module. A simple density limit has been entered into cell F4 and the number of dwelling units it represents has been calculated in cell F5. This entry and calculation do not determine the specification values entered in the template’s remaining shaded boxes, however. This is the point. Any set of values can be entered in the remaining shaded boxes. The embedded template equations calculate the planning and implication results that will respect the density limit given, even though some results will be far less desirable than others, some will be unbearable, and some will be impossible. In other words, density does not lead to design specification decisions, but it can lead to some very undesirable results.

A brief glance at the shaded boxes in Table 1 should indicate the number of variable design decisions involved. Results calculated in the table’s planning and implication modules will change whenever one or more of the shaded values in its Land and Pavement Modules are modified, but are all options desirable? For instance, lower open space quantities in cells A45-A53 produce larger gross building areas and greater potential return in cells B45-B53, but are lower unpaved open space areas desirable? I could ask the same question about any number of the shaded cell values entered, since any value or combination of values would produce different results.

I don’t believe that arbitrary results have ever been the objective. They happen because the equations of urban design have not been derived to predict shelter capacity options and implications that can lead to evaluation and establish parameters that define a healthy, contained urban anatomy. One that is not a parasitic threat to its host. The fact that they now exist does not mean that the effort is over. It has just begun. The Planning and Implication Modules in Table 1 have been provided to assist the effort and are included for every building design category and activity group in The Equations of Urban Design.

At this time, we can calculate the planning and implication results produced by templates of design specification values for classified building design categories like the one presented in Table 1. I have mentioned in other essays, however, that looking at Table 1 results is like looking at the first blood pressure readings. The reader will have no grasp of the health indicated or the parameters needed. (The impossible results are shown in parentheses.) New research is required. The result can be a language capable of consistently leading our design efforts toward the physical pattern, form, and spatial solutions required for financial stability and quality of life within sustainable geographic limits.

Walter M. Hosack, November 2025