RECALLING LINNAEUS

Linnaeus began to classify the plant and animal kingdoms of the natural environment but overlooked a second world. The built environment was a negligible consideration at the time, but has grown into a competing artificial presence that consumes the kingdoms of his work. This is a contest we cannot win in a universe that does not compromise. It is why every acre of land is precious; why we must learn to live within limits; and why we must use each acre wisely within our world as we attempt to shelter growing populations without consuming the planet. 

The consumption of land begins with the concept of property. I won’t even attempt to address this issue except to say that it has been the foundation of perpetual conflict, and that our current legal concepts encourage consumption that will either appear anachronistic or disappear at some future point in time.  

Adaptation requires a correlation of forces that is not inevitable. Correlation extends over millennia and makes competition possible within any given life span. Without correlation, competition produces extinction and the fittest do not survive. My objective is to provide the tools needed to correlate shelter options for growing populations within sustainable limits defined by the science of others.  

After Apollo 11 most will agree that the Earth is a finite resource protected by a thin film of atmosphere at risk; and that it exists within a universe that is one definition of infinity. Therefore, the development capacity of land to provide shelter for growing populations becomes an issue of survival, since the planet is also a source of life that cannot be consumed with impunity. In other words, the built environment competes for land with the natural environment -- and survival depends on the correlation of forces we barely comprehend.  

Land is used by four divisions within the built environment. The Shelter Division is served by the Movement, Open Space and Life Support Divisions. The relationship between building mass, pavement and open space within the Shelter Division is called intensity, which can be magnified by the surrounding intensity of its supporting divisions. Shelter intensity can be defined as the gross building area constructed per acre of buildable land available. Shelter capacity is found when gross building area is multiplied by the population anticipated per 1,000 square feet of building area forecast. The activities sheltered by building intensity combine to establish the social and economic characteristics of urban form. 

Intensity options can be predicted with Development Capacity Evaluation software (DCE) based on the forecast model chosen and the values entered in its design specification template, and hundreds can be forecast in the time it takes to sketch one. The evaluation of these predictions can help us learn to use each acre wisely, since I’ve pointed out that economic potential is a function of building intensity and activity; but over-development represents a threat to our health, safety and welfare.  

There has been no adequate definition of “over-development”, so the debate has wandered in a forest of detail and emotional confrontation that has only led to annexation, sprawl and blight. Debate has been limited by the language available, and DCE has been written to expand this vocabulary with accurate predictions of building capacity options. This may improve our ability to shelter growing populations within sustainable limits. 

Intensity and context combine to create neighborhoods, districts, cities and regions. When the equations of intensity embedded in DCE software are linked to the economic databases and mapping power of geographical information systems (GIS), the three-dimensional potential of urban form will emerge as options expressed in a visual and descriptive language. This can lead us toward life within limits that protect the health, safety and welfare of two worlds that must now learn to function as one.  

Intensity options represent context parameters. If we must learn to live within limits, then both intensity parameters and context design are critical to our health, safety and welfare.  

Within all divisions of the built environment, physical context is produced by the form, function, appearance, arrangement and intensity of building mass, pavement and open space. Social context is a function of the activities permitted within shelter. Economic context is a function of land use allocation, activity and intensity within a jurisdiction.  

Land use plans, building codes and subdivision regulations have been our most prominent attempts to establish context parameters, but our lack of ability to forecast intensity has produced a sprawling attempt to return to the farm. It will become an increasing threat to the planet until we can define the activity, intensity and land use allocations needed to shelter growing populations within symbiotic limits. This is a worthy purpose for our continued presence if we can accept our stewardship responsibilities for the Linnaean kingdoms and Darwinian correlations we have observed along our own evolutionary path. 

_______________________

          
Author Note: Portions of this article were excerpted and edited from the second edition of my book, Land Development Calculations, and its attached forecasting software, Development Capacity Evaluation, v2.0 published by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009.

Introduction to Intensity

Architectural recommendations are difficult to defend when there is disagreement, but decisions affect our sustainable future as certainly as sprawl is consuming our source of life. I originally approached this problem with a desire to understand multi-family residential density. I intuitively felt it was an inaccurate measurement, encouraged over-development, and ignored the issue of sprawl. (See “Replacing Density”; “The Limits of Shelter Capacity”; “Improving the Argument for Architecture and City Design”; and “Context, Capacity and Intensity”) I eventually realized that project open space was a significant element in development capacity calculations and intensity evaluation, but an ignored factor in density regulation. It was the lime missing from the sailor’s diet. This meant that open space would remain a remnant of project design for all land use categories until its development capacity implications could be forecast to permit evaluation, consider alternatives, and justify requirement.

My interest in this topic stemmed from my belief that we simply did not understand “intensity”; could not measure its spectrum from under-development to over-development; could not forecast the spectrum; and as a result could not discuss the issue in terms that could lead development to improved results within limits that protected its source of life. My efforts have produced a method of development capacity evaluation and a vocabulary of intensity that I will attempt to briefly explain, since it has the potential to structure research, define conclusions and defend decisions that are presently vulnerable to attack by opinion. 

Shelter falls into three generic building families and each family uses one of three generic parking systems. Tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 identify these families and parking systems. They also identify the design categories that lead to specific intensity forecast models based on the information given. I’ve called these intensity models development capacity forecast and evaluation models because they predict rows of intensity options related to building height alternatives in their planning forecast panels. 

In effect, Tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 represent decision trees that lead to forecast model identification. Values are entered in the design specification template of a model to produce intensity option predictions in its forecast panel. Changing a value changes a forecast. Switching models changes the design premise.  (These tables are presented at the end of this essay to avoid the interruption they would produce here.) 

Residential and non-residential forecast models CG1L and RG1L are attached as examples labeled Tables 2 and 3. They represent two of forty listed in Tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. The full collection predicts results for all generic parking solutions, including no parking. The approach allows all affected parties to focus on a design vocabulary that defines initial intensity options and shapes all future project direction. 

When evaluating intensity options, a user can alter values in the design specification template of a forecast model to compare results in the design category represented.  He or she can change models to compare design premise or, parking category, options. The result is a strategy based on design premise and specification values that have leadership potential and flexibility. 

It should be apparent after a glance at the design specification templates in Tables 2 and 3 that research is required to identify the implications of design specification values, since many will produce unsatisfactory results in the model’s forecast panel. The research, however, will support recommendations and add credibility to the decisions taken.  

Summary 

Land use and shelter intensity allocation will determine our ability to live and thrive within geographic limits that protect our natural source of life.

Project open space reduces intensity but cannot be ignored, and is included as a conscious entry in all design specification templates.

The planning forecast panels in Tables 2 and 3 predict rows of gross building area options related to building height alternatives when project open space is specified. These capacity options are related to an intensity index INT in the right hand column that takes the form (f.S). The prefix (f) indicates the number of building floors involved. The suffix (S) indicates the percentage of project open space provided within the buildable area. Optional indexes with more detail are discussed in my book. The result is a forecast of intensity options based on an entire set of interactive design specification values.

We need shelter for survival, but total building area must be provided for growing populations within sustainable limits that do not contain excessive intensity. The composition of gross building area, pavement and project open space is shelter. When shelter combines with the movement, open space and life support divisions of our built environment, the composition determines our physical, social, psychological and economic health, safety and welfare.

Exceptional talent will always produce signature buildings that bookmark our progress toward a sustainable future, but design matters because architecture and city design are essential parts of a symbiotic correlation we have called evolution.

Competition produces extinction when correlation is absent. Competition may permit an individual or group to extend its lifespan, but correlation permits the species to survive over time periods beyond comprehension. It not about competition to consume. It's about a correlation of forces that permits continued competition without extinction. This is symbiotic awareness and the correlation of shelter with survival has entered a new dimension of competition where domination is failure.

I have purposely tried to keep this a brief introduction to intensity. For those interested in reading more, there is an extensive collection of free essays on my web site. The 40 forecast models mentioned can be found on a CD attached to my book: Hosack, Walter Martin, Land Development Calculations v.2, The McGraw-Hill Book Companies, 2009.

 

 

Table 2 Development Capacity Forecast Model CG1L

  

Table 3 Development Capacity Forecast Model RG1L

The Symbiotic Goal

Architecture is being advertised as fine art. This goal appears to be project-oriented and owner-specific. Public benefit appears to be a disposable objective, a weak claim and an unintended consequence of building display on the land available. I am not denigrating the effort. I am simply exploring the public relevance of a goal I have assumed. In my opinion, if broad public recognition of benefit is desired in this scenario, the goal must be adjusted to reflect the desire.  

In architecture "design matters" but it’s not a goal. It’s a statement of fact with a misunderstood term. Design refers to a thought process that leads to policy decisions regarding direction, function and result. The public impression of architecture, however, has been built around the term “fine art”; and the problem-solving, policy-making efforts of “design” have suffered by association.

Fine art ignores engineering while architecture has not recognized the difference between engineering policy and practice. For instance, the evaluation and choice of mechanical and structural systems is policy. The sizing of a duct or beam is practice.  

Architects are not practicing engineers. They synthesize diverse information from many technical disciplines to present project policy options and strategic definition. Correlation depends on creativity, knowledge and tools that are the foundation of credibility and persuasion.  One of these tools involves development capacity forecasting and intensity evaluation. It is based on the fact that open space offsets development impact to produce a measurable level of intensity, and the conscious provision of open space is a significant public policy decision within every architectural project. This is not too difficult to argue because open space can weave a city together with a commodity of acknowledged public relevance and benefit. It has been ignored in the past because it's an arbitrary requirement when there is no ability to predict its development capacity implications.

Design and production are terms that do not convey the importance of the policy decisions involved. Design decisions have been related to fine art. Production implies the absence of policy decisions during a process that requires more, not less. 

Imagine Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhower and Patton. In this analogy Roosevelt is the owner. Marshall and Eisenhower are design and production. Patton is construction. Design and production would be ambiguous references to the policy and strategy decisions of Roosevelt, Marshall and Eisenhower. Construction is more clearly related to the tactics of Patton, but his objectives were only part of the policy and strategy required to achieve the allied goal. I’d like to suggest that our goal is a symbiotic future supported by the containment of sprawl and the vocabulary of intensity.  

As a student, I was puzzled by the title of Sigfried Giedion’s classic book, Space, Time and Architecture. My professor, Rudolf Frankel, gave no explanation but named his master’s program City Design long before Edmund Bacon wrote Design of Cities. I have since come to believe that Giedion, Frankel and Bacon were attempting to say that city design is architecture over space and time, and that architecture is shelter served by movement, open space and life support systems. We are now realizing that its expansion must be contained within sustainable geographic limits without excessive intensity. In fact, intensity and land use allocation will become the language of city design; and architecture will refine these plans with tactical design to achieve each strategic objective.  

I have also come to believe that intensity is a feasible leadership vocabulary for the measurement, evaluation, and expression of city design policy; that intensity is the foundation for more detailed architectural decisions; that intensity plans must be codified to repeat architectural success over generations; that intensity does not threaten artistic freedom; that fine art will continue to flourish within intensity parameters; that this can only proceed with the support of public policy and law; and that the public relevance of architecture is linked to city design policies for a symbiotic future.

Intensity 

Architectural intensity per buildable acre is the relationship of gross building area and pavement to project open space. When unbuildable area is included it reduces the intensity calculated but increases the actual intensity experienced within the buildable area that remains.

Project intensity is further influenced by the presence of a city’s movement, life support, and public open space systems. A population’s awareness, understanding and allocation of land use activity and intensity will determine its ability to achieve and monitor physical, social, psychological and economic stability. The survival of a city’s population will depend in part on its ability to limit the encroachment of intensity into its source of life -- The Natural Domain.

I have written about city design in many essays and offered the concepts and tools of intensity measurement, forecasting, evaluation and regulation in the first and second editions of my book and software.

The Architectural Office

At the project level, architecture is based on a free enterprise format associated with competition and natural selection.

So where are we going with this concept of natural selection in architecture? Let me suggest that the answer is not as simple as the one from free enterprise. A reduction in offices and employment is distracting our attention while contributing to the chaos of sprawl. For those unfamiliar with the term, sprawl means an inability to contain shelter, movement, open space and life support systems within a limited built environment that protects its source of life.  

We are now living in the Age of Sprawl. This can only be considered the path to a symbiotic future if we recognize the threat in time. This is currently beyond the scope of private practice, but expanded business opportunity awaits the introduction of new tools and comprehensive leadership equal to the threat. 

Leadership begins with a question. In this case the question expresses the intuition of many. It asks why buildings have become cities of sprawl and if this is the path to a sustainable future? Sprawl is a symbol of competition seeking dominance. It is based on consumption that is a recipe for starvation, not survival. From this perspective competition is a primitive, territorial concept and Darwin’s theory of evolution actually describes a correlation of forces that we barely comprehend, but that improves the chances of survival over time.

Faith in chaos is fatalism that can lead to extinction. It ignores responsibility – and responsibility is a mandate we are expected to define with the gifts we have been given. We understand the term, but have yet to equate it with the natural correlation we must emulate to survive with the knowledge of science and the vocabulary of intensity.

What is Architecture?

Please see "The Nine Phases of Architecture" written in May 2025 for a more definitive description of the effort that produces "architecture".

Architecture has aligned itself with fine art, but fine art is an objective and not the goal. Architecture is shelter. The goal is survival. To achieve the goal, shelter must be contained within geographic limits to protect its source of life. The goal meets fatalism, pessimism and skepticism, however; because city design involves a correlation of project effort with a leadership vocabulary of measurable shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context that has only recently begun to coalesce into language. Architecture is familiar with correlation but retains a limited focus and vocabulary that is not equal to the debate required.

Architectural design will increase in public significance when design responds to special interest with public benefit that can be measured. Building mass, project open space, and pavement quantities are arbitrarily woven into the anatomy of a city with arteries of movement, public open space, and life support systems. The random composition metastasizes to produce "sprawl" at the present time. The objective is survival with security and benefit, but a lack of city design has produced few healthy results and far more prevalent dissonance and economic instability. Design matters because it is more than fine art. It is a resolution of priorities.

I’ve called the prediction of intensity options and the measurement of existing conditions “shelter capacity evaluation”. Future options and decisions defined with its vocabulary of capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context measurements will determine our ability to adapt shelter to a limited Built Domain that recognizes and protects its source of life, The Natural Domain. 

Edited: Walter M. Hosack, May 2025

Intensity Will Become a Measurement for Survival

I’ve been searching for this title for some time with my previous essays. I wrote “Replacing Density” to explain that it and the floor area ratio were inadequate measurement languages for city planning and design leadership. I’ve written a number of others to explain the concept of intensity measurement, forecasting, evaluation and decision. I’ve also explained that activity and intensity combine to produce a measurable indication of context and economic stability -- and that these measurements can indicate negative conditions to be corrected. Throughout these essays, however, I have never clearly stated the obvious. Population needs shelter to survive. Intensity decisions will determine its ability to find shelter and economic stability within a limited Built Domain that does not threaten its source of life. This statement may place a political, social and economic issue in its proper physical context -- the context of architecture and city design within sustainable limits.

The language of intensity and the vocabulary of design specification values are my attempt to rationally address the issue within a Built Domain that must be limited by science. The whole is still the sum of its parts and we can't ignore shelter, since each structure will contribute to sprawl until leadership recognizes the problem. The ultimate solution is symbiotic, and we must get there. Buildings alone will not solve the problem, but buildings and the land they occupy are part of the problem. They serve to frame the issue of shelter for growing populations within a limited Built Domain.

Organic architecture is a wonderful phrase. It has often been interpreted to mean a building that appears to grow from the land. Unfortunately, they don’t; and their fields of sprawl spread like weeds in a garden. I have suggested replacing the term “organic” with the term “symbiotic” because growth without limits and mutual benefit is a threat to survival. A truly symbiotic goal may never be reached but we can do better.  I have tried to create a vocabulary and software tool to address the issue with an approach I’ve called city design. Vocabulary is simply a collection of words, however, until it is connected with measurement, forecasting and evaluation to create a language and dictionary of intensity decisions.

Intensity

 

Intensity is a measurement of place within cities. The context of a single place is created with architecture. A collection of places is created with city design. City design determines land use (activity) allocation and development (shelter) capacity. The combination of activity and capacity produces intensity, which must not threaten the physical, social, psychological or economic health and safety of the population sheltered. City design for development capacity, activity and economic stability produces an average level of intensity within a Built Environment. This environment must only expand within the limits of a Built Domain defined by science, and this will influence our evaluation of intensity options.

 

The ability to measure, catalog, forecast and define intensity options for city design evaluation is explained in my book and software.

The Problem with City Planning

The problem with city planning and design is a language that is not equal to the debate it encounters and the leadership expected. The gap between city planning and city performance is caused by a common failure to easily predict the relationship of land use activity and architectural intensity to municipal income and context improvement.

Activity and intensity emerge from land use allocation within a city to produce context and revenue per acre. Revenue is expected to offset total expense per acre. Shelter intensity is served by movement, open space and life support systems. I’ve called the entire effort city design out of respect for its potential, but it is currently represented by sprawl and the isolation of encircled cities. It cannot presently connect land use allocation and intensity to economic performance and context improvement with an adequate language of development capacity evaluation.

Sprawl represents the misallocation of land and blind attempts to adjust to economic deficits with annexation. We are coming to realize, however, that sprawl must be contained within a limited Built Domain to protect its source of life. The economic performance required to support this goal can only evolve from development capacity evaluation that is linked to financial productivity and context improvement.

Encircled cities face physical, social and economic decline from the same inability to link land use allocation and intensity to economic potential and context improvement. Redevelopment is their only option. Unfortunately, it is a far more difficult challenge and they have no better ability to achieve their goal.

The equation to be resolved is simple, but the data required to solve the equation with development capacity evaluation has not been collected.

The Built Environment Equation

Activity + intensity allocation = context + economic performance.

  

Background

Intensity is an ambiguous term with a precise definition in architecture and city design. It is the gross building area constructed per buildable acre. This area represents, at the very least: quantities of population, cost, income, expense, revenue, return on investment and traffic generation per square foot. The visual impression of intensity is created by the amount of building mass and parking constructed in relation to the open space retained. The decisions that define project intensity combine to determine the urban form, context and shelter capacity of neighborhoods, districts, cities and regions. The activities within shelter capacity determine its economic yield per acre and the financial stability of cities.

Prior to the twentieth century, independent decisions led to the location and construction of shelter capacity. These decisions often produced unacceptable risk to the health, safety and welfare of populations. Master plans, zoning codes and building codes were introduced in response to protect the public health and safety, but welfare was poorly defined. The result has been sprawl that threatens our sustainable future as growing populations flee increasing decline from economic instability, but many have built suburbs with the same internal disease because they do not understand the relationship between activity and intensity that produces economic stability and urban context. Accounting confuses the issue because it does not connect revenue to land use allocation and intensity.. This defeats any comprehensive attempt to adjust the  allocation of activity and intensity to improve  a city’s financial performance. This in turn makes financial strategy a blind attempt to eliminate a deficit with budget cuts and service level reductions. A search for new money produces random waves of annexation and sprawl that consume increasing amounts of The Natural Domain to offset non-performing assets.

Evaluation

A city’s economic productivity is a function of its land use allocation, building intensity and shelter condition. Intensity  begins with the relationship of building mass and parking to open space.. Appearance is added and the combination produces context and revenue to serve the population involved. At the present time, the result is a city of isolated  planning and financial decisions. It often falls into decline because of its inability to correlate this information.

It is difficult to discern building use from appearance without a sign, but separate buildings serving similar activities are like a farmer’s crop. They produce yield that is a function of allocation. The result is revenue per acre that must combine with the revenue from other crops to meet or exceed  farm expense per acre. Unfortunately, a city’s ability to adjust its crop allocation to improve its revenue is far more difficult than a farmer’s ability to adjust his crops for greater income.

A city often pursues annexation in a search for additional income when agricultural land is available. Annexation, however, can add bad decisions to old decisions when a community doesn’t understand the relationship of revenue per land use acre to its expense per acre over time. This prevents informed land use allocation and intensity decisions that deserve the term city design.

City design options can be predicted for specific land areas by entering values in the design specification template of a forecast model. Results are predicted in its planning forecast panel. The process is called development capacity evaluation and is supported by software of the same name. Forecast model options within the software represent design category choices. Each category has a specification template listing its design elements. Values assigned to each element constitute a design specification. The specification produces gross building area forecasts in a planning forecast panel for every building height option entered. Changing a single value in a specification template produces a new set of intensity options, and every option has public revenue and private investment implications that depend on the activity contemplated.

The Relationship of City Design to Economic Stability

Revenue is the yield per acre from every land use and intensity category in a city. Without this information, a city has no idea how its crops are performing to support its public expense per acre. It only knows if the revenue recorded by abstract financial category is above or below previous collections, and if all financial categories combine to meets its annual expense. Income tax is an example of an abstract category in this context. It is not correlated with the land use categories, areas and intensities producing this revenue. A city is left with a vague impression of the income produced by each category, and the impression can be wildly inaccurate.

When revenue is declining or insufficient, the options include tax increases and service level reductions. There is rarely consideration of land use adjustment based on performance evaluation. This is not city planning or design. It is a reaction to information that is unrelated to the land devoted to each source of income. In other words, misallocation of land use activity and intensity will produce inadequate revenue to protect the welfare of a city over time.

Urban form is similar to the appearance of different field crops on a farm. For instance, the tenements of Hell’s Kitchen, the canyons of mid-town Manhattan and the Hamptons of Long Island are crops on a regional farm. Each represents a level of intensity, activity, context and yield per acre that is a function of rudimentary city design decisions. They are called land use planning and zoning. Unfortunately, municipal revenue, expense, improvement and value are currently a function of these decisions. Sprawl is pervasive and decline is common.

Accounting information is rarely linked with city design to determine the economic performance of land use allocation and intensity. This has been partially due to an architectural inability to define and predict shelter intensity options for land use reallocation in a timely manner. This gap has combined with traditional professional isolation and bureaucratic separation to produce a  disconnect that prevents strategic city design decisions.

In other words, if we consider land use categories and intensities to be crops, accounting correlation  reveals crop yield per acre and its contribution to total average revenue per acre. Contrasting this with present and projected average expense per acre can tell a city where it stands. City design with development capacity evaluation can then adjust land use area and intensity goals to improve a city’s quality of life based on economic fundamentals.

Summary

The moral to this story is that we depend on the land for survival. Excessive conversion to sprawl is prompted by the absence of development capacity evaluation and economic correlation. This prevents life within a limited Built Domain and reveals a lack of commitment to The Natural Domain. This cannot be sustained on a planet that demands correlation to survive. We have called its biological equivalent adaptation. Encircled cities are being forced to adapt and we may be able to learn from their example.

Let me challenge your imagination by drawing an analogy to the 17,000 year old paintings in the caves at Lascaux. Assume the paintings were produced by talent with an intent to create vocabulary. Speech evolved to address the increasing awareness of complexity. 17,000 years later we are painting pictures of our built environment with satellite photography and searching for a vocabulary to describe the sprawl we see. We are learning again that it is one thing to recognize your environment and quite another to avoid its consequences.

I am suggesting the vocabulary of intensity as an addition to the languages we have created to coexist with a Natural Domain that does not compromise with ignorance. It applies to the Shelter Division of our Built Environment and will influence its Movement, Open Space and Life Support divisions. In my imagination it is consistent with the lesson from Lascaux. Additional vocabulary is needed in the continuing search for adaptation from correlation that preserves a sustainable, symbiotic future.

________________________

The vocabulary and language of intensity can be found in the following book and software:

Hosack, Walter M., Land Development Calculations, ed. 2, and attached forecasting software, Development Capacity Evaluation, v2.0 published by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. Also available at Amazon.com and other booksellers

Zoning Problems & Potential

Eric Rawlings, AIA has been kind enough to respond to my essay entitled “A Common Imperative” on the AIAKnowledgeNet at the Committee on Environment. His response focused on zoning and stimulated me to simply express what has been a long journey through confusing detail.  

Eric, I speak from a lifetime of frustration when I agree with you about zoning. I also speak from a lifetime of experience when I tell you it’s the only legal foundation for more consistent improvement in the context, capacity and intensity of our built environment. 

I have implied the need for zoning improvement by contrasting The Built Domain to The Natural Domain. In my opinion, The Built Environment cannot expand beyond the limits of a Built Domain (that is yet to be defined) if we are going to protect its source of life – The Natural Domain. Individual design efforts will not be equal to the goal until they are led by adequate design regulation. Current zoning is not the answer, but it is an opportunity. 

The building code is a perfect analogy. Public health and safety could not be protected without regulation because design has little power beyond persuasion, and persuasion is poorly taught. Many designers still stand on the sidelines complaining about abuse of their prerogatives. The public does not agree and designers need to improve the game by simplifying the process. I’ll have more to say about this later. 

The same is true for zoning but the stakes are even higher -- because the risk is not internal. Outstanding architecture depends on a foundation of excellent context, capacity and intensity like a soloist depends on a symphony.  

I have attempted to contribute a language of intensity that can be used to write the music¹. The future will need composers -- and a conductor called zoning. We can write music on a score that others can perform with the vocabulary of intensity. It’s time for some to leave the audience and begin the research required to lead an incredible number of instruments.

See "The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance" for more detail

¹ Hosack, Walter M., Land Development Calculations, ed. 2, and attached forecasting software, Development Capacity Evaluation, v2.0 published by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009.

A Common Imperative

***PLEASE SEE MY LATEST BOOK, The Science of City Design: Architectural Algorithms for City Planning and Design Leadership. The book offers a universal language to correlate the work of many isolated disciplines concerned with one issue: The provision of shelter for the activities of growing populations within a limited Built Domain that protects their quality and source of life - The Natural Domain. It is available from Amazon.com in both e-book and paperback.***

Imagine medicine without public sanitation and you will see doctors walking past refuse on the streets and sidewalks. Imagine architecture without city design and you will see sprawl blanketing the planet. Public health and sanitation represent a common imperative that now permits medicine to claim public benefit -- but architecture remains an individual service to special interests.

After centuries of plague and disease, public health emerged as a common concern in the twentieth century. Public safety was already the province of government, but public welfare remained a relatively ambiguous term slandered by accusations of socialism and communism.

Medicine and law protect individual health and safety. Public health, legal services and law enforcement protect the common welfare. Medicine and law claim public benefit because of their close association with the effort, but this leaves welfare seeking political definition. The replacement phrase, “quality of life”, has been a step in the right direction; and I would like to suggest that quality is affected by the intensity we build within cities. If you agree, you may also agree that intensity must be consciously designed to protect the physical, social, psychological and economic components of a quality environment.

This is where architecture enters the picture. Medicine is to public health as architecture is to city design -- and city planning is not city design. Planning is to city design as a floor plan is to a building. In fact, planning has promoted sprawl because its legal concepts of land use separation, zoning regulation and private property rights are two-dimensional in nature. They spread like oil on water. Zoning takes a stab at building height regulation, but evaluates proposals on an individual basis. It has little concept of the context, capacity and intensity needed to protect a city's quality of life, and a master plan is simply a land use floor plan. This gap in our grasp of The Built Environment represents the common imperative for city design.

City design of context, capacity and intensity is a function of design specifications and development capacity equations. They produce a set of gross building area predictions that represent the development capacity of land under the conditions specified. It has been impossible to comprehensively predict capacity and context options in any reasonable period of time -- much less change one specification value in a template to predict a new set of results. This has kept the focus on individual projects and prevented us from addressing the common imperative for city design.

If you can predict development capacity, you can also predict construction cost, population capacity, revenue potential, return on investment and traffic generation. In fact, you can predict anything that is related to the gross square feet of building area forecast per buildable acre. This amount represents a level of intensity, and it is now possible to make these predictions. This in turn makes it possible to shelter growing populations within sustainable geographic limits that protect their source and quality of life.

Separating desirable from undesirable intensity predictions can protect our quality of life. It won’t begin, however, until a common imperative is recognized; and this is where the public benefit of architecture will be proven. Outstanding individual examples can then be identified within the level of excellence achieved.

Background

The Built Environment must not expand beyond the geographic limits of a Built Domain defined to protect its source of life – The Natural Domain. Human activity within The Built Environment requires shelter. The Shelter Division is served by its Movement, Open Space and Life Support Divisions. The city design of these four divisions will determine the quality of life achieved. The language of intensity has been created to stimulate the evaluation of shelter context and capacity without excessive reliance on time-consuming and incomplete sketches.¹ 

If you step back from the detail for a moment, you can see that gross building area shelters activity; and can be remodeled to serve any use. The amount of building area constructed per buildable acre is intensity. Intensity measurement is an indication of context and capacity when it includes the building height and open space percentage provided. City design involves the evaluation of intensity options and open space provisions that can protect our physical, social, psychological and economic quality of life.

City design is a common imperative like health and safety. All three intend to protect the common welfare, but city design is far more complicated because it involves the coordination of many currently isolated specialties. Architects are very familiar with the challenge of coordination, but the scope of city design is not suited to their business model any more than public health is suited to the business model for private medical practice. Without city design, however; architecture will have a difficult time convincing the public of common benefit.

I don't believe the practice goals of architecture are currently associated with a common benefit in the public mind. In fact, owner influence is perceived as a force to be regulated with building and zoning codes. City design remains a dream. This is the world of imagination and anticipation. If you stop to think, however, we had to imagine that rats and fleas could carry plague before proof could produce an imperative for public health. We must now imagine that sprawl is another plague extended by ignorance. In this case our problem is not microscopic, however. It is too large to see without satellite photography -- and we are the microscopic problem.

We can’t wait for proof that sprawl and pollution will suffocate the planet. I’ve tried to make my point with an analogy to medicine that is limited in comparison. On an individual level, neither medicine nor architecture wants to do its patient harm; but this is a practice goal focused on individual effort. The public goal for both is to protect the survival of populations. Medicine has responded with public health organizations. The common imperative for architecture is city design based on intensity evaluation. The goal is shelter for populations within sustainable limits, but this is not all. These limits must contain city design that does not threaten urban quality of life with excessive intensity. Public health will be irrelevant if we do not succeed. 

Progress from individual effort to collective awareness begins at birth, and the history of man is filled with examples of incomplete adjustment followed by competition, conflict and chaos. Professions are no different. Medicine is the most successful example of aadjustment because the common imperative for public health was recognized and accepted. The law has evolved because the common imperative for justice eventually overcame personal and privileged opinion. Shelter is equally essential to the public interest, but architecture remains a collection of city-states competing for individual territory. Its role is limited because common benefit is fought by special interests that divide to conquer in the name of competition. The excellence of architecture will be perceived as a public benefit when it recognizes the common imperative involved. Outstanding individuals can then be identified in the proper context.

________________________.

¹The language of intensity can be found in the following book and software: Hosack, Walter M., Land Development Calculations, ed. 2, and attached forecasting software, Development Capacity Evaluation, v2.0 published by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009.

Recalling Michelangelo

***Please see my latest book, The Science of City Design: Architectural Algorithms for City Planning and Design Leadership, on Amazon.com in both e-book and paperback versions.***

Michelangelo’s statue of David represents the dignity of man as he faces adversity, at least in my opinion. The Borgia conflict was simply the stimulus for his universal statement. If we moved David to a congested street corner festooned with the baggage of commerce and traffic control, it would corrupt his message -- like the tenements and crowded streets of Manhattan corrupt the message from architecture. Moving David from the Piazza della Signoria is my attempt to illustrate that intensity can overwhelm a message that depends on context. 

The open space of The Natural Domain sits on one side of the context scale. Four divisions of The Built Domain are on the other. The design of these four divisions: Shelter, Movement, Open Space and Life Support will determine the balance we achieve and the message we send. From this perspective, architecture is shelter with a message. It is not an object of privilege. It creates space within its domain, but its context will continue to suffer from excess; and survival will hang in the balance, until its public message is recognized at the intersection of speculation and survival.

We must be able to measure intensity, understand its implications and predict alternatives before we can pursue the city design of context and capacity in the public interest. Context, capacity and intensity affect our quality of life within The Built Domain. Balancing these elements involves design specification values, public debate and regulation. Without adequate regulation, we will be left with isolated sculptures of achievement in blighted wastelands of speculation. In fact, many urban areas have already achieved this dubious distinction with inadequate information, incomplete knowledge, uncoordinated regulation and the random application of opinion.  

From this perspective, massing context, capacity and intensity is the first order of business for architecture and city planning. It is needed to produce adequate city design compositions that yield physical, social, psychological and economic stability. The Michelangelos among us can then release form, function and appearance from massing to enhance the places created and message intended. In my opinion, it is the only strategy that has a chance of sheltering growing populations within a limited Built Domain that does not threaten its source of life – The Natural Domain. 

If David sits on a street corner, his photograph must be carefully composed. I don’t know how many times I’ve been surprised by the context of an architectural masterpiece after studying its picture in a history book. This alone convinced me that there is another dimension to architecture. I am not the first to call it city design, but it has little financial support because urban composition has been left to the marketplace -- and the inadequate design of zoning regulation. The result has been a context of sprawl, intensity and instability that now threatens the planet with its growth.  

The lesson from David is that design excellence transcends the object. Its message depends on context the way speech depends on place for gravity. In the case of modern architecture, its message will be one of secluded privilege until it can speak in the context of public benefit with the language of intensity.  

Intensity options are potential stones of knowledge for David’s sling. The target is a Goliath called precedent. The goal is adaptation. Architects and planners can rise to the occasion with others as David scans the horizon. This is where design excellence in the public interest can be found. Anything less will be a statue on a street corner.

 

AUTHOR NOTE: A policy goal is a sound byte without a leadership strategy. I suggested a strategic planning agenda in “Replacing Density”. For those who wish to read more, please see the detailed companion essays entitled, “Context, Capacity and Intensity” and “Parking Variances Offer a Glimpse into the Future”.

Parking Variances Offer a Glimpse into the Future

Parking variance requests indicate the need for more informed development capacity evaluation and design regulation. The improved platform is needed to provide leadership for more consistent and sustainable design excellence throughout a limited Built Domain.  

If an owner knows that he wants to construct a 30,000 sq ft. building with a parking lot and a parking requirement of one space for every 250 sq. ft. of gross building area (a250), the Planning Forecast Panel in Table 1 predicts rows of options related to the building height alternatives (f) listed in its left hand column.¹ If we look across from the 3 floor option, the buildable acres column (BAC) in Table 1 tells us that he would need 1.987 acres based on the values entered in the Design Specification Template above. For the sake of this example, he owns 1.5 buildable acres and a quick scan down the BAC column tells us that even a 15 story building would require 1.713 acres. Obviously, some design adjustments are needed. Unfortunately, the (s), (a) and (S) values in the Design Specification Template, and the (f3) value in the Planning Forecast Panel, represent zoning ordinance requirements for this example; and at least one variance is needed to reduce the BAC required.

The arrows in Table 1 point to zoning requirements that will be discussed as variance options. Decisions lead to variance requests that are evaluated by a public Board of Zoning Appeal. Unfortunately, its decisions can be arbitrary because the logic for these regulations is poorly documented. This makes the regulation suspect and decision a matter of opinion among appointed residents. It’s no wonder we have sprawl, but let me finish this example by discussing the variance options in play before commenting further.

Table 1: Buildable Acre Requirements Based on a Given Gross Building Area Objective and a Template of Design Specification Values

Option 1: If the owner tested a parking variance from a250 to a355 in Table 1 while all other values remained constant, the BAC column in the Planning Forecast Panel would forecast the land area needed as 1.501 acres for a 3 story building.

Option 2: If the owner tested a project open space variance from 30% to 8.3% (S.3 to S.083) in Table 1 while all other values remained constant, the BAC column in Table 1 would again forecast the land area needed as 1.501 acres for a 3 story building.

Option 3: If the owner tested a reduction in the parking lot area provided per space from 400 sq. ft. per space (s400) to s282, the BAC column in Table 1 would forecast the land area needed as 1.502 acres for a 3 story building.

EVALUATION

There are very practical problems with each of the variance options mentioned.

Option 1: Requesting a parking variance reduces the number of spaces provided, but the owner will argue that this is all that is needed in his particular case. This tailors the building to his need and ignores future owners. The city’s economic interest, however, depends on the building as a continuing source of public revenue that must maintains its attraction to future buyers.

Option 2: Most zoning ordinances don’t specify open space beyond setback requirements, and these can often be paved under the concept that a parking lot is open space. This is unfortunate because storm sewer sizes depend on runoff assumptions that depend on the relationship between open space and impervious development cover. A city that does not know these storm sewer runoff assumptions can easily permit excessive building cover and pavement that exceeds a property owner's share of capacity. In this theoretical example, a reduction to 8.3% open space might not even be feasible if the land has an irregular shape or other unusual characteristics that cannot accommodate the building and parking cover needed.

Option 3: An average surface parking lot area of 282 sq. ft. per space is not feasible when circulation aisles and turning islands are included in the calculation.

SUMMARY

Option 3 is not realistic. Option 2, if possible, represents a building sitting in a parking lot. This is a solution that is familiar to all of us, but is vulnerable to decline, a threat to storm sewer capacity and a negative influence on neighborhood context and appearance.

Option 1 sacrifices public benefit for private gain. The parking lot may indeed be adequate for the owner’s purpose, but the building he occupies must continue to be useful after he leaves. If it is handicapped by inadequate parking, the community may suffer from a decline in attraction that can affect its economic stability over time.

A city is in the business of averages that protect its stability. Special exceptions defeat this purpose, and parking variances are a common attempt to over-develop land with exceptions that can easily threaten future value. The argument is often based on a claim of “hardship”, but the only hardship in this example is inadequate land area to accomplish the development objective. The claim that the parking requirement itself is a hardship based on the characteristics of a specific activity is a typical argument. It’s often successful because the requirement depends more on precedent than documented analysis. This leads to the claim that it is excessively restrictive in specific cases, but the law is written to protect the future with average values -- and the debate continues to search for proof that will always be an approximation.

Option 1 has just shown that the land owner must exceed the parking limit of a250 by 29.6% to reach his development capacity objective of 30,000 gross sq. ft. with a 3 story building. If a Board of Zoning and Planning approved this request, it would be similar to approving an 84.2 mile per hour speed in a 65 mile per hour zone, and most of us know there are limits to the latitude that should be taken.

THE ISSUE FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

The previous options have been based on data forecast from software model CG1B in the DCE software collection. Option 4 is based on forecast model CG1L and predicts the realistic gross building area capacity of the 1.5 acre land area just discussed. By locating the intersection of (f3) with the GBA column, you can see that the site has 23,658 gross sq. ft of building capacity when 3 floors are considered and 30% open space is specified. This increases to 24,723 sq. ft. if a 1 story height variance is granted to the (f4) row; and to 25,410 gross sq. ft. if a 2 story height variance is granted to the (f5) row, assuming all other zoning requirements are met. Neither variance comes close to the 30,000 sq. ft. objective.

If city storm sewer capacity in this area was originally designed for runoff from 30% impervious cover, 70% open space was anticipated. In this case, Option 4 would predict that 3 story gross building area capacity would decline to 10,139 sq. ft.

Option 4: The Realistic GBA Capacity of 1.5 Buildable Acres

Chart 1 has been created to plot the relationships just mentioned. Buildable area from 1 to 7 acres is arranged along the y-axis. Project open space options from 8.3% to 70% are arranged along the x-axis. Each line in the chart represents a building height option from 1 to 5 floors. All lines show that buildable acre predictions increase when unpaved project open space (S) increases along the x-axis and the gross building area objective remains constant at 30,000 sq. ft.. At any open space increment, a vertical line would intersect with all building height options and reveal the buildable acres required for each option. The results confirm what you would intuitively expect, but with mathematical accuracy.

Chart 1: The Effect of Building Height and Project Open Space Combinations on the Buildable Land Area Required

  

BACKGROUND

The relationship of building height to building cover produces building mass more commonly known as cubic area. Parking, loading and miscellaneous pavement combine with building cover to produce development cover, or impervious cover in civil engineering terms. The amount of gross building area that can be constructed per buildable acre is development capacity. The amount of open space provided on the same buildable area restricts development capacity by introducing context. The relationship of capacity to context is intensity. Intensity (INT) can be classified in the simplest terms by noting the number of building floors and percentage of total development cover planned or provided.

More specifically, intensity is the gross building area constructed in sq. ft. (GBA) per buildable acre involved (BAC), and is limited by the open space area introduced. The result is capacity and context. The capacity defined by design specification values shelters activity. The types and quantities of activity attracted determine economic stability.

Capacity can be measured on an intensity scale. A complete scale is represented by the design specification template in a forecast model. These values can be measured at existing locations. Other values can also be tested in a design specification template to forecast context, capacity and intensity options. This process of measurement, evaluation, decision and direction is an approach that can contribute to integrated open space and sustainable city design.

The lack of an adequate intensity measurement and forecasting system has obstructed our pursuit of knowledge. The obstruction has been removed with the DCE forecasting system. Its use can help us pursue knowledge that will determine our success in providing shelter for growing populations within a limited Built Domain that does not threaten its source of life – The Natural Domain.

CONCLUSION

A parking requirement is part of an intricate web of design specification values that combine to determine the context, capacity and intensity of an intended activity. When a design specification value represents a zoning requirement, its impact can be easily forecast with the DCE collection of forecast models. At this point it is an essential tool because we have limited confidence in specific zoning requirements. The result has been guesswork, a lack of public conviction, and doubt that leads to arbitrary variances, excessive intensity and sprawl.

The problem begins with the tools. City planning has had difficulty dealing with three dimensions, but cities are not only compromised by two-dimensional land use conflicts that require separation. They also suffer from an inadequate ability to forecast the consequences and opportunities of context, capacity and intensity options.  

The pressure of expanding populations and economic instability can easily lead us to sacrifice context for intensity. This increases shelter capacity and economic yield per acre, but it comes at the cost of context. We intuitively know that excessive intensity can threaten our quality of life, not to mention our sustainable future; but we haven’t been able to measure and evaluate the options. This has left use with sprawl while contemplating variance requests without an adequate frame of reference.  

In the end, our ability to evaluate variance requests will reveal the progress we have made toward a limited Built Domain that does not threaten its source, or quality, of life.

¹Data predicted by forecast model CG1B in a software collection entitled Development Capacity Evaluation v.2. The collection is attached to its manual of explanation, Land Development Calculations, ed.2. The book and software have been written by Walter M. Hosack and published by the McGraw-Hill Companies, 2010.