Shelter Design Specifications and Affordable Housing

 

The values entered in the design specification template of a building design category forecast model determine the gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that will be produced. This standardized format of classification, measurement, and comparison can contribute to shelter design knowledge and leadership over time.

A building design category is a generic form of shelter that may be occupied by any permitted activity group. The area may also assume any architectural form or style. The design specification topics and algorithms for each category vary, but the format and subtraction leading to the core area remaining for building and parking cover remains the same. Master equations have been derived to predict the gross building area, footprint, and shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of the remaining core area based on the specification values entered. A change to one or more of the specification values entered produces a new implication predictions.

Research and evaluation of the results produced by building category forecast models can build the knowledge needed to identify the physical parameters that define what we have called “quality of life” or “health, safety, and welfare”.

Activity groups occupy generic building design categories. The residential activity group has been led by density measurements. The non-residential group has been led by the floor area ratio. Both measurements define limitations but do not lead the design specification decisions that produce shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context within the cities we inhabit. The results have too often been shelter sprawl and excessive shelter intensity expanding across the face of a limited planet expected to serve an expanding population. At least one contributing factor has been the lack of a consistent building classification system and design specification format capable of measuring, predicting, evaluating, and building knowledge about the physical design decisions needed to shelter our social and economic activity within geographic limits.

BUILDING DESIGN CATEGORIES

The gross building area potential of a given land area is a mathematical function of the building design category chosen. There are only six when classification is diverted from architectural period and style to the parking system used to serve a building. This classification makes the mathematical prediction of gross building area options for any given land area feasible.

In my opinion, the accurate calculation of shelter demand and capacity is the only way to limit the Built Domain and protect our source of life, the Natural Domain, from excessive pollution and encroachment. I’ve mentioned building design category classification on many occasions but will repeat it here since shelter capacity is a mathematical function of the choice. The six categories are:

(G1) All buildings served by surface parking around, but not under, the building on the same premise, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(G2) All buildings served by surface parking around and/or under the building on the same premise, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(S1) All buildings served by adjacent parking garage levels, spaces, and auxiliary surface parking that consume a portion of the core land area on the same premises, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(S2) All buildings served by an underground parking garage within the buildable land area of the premises, and auxiliary surface parking area, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(S3) All buildings served by a parking garage below the building, and auxiliary surface parking within the core land area of the same premises, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

(NP) All buildings without surface or structure parking on the same premises.

I have included a seventh non-habitable building design category in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design” to address remote, stand-alone parking garage design options.

(PG) All buildings used as independent parking structures on separate lots or parcels, excluding land reserved for future expansion.

GENERIC SHELTER CAPACITY FORECAST MODELS

A generic building design category may be occupied by any permitted activity. However, the characteristics of some activity groups require modification of the design specification topics in a forecast model. A forecast model related to the Residential Activity Group will be introduced as an example after this discussion.

The shelter capacity of a building design category varies widely depending on the values entered in the design specification template of its forecast model. This can be explained by examining the design specification topics and values entered in the modules of Table 1. They apply to the G1 Building Design Category, but the concept is universally applicable even though the topics may be adjusted to suit some categories and occupant activity groups.

Land Module

The shaded cells on lines 3-20 of Table 1 identify value entry locations in a typical Land Module. They are used by embedded template equations to lead from the gross land area given in cell F3 to the buildable land area calculated in cell F10, and the remaining shelter land area in cell F17. A review of the module will reveal the subtraction used to arrive at the land area available for shelter introduction in cell F17.

I’d like to draw special attention to the unpaved open space specification (OSAU) in cell F11. It has often been ignored by design standards, but determines the building compression of space introduced. In addition, the remaining impervious cover percentage is identified by subtraction in cell F12, and must be accommodated by the storm sewer capacity present or proposed.

Core Module

Subtraction of shaded cell values and calculation continues in cells F23-F32 to find the core land area (CORE) available for building and parking cover in cell F33.

Planning Forecast Panel

The core value calculated in the Core Module of Table 1 is the final value needed by the master equation in cell B39 to calculate gross building area options (GBA) in cells B44-B53 of the Planning Forecast Panel. These alternatives are a function of the floor quantity options entered into shaded cells A44-A53.

I’d like to draw special attention to the estimated parking and circulation area per space (s) entered in cell A35 and the building sq. ft. permitted per parking space (a) entered in cell A36 since they combine with the unpaved open space percentage entered in cell F11 to influence the remaining land available for a building floor plan or “footprint” and the ensuing gross building area potential produced by the floor quantity options entered in cells A44-A53.

I should remind you that Table 1 is related to the G1 Building Design Category. Gross building area options are a function of a building category choice and the design specification values entered in its design specification module.

Gross building area alone is a value within a spectrum of options that vary with the design category chosen and design specification values entered, but it doesn’t indicate the implications involved. These are calculated in the following module.

Implications Panel

The shelter capacity implications of a set of design specification values and gross building area results in cells A44-A53 are measured in column F of the Implications Panel, based on the equation in cell F43. Intensity, Intrusion and Context implications are measured in columns G, H and J based on the equations in cells G43, H43 and J43.

Correlation and Comparison

The correlation of design specification decisions produces gross building area predictions and shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. Density is a product of these correlated decisions. It does not lead them or define their desirable parameters. A

t the present time a review of implication calculations, or measurements, is like staring at the first blood pressure readings. It took a great deal of measurement, observation, correlation, and collaboration over time to build the knowledge needed to define healthy parameters.

ACTIVITY GROUPS

Table 2 addresses the G1 Building Design Category when it is occupied by the R1 Residential Activity Group. This group includes all single family detached residential homes on recorded lots. The design specification template of Table 2 includes Lot, Pavement, and Building Modules containing 24 shaded cells that require value entries.

The Table 2 design specification format has been chosen to show hat the density entered does not lead the decisions required in the remaining 23 shaded cells. It simply defines the minimum net lot area calculated in cell G5, which is substantially below that used for current single-family lots. Based on correlation of the other values entered in the shaded cells of Table 2, the Planning Forecast Panel predicts that a two-story home, excluding garage, could equal 1,016 sq. ft. in cell B43. It does not predict, however, that a satisfactory floor plan and building elevation can be produced on the lot size defined in cell G5.

The point is that the home area results produced in cells B41-B49 are not a function of the density requirement. The most significant factors were the unpaved open space percentage entered in cell F13, the pavement requirements entered in cells F17-F20, and the garage requirements entered in cells F25 and F26. Any or all of these values could be adjusted to produce different home area results that would affect the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications calculated in the Implications Panel.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

I didn’t choose this example as an illustration of current residential subdivision aspirations. I chose it to illustrate the mathematical correlation of design specification decisions required to clarify leadership intent regarding shelter capacity direction, and to illustrate the design decisions involved with affordable housing; since I believe it comes down to the cost of the land area devoted to each dwelling unit, the square foot area and cost of the dwelling unit, and the open space that remans to relieve the intensity introduced. This does not mean that these physical design decisions will be considered compatible with adjacent land use decisions, patterns, and property values. It is simply meant to explain the physical, mathematical decisions involved so they can be carefully examined.

PS: REPEAT FROM “PURSUING URBAN DESIGN KNOWLEDGE”

“Gross building area can be occupied by any permitted activity. Its internal capacity for activity varies with the specification values entered in a companion activity group template. The addition of an activity group template to a building category forecast model correlates the predicted gross building area options for land with each option’s internal capacity for the activity based on the specification values entered in the companion activity group template. The results have economic potential related to the scope of activity predicted within the gross building area options predicted.

I’ve illustrated the building design category-activity group relationship with the Residential Activity Group of specification templates in several previous essays. A more complete presentation is included in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”.

Shelter capacity results have social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications that remain to be correlated with measurement and evaluation that can lead to knowledge regarding the quality of life implied by measurable alternatives.

Currently the Shelter Division of the Built Domain is served by Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions in both the Urban and Rural Phyla of a Built Domain that is currently a parasitic threat to the Natural Domain. This threat cannot be addressed with debate over the details of independent, conflicting zoning regulations that require arbitrary adjustment, or land use master plans that depend on annexation of agriculture and the Natural Domain to address budget deficiencies based on land use activity and shelter capacity misallocation.

Shelter capacity evaluation is a measurement language capable of evaluating options and guiding decisions toward the goal of shelter for the activities of growing populations within limited geographic areas designated and designed to protect their quality and source of life, the Natural Domain. It is simply a classification and measurement language that can be used to pursue research and define conclusions capable of consistent context leadership, however.

The Latin word for shelter, roof, or cover is “tegimen”. I pronounce it “tejimen”, even though this may offend Latin scholars, and would like to suggest the word “Tegimenics”, “Tegimenistics”, or “Tegimenology” as a label for those interested in pursuing the issue of shelter capacity and quality of life for growing populations in limited geographic areas on a planet in a universe that expects us to anticipate its unwritten Law of Limits. It is a language intended to give a quantitative voice and credible support for emerging but also ancient topics many refer to as urban design or city design with roots in architectural design.”

PSS: REPEAT FROM SEVERAL EARLIER ESSAYS

“I self-published “The Equations of Urban Design” on Amazon.com in 2020 to summarize and improve my work in three previous books entitled, “Land Development Calculations”, editions 1 and 2 published by McGraw-Hill in 2001 and 2010, and “The Science of City Design” self-published on Amazon.com in 2016. They represent my continuing effort to explain the site plan allocation that precedes architectural design, urban design, city design and landscape architecture. It is the quantity allocation of building cover, parking cover, pavement, unpaved open space, and floor quantity in a site plan that determines shelter capacity options, context, and quality of life in mathematical terms equal to the leadership debate involving private enterprise and architecture, landscape architecture, government, city planning, real estate law, zoning regulation, and economic development. The mission is to establish a consistent leadership language for shelter debate and land consumption decisions on a planet that does not compromise with failure to anticipate.

I also maintain a blog entitled, “Cities and Design” at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com that began in September 2010. It currently contains 260+ essays for anyone interested in following the topic. The more recent essays are also included on LinkedIn.”

Walter M. Hosack, October 2025

Planning, Economic Development, Urban Design, and Government

 

Economic development will continue to be a strategy based on hope until a city can correlate its annual expense per taxable acre with the annual revenue it receives per acre from every taxable parcel or block, tract, and zone within its boundaries. At this point it will be able to correlate its average expense per taxable acre with the average yield per taxable acre it requires to deliver a desirable quality of life within its boundaries. It is rather obvious that “desirable” will remain a political question as well as a financial issue; that “within” can only be answered by scientific evaluation; and that both will be subject to unstable popular opinion that Jefferson debated with the term “self-evident”.  

At this point public leadership will have the information needed to pursue an economic strategy based on data science and Tegimenic analysis of shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and revenue options at the level of financial analysis, strategic planning, and urban design visualization needed to shelter growing populations within geographic limits defined to protect both their quality and source of life, the Natural Domain.

Walter M. Hosack, October 2025

Unlimited Land Consumption for Shelter on a Limited Planet

This is not a world without end nor a land without end. It is a world with an unwritten Law of Limits that requires anticipation to avoid natural intervention. My concern has been the growth of shelter for activity across the face of our planet without a leadership language capable of meeting anticipated demand within geographic limits that protect and preserve our source of life, the Natural Domain. This challenge cannot be met without a correlated mathematical ability to measure and predict the shelter capacity of land. It is the only way to maximize its potential in limited areas without compromising our quality of life with excessive intensity, in my opinion.

Shelter capacity in the Built Domain is gross building area in square feet per buildable acre of land assigned to the project. It can be produced by any one of six building design categories and their related template specification decisions. The gross building area options resulting from these specification decisions produce measurable shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications within a spectrum that ranges from excessive land consumption and low shelter intensity to minimal land consumption and excessively high shelter intensity. Consistently desirable quality of life parameters within this intensity spectrum have yet to be mathematically defined for each building design category and occupant activity group.

If you have read my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”, available from Amazon.com; or any of my 260+ essays on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com; or some of the more recent essays posted on LinkedIn, you know that the mathematical language of Shelter Capacity Evaluation is represented by forecast model templates related to six building design categories that encompass the shelter options in use today. The values assigned to their template specification topics represent the language used to predict gross building area options with a master equation related to the category. The predicted options have shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that are produced by their conversion equations. Comparison and evaluation of these measurements can produce transferable knowledge and precise, consistent guidance. This is the leadership language of Tegimenics and the science of Tegimenology needed to defend urban design proposals within sustainable geographic limits.

Unlimited growth is not an option on a limited planet.

DEFINITIONS

I’m including the following definition of terms I have used that may be unfamiliar to those who haven’t read my previous essays.

Buildable Land Area (BLA)

Buildable land area is gross land area minus unbuildable areas, existing areas to remain, future expansion areas, public roads, easements, and other unnamed set-asides.

Shelter Capacity (SFAC)

Shelter capacity is gross building area in square feet per buildable acre, except for buildable land area reserved for future expansion.

Tegimenics

Tegimenics is based on the classification of all buildings into six shelter design categories. The language is represented by design category forecast models, design specification topics related to each model, algorithmic correlation of the values entered, and master equations using correlated specification values to predict:

1)      Gross building area options for a given land area. This includes the mathematical shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of the options for evaluation and comparison.

2)      Buildable land area options for a given gross building area. This includes the mathematical shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications of the options for evaluation and comparison.

Tegimenology

The study of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context measurements within the urban and rural phyla of the Built Domain. The intent is to determine template specification options for building design categories and occupant activity groups that can produce desirable shelter capacity, intensity, and context for growing populations within limited geographic areas. Think of these as optional quantity recipes for the urban design composition of shelter space, place, and form within sustainable limits.

Appearance will follow to symbolize the level of knowledge being acquired.

Walter M. Hosack, October 2025

Photo by chensiyuan - chensiyuan, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14872516

Tegimenics in Urban Design, Zoning and Planning

 

Tegimenics is the language needed to pursue shelter capacity evaluation related to city planning, urban design, zoning, government, real estate development, architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering, real estate law, banking, urban geography and so on. Tegimenology is the science of shelter capacity evaluation. It is needed to guide the consumption of agriculture and the Natural Domain by a Built Domain that does not acknowledge unlimited growth as a threat to its source of life.

Tegimenics is a language derived in a book entitled, “The Equations of Urban Design”. The equations are the engine behind a series of forecast models derived in the book to measure and predict the shelter capacity of land -- and the intensity, intrusion, and context implications of the options predicted. The options are a function of the building design category chosen from six options for a given land area, and the design specification values entered in its template. I’ve written about the equations and forecast models created in the 260+ essays posted on my blog. The more recent have also been posted on LinkedIn and on its interest group locations: Urbanist, City and Town Planning, Urban Planning Group, Massive Small, and Project Our World.

I won’t attempt to explain the language needed to pursue the science of shelter capacity evaluation since it is covered in the book and essays just mentioned. The book has been self-published and is available on Amazon.com. The models discussed in the book illustrate software that remains to be published as interactive spreadsheets.

I have pursued the effort for several reasons. First, I believe that we must learn to shelter the activities of populations within limited geographic areas defined and designed to protect our quality and source of life. Unlimited growth on a planet with limited land area is simply an unrealistic recipe. Second, independent, mathematical zoning regulations often collide with each other. They are not correlated and their combined implications cannot be measured. It has been a recipe for confusion and conflicting opinions; and has too often produced the sprawl and excessive intensity of a parasite depending on annexation for survival. It is up to us to design, regulate, and lead the built anatomy. We cannot do it without revising the current uncorrelated form of mathematical regulation at the heart of master plans that attempt to define this anatomy.

A building may be occupied by any permitted activity. The amount of gross building area present or planned per buildable acre is the shelter capacity of the land area given. The spectrum of shelter capacity options is nearly infinite, but many design specification choices are not desirable but remain to be defined. 

The combination of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion and location decisions has social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications that we have yet to correlate with physical design decisions expressed in the mathematical language of Tegimenics. It can lead us toward shelter patterns, forms, and places that reflect an increasing awareness of the physical anatomy we must define to serve the symbiotic mandate we must anticipate with the limited awareness we have been given. I apologize for being unable to resist calling this language Tegimenics and the future knowledge it may contribute a science of Tegimenology. It is the best I can do with my limited ability to anticipate.

Walter M. Hosack, September 2025

DENSITY LEADERSHIP LIMITATIONS

 

I'm writing this after reading that density is not the enemy. I agree, but it cannot lead us into the future. It is not capable of correlating the many decisions involved in the design of shelter capacity, intensity, and composition for the social and economic activity of growing populations within limited geographic areas that retain a desirable quality of life. Absolute requirements for shelter planning topics without mathematical correlation have stumbled over contradictions created by their combined presence.

DENSITY

Density is the number of dwelling units planned, permitted or present per acre. It is an attempt to measure the compression produced by the proximity of adjacent dwelling units. It is an ambiguous unit of measurement, however, that ignores the total impervious cover introduced per unit and the buildable land area available within the acre. In other words, the percentage of building cover and other impervious cover planned is ignored. Ignoring impervious cover can increase the intensity produced by the permitted density. Ignoring unbuildable areas such as rights-of-way, wetlands, and ravines within the acre reduces density when included but increases intensity among the units placed on the remaining buildable land area.

To begin with, density only applies to residential land use activity. Its leadership potential is compromised because it is not comparable across all land use activity groups. It is not even comparable among residential activity groups because of inconsistent and incomplete measurement standards. This has frustrated universal measurement, comparison, evaluation, correlation, and formation of shelter capacity, intensity, and context knowledge that can improve leadership potential. 

INTENSITY

I have used the word “compression” because it is commonly understood to mean opposing forces producing degrees of pressure. I prefer the word “intensity” for urban design because it more accurately implies the pressure imposed on pedestrians in space by adjacent static and moving objects like building mass, parking, pavement, and traffic volume. Claustrophobia in an alley is an extreme example of three-dimensional spatial compression and intensity perceived at one end of a physical intensity spectrum that can be mathematically calculated.

Project intensity is relieved by the amount of passive, unpaved open space introduced but it may not be a straight-line relationship with building mass. Traffic volumes increase intensity but have not been included in the forecast models that will be presented because the focus is on project context.

The forecast models to be presented predict gross building area alternatives that produce shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context options for project locations that have social and economic implications. When traffic volumes and adjacent projects are considered, the issue expands to become one of urban design evaluation.

Density may be convenient shorthand, but it is not equal to a leadership challenge that requires mathematical measurement, prediction, evaluation, information management, and data science at the very least to provide the leadership guidance needed for the many decisions that require correlation.

DENSITY CALCULATION

Tables 1-2 are examples of density guesswork based on a townhouse building configuration. They will make the point that a permitted density establishes a limit that may conflict with other independent regulations and cannot correlate the 64 specification topics and decisions that guide townhouse design toward an objective.

Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the 64 specification topics and decisions that guide townhouse site planning.

TABLE 1

Table 1 pertains to the G1 Building Design Category when occupied by R2 townhouse activity. The G1.R2 Activity Group includes attached, independent dwelling units served by grade level parking and/or garages and carports. The group is distinguished by the unique shaded specification topics in the Table 1 forecast model.

An architect, landscape architect, civil engineer, site planner, and so on often knows the applicable land area, zoning, and density limitation for a client. This gives the client an expectation of the dwelling unit quantity they can build on their land when they multiply their total acreage by the number of dwelling units permitted per acre. This can lead to exaggerated expectations when applied to a specific land area. For instance, Table 1 shows that 20 acres are owned by a developer in cell F3 and a density of 12 dwelling units per acre is permitted in cell F23. This would lead to a 240-dwelling unit expectation. 

Land Module

Some land cannot be used as a shelter location, so the first challenge in Table 1 is to define the available shelter area in cell F17 for the 20 acres given in cell F3. Buildable Land Area is calculated in cell F10. Unpaved Open Space is specified in cell F11. In this case, the 40% open space entered can be considered either discretionary or required by the local zoning ordinance. This means that storm sewer capacity must be able to serve the 60% impervious cover that will remain. Shared, or common, unpaved and paved open space is specified in cells F13 and F14 for the buildable land area calculated in cell F10. The Shelter Land Area remaining for improvement is calculated in cell F17 by subtracting the shared open space values entered in cells F13 and F14. This is the land available for further improvement, and the land on which achievable dwelling unit quantity will be calculated.

Limitations Module

At this point, the site plan designer knows the permitted density entered in cell F23 of Table 1 and can calculate the number of dwelling units permitted on the remaining shelter area in cell F25. The remaining calculated data in the module expands the scope of information related to the density requirement.

Building and Pavement Module

The specification data entered in cells F30-F34 is estimated by the designer. The specification value decisions entered in the remaining 55 shaded cells of this module represent the townhouse design specification decisions desired by the client. The values calculated on line 43 of the module are averages derived from the shaded specification value decisions entered above.

Planning Forecast Panel

The values calculated on lines 54-58 of the panel are based on the equations of line 53. The average for each column is calculated on line 59. The most significant values in the panel include the average land area per dwelling calculated in cell J59, the density that would be produced by the total specification in cell J61, and the number of dwelling units produced by the specification in cell K59.

Implications Module

This module provides an evaluation of the 64 shaded cell specifications entered. Cell J61 shows that the design specifications will produce a density of 13.47 dwelling units per shelter acre instead of the 12 permitted in cell D64. Cell E66 notes that this is not feasible given the density limit. Cell D68 shows that the specifications will produce 220.99 dwelling units instead of the 196.8 limit shown in cell D67. Cell D70 calculates that the specifications will produce an average land area per dwelling unit of 3,233 square feet per unit instead of the density limit of 3,630 square feet shown in cell D69.

The site plan based on the client specification in the Building and Pavement Module would require a variance since cell K59 shows that 221 dwelling units would be provided by the instead of the 196.8 calculated in cell F25.

Adjustment Alternatives

The first remedy would be to increase the unpaved open space percentage entered in cell F11 if not mandated by the zoning ordinance. This would reduce the shelter area available for dwelling quantity and reduce the density calculated. The second would be to alter the dwelling unit mix or increase the dwelling unit areas entered in cells B38-C42 to reduce the number of dwelling units calculated in cell K59. The third option would be to increase the amount of parking to reduce the shelter area available for dwelling unit quantity. The fourth would be to reduce the floor quantities assigned to each dwelling unit type in cells D40-D42 to increase the land area consumed by each dwelling unit and reduce the quantity provided. The fifth option would be any combination of the preceding four. These options illustrate the time-consuming guessing game that would occur at the drawing board without this forecast model evaluation.

TABLE 2 ADJUSTMENT

Table 2 adopts the first remedy for design revision to reach the density permitted. It is the easiest to accomplish and involves simply increasing the unpaved open space percentage in cell F11 from 40% to 47%. This reduces the achievable number of dwelling units to195.2 instead of the 240 expected when first reading the zoning ordinance.

Getting to this point involves guesswork without a forecast model and can stimulate variance requests given the time required to revise the design example presented in Table 1. If there are no open space requirements and no reduction of gross land area to find buildable land area, the road to 240 dwelling units is a potential path to excessive intensity. This example implies the adjustments that would be required.

TABLE 1 AND 2 SUMMARY

Reading the different shelter capacity, intensity, and context measurements in Tables 1 and 2 are like reading blood pressure without a history of its implications. The Table 1 Implications Module measurements were density=13.47 dwelling units per shelter acre; shelter capacity=18,776 sq. ft. per shelter acre; intensity =0.259; and context=0.597. The Table 2 measurements were density=11.90 dwelling units per shelter acre; capacity=16,585 sq. ft. per shelter acre; intensity =0.202, and context=0.540. At this point in the history of urban design and city planning there is no measurement, research, evaluation, and accumulated knowledge that can indicate the positive or negative results that will be produced by these measurements.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this exercise is not to pass judgment. It is to show that a density regulation leaves too much to chance when many (in this case 64) design topics are involved. This is equal to 1.26887E+89 or 1.26887 x 10⁸⁹ potential topic decisions. The choices required to meet a density limit cannot help but involve guesswork and conflict when mathematical shelter capacity evaluation and guidance are not involved.

Walter M. Hosack, September 2025

THE CELLULAR LEVEL OF CITY PLANNING, URBAN DESIGN, and ZONING ADJUSTMENT

 

I started this essay after I read about a debate in Boston regarding a combined two-story and multi-story building with non-residential occupant activity across the street from at least one objecting landowner. The details were not clear, and I did not understand the unique grounds for objection in Boston, but the disagreements over adjacent activity, compatibility, intensity, and context sparked my interest.

If you believe that the physical pattern, mass, and condition of urban and rural shelter reflects the quality of human life present, and that the definition, measurement, evaluation, and planning of the physical intensity, context, compatibility, and condition occupied by activity within urban and rural areas are significant issues, then this essay may be of interest.

Shelter capacity and occupancy are separate topics. Capacity can be measured and the options mathematically predicted for any given land area. These project options represent levels of physical intensity. The combination of shelter capacity and intensity may be occupied by any activity. The result is physical context. Context choices have revenue and investment implications. They affect compatibility and influence quality of life beyond their immediate project boundaries, but we are missing the ability to measure these results, evaluate their implications, and improve our decisions.

INTRODUCTION

A building can shelter any permitted activity. Gross building area in square feet divided by the buildable acres occupied is the shelter capacity of the buildable land involved. It varies with the building design category chosen and the design specification values entered in its forecast model. The options produced have measurable capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. The shelter decision is combined with occupant activity and location to add both investment and revenue potential. The shelter environment of every city represents a collection of these decisions, and they determine its financial (revenue) stability. The annexation of land is an attempt to improve this financial stability without a complete understanding of the correlated shelter capacity and activity decisions required to balance shelter capacity, intensity, and activity to achieve public revenue objectives.

The average revenue yield per acre produced in a city’s jurisdiction must equal its total cost per acre to operate, maintain, improve, and serve its debt. The profit per acre from a project ends with its sale. The municipal obligation to sustain the project does not end. It increases with project age. An investor hopes to leave with a profit. A city is left with an obligation.

THE CASE

A city knows that total annual revenue per acre must equal or exceed its total annual expense per acre, but a planning issue like that in Boston becomes a local conflict to be avoided because it is difficult, if not impossible, to correlate the debate with public issues beyond the immediate neighborhood. Very few, if any, cities have the correlated information systems, data science, and mathematical algorithms required to evaluate the revenue impact of an individual project proposal on its quality of life. Greater knowledge and mathematical evaluation is needed to assess project change that is a microscopic alteration in the urban anatomy, and that may represent either evolution or disease.

THE GOAL

I have believed for quite some time that our goal must be to shelter the activities of growing populations within a geographically limited Built Domain designed to protect their quality and source of life, the Natural Domain. It is a physical goal, however, based on the belief that the shelter capacity, intensity, and context of activity within a city can be mathematically correlated with the land available to produce an economic strategy capable of supporting an improved quality of life. It cannot be achieved with random projects pursued by the special interests of investors. The speculative approach of private interest cannot help appearing arbitrarily beneficial and insensitive to a neighborhood’s concern over the issue of “adjacent and compatible” activity. Fighting over symptoms will only distract us from building the information management and diagnostic tools needed to reach the goal.

URBAN DESIGN

Urban design plans with correlated physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic objectives are needed to determine the shelter capacity, intensity and activity allocation required for municipal financial stability. A municipal land use plan that depends on annexation and rezoning to solve annual budget deficit with service reductions and isolated project development or redevelopment is not a recipe that can place public debate on a more solid foundation. Every project becomes an isolated skirmish without a strategy focused on demonstrable, comprehensive public and private benefit.

A city leaves its physical, social, and economic future to piecemeal fights over “adjacency and compatibility” at the microscopic, cellular project level of its urban and rural anatomy. The unwelcome result is continuing uncertainty and metastatic growth that continues to consume its source of life.

REPEAT FROM “THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATION OF SHELTER DESIGN DECISIONS”

I have written about building design categories, design specification templates, and the shelter capacity implications of specification value choices on many occasions using forecast models to illustrate the mathematical correlation required for consistent shelter capacity leadership.

My intent has been to put the discussion of shelter capacity and its relationship to our quality of life on an equal footing with the languages of real estate law and economics. The debate can only begin when a mathematical language of shelter capacity built on measurement, evaluation, prediction, and knowledge accumulation can forecast and guide the implications of land area, building design category, and specification value choices. These specification values lead to the formation of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context. The nascent awareness of the need for this leadership language and knowledge has been referred to as urban design, or city design in the words of my deceased but prescient professor, Rudolf Frankel.

I self-published “The Equations of Urban Design” on Amazon.com in 2020 to summarize and improve my work in three previous books entitled, “Land Development Calculations”, editions 1 and 2 published by McGraw-Hill in 2001 and 2010, and “The Science of City Design” self-published in 2016. They represent my continuing effort to explain the site plan allocation and floor quantity options that precede architectural design. It is the quantity allocation of building cover, parking cover, pavement, unpaved open space, and floor quantity in a site plan that determines shelter capacity options, context, and quality of life in mathematical terms equal to the leadership debate involved. The mission is to establish a consistent leadership language for shelter debate and land consumption decisions on a planet that does not compromise with failure to anticipate.

I also maintain a blog entitled, “Cities and Design” at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com that began in September 2010. It currently contains 257 essays for anyone interested in following the topic. The more recent essays are also included on LinkedIn. I would be happy to provide a complete Table of Contents to any request on LinkedIn.

REPEAT FROM “PURSUING URBAN DESIGN and ZONING KNOWLEDGE”

The Latin word for shelter, roof, or cover is “tegimen”. I pronounce it “tejimen”, even though this may offend Latin scholars, and would like to suggest the words “Tegimenics”, “Tegimenistics”, or “Tegimenology” as labels for those interested in pursuing the issue of shelter capacity and quality of life for growing populations in limited geographic areas on a planet, in a universe, that expects us to anticipate its unwritten Law of Limits. It is a language intended to give a quantitative voice and credible support for emerging topics many refer to as urban design or city design with its roots in the ancient planning of Hippodamus of Miletus.

Walter M. Hosack, August 2025

Photo of early grid plan of Piraeus, Greece

By Baedeker - Baedeker's Handbook of Greece, Leipzig.http://www.nautilia.gr/forum//attachment.php?attachmentid=31153&d=1236108867http://www.nautilia.gr/forum/showthread.php?t=36257&page=32, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8511294

Essay Regarding Article Entitled "Another Win at Toronto's Committee of Adjustment"

 I recently read a discussion on LinkedIn entitled, “Another win at Toronto’s Committee of Adjustment”. The issue concerned the transformation of a single-family home into a six-family apartment, but little detail was provided. The discussion focused on the lack of on-site parking, the proposal’s dependence on parking in the public right-of-way as a substitute, and the need to address the city’s housing shortage. There was no mention of the change in use being an issue beyond parking deficiency. The request was approved but the article prompted me to consider independent zoning regulations written as isolated laws that distract attention from the correlated issues and policy changes involved.

ZONING ADJUSTMENT

Zoning law seeks to define shelter design decisions with absolute requirements, but physical design involves the correlation of many related decisions. This means that they must be mathematically coordinated before their combined implications can define leadership intent. This lack of mathematical correlation, measurement, and evaluation has kept us from defining intent with the language needed to consistently guide the shelter design decisions of many toward common and accurately defined goals.

For instance, can a city permit 20 dwelling units per acre and require that they provide 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit when the combination does not fit on a given parcel in a properly zoned district because the dwelling unit areas planned by the developer produce a combined building footprint and parking lot area that is too large for the land available?

A developer can feel deceived when he/she cannot reach the density permitted. A city can feel obligated to compromise with a “variance” that grants an exception to its regulations. These exceptions reveal that there is no consistent leadership intent because absolute, isolated quantity requirements are not mathematically correlated to predict their combined shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. At the present time these terms are not even defined mathematically. This makes it impossible to express site planning leadership intentions in correlated terms that accurately define intent long before building appearance becomes an issue.

CORRELATION

Table 1 is a forecast model illustrating the correlation of design specification values that can be used to mathematically predict gross building area options for a given land area when the building is served by a grade parking lot around, but not under, the building on the same premise. I have referred to this category of shelter options as the G1 Building Design Category. Gross building area in this and any other category may be occupied by any permitted activity. Gross building area is the envelope that contains activity.

The objective of Table 1 is to predict gross building area capacity options for the land area given in cell F3 based on the design specification values and optional floor quantities entered in the gray cells of the table. The point I wish to make is that the gross building area predictions in cells B44-B53 of the table will change when any one or more of the 26 values entered in the gray cells of Table 1 is modified. These are the values that must be correlated to consistently measure, predict, and/or regulate the shelter capacity of land. (Shelter capacity is equal to gross building area potential divided by the buildable acres occupied.)

Shelter capacity implications are calculated from the design specification values entered in the gray cells of Table 1. Correlated line-item implications calculated from these values begin at cell A44 of the table.

There is no measurement and evaluation research that defines acceptable parameters of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context for a given building design category and land use activity group based on comprehensive, correlated design specification values. Until they are established, debate will continue to be distracted by isolated details that cannot be placed in perspective.

The internal capacity of the gross building options predicted for a given activity is a separate issue. Land area determines the scope of gross building area potential. Gross building area determines the scope of potential internal activity. The combination of capacity, intensity, activity, and location determines economic potential.

Zoning districts determine permitted activity relationships within a designated area. Forcing the land to produce excessive shelter capacity for activity is a desperate option that produces excessive intensity and compressed, congested context, but these are parameters that remain to be measured and defined by every city. They were initially debated when the tenements and congestion of the 18^th and 19^th centuries produced city planning and zoning to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, but “welfare” was never defined with the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context values that can protect a city’s “quality of life”. The concept was “minimum standards” for shelter development that have proven to be contradictory and ineffective definitions of leadership intent.

The values entered in the shaded cells of Table 1 are not recommendations. They are simply illustrations of the table’s ability to correlate diverse but related site planning information with its algorithm. If in actual use, a city would need to define the design specification parameters it would be willing to accept for each of these gray cell topics in every zone of permitted activity when a G1 Building Design Category was involved. The gross building area results would be a clear indication of comprehensive intent related to a land area of any size in a zone. The occupant activity and economic potential of the land and its shelter capacity are separate issues.

DENSITY VS. LEADERSHIP

Density is not a leadership measure. It does not guide the palette of design specification topics and decisions that are related to a building design category. Density is derived from the correlated shelter capacity and activity decisions mentioned. Ignoring the correlation required has simply been a recipe for the confusion and contradiction surrounding our current attempts to provide shelter capacity for the activities of growing populations within geographic limits capable of protecting both their quality and source of life.

PARKING VS. CIRCULATION

Parking serves the Shelter Division of the Built Domain and is intended to improve convenience. Streets serve the Movement Division and are intended to improve circulation. Compromising one for the other simply obstructs city anatomy and efficiency that may already be compromised. The problem is city patterns that do not easily adjust to change and adjacent activity that often reacts to single project proposals as foreign infections. It might help to begin by painting the broad picture involved even though it may appear academic.

DIVISIONS OF THE BUILT DOMAIN

There are two worlds on our planet, and the Built Domain is slowly consuming agriculture and the Natural Domain in the belief of some that growth can be unlimited. Others are searching for sustainable, symbiotic solutions; but this is a topic beyond the scope of this essay.

Classification of the Built Domain begins with its Rural and Urban Phyla. Each contains a Shelter Division served by Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Division arteries. The Shelter Division contains cells we refer to as parcels, lots, property, and so on. Each cell contains one or more of six building design categories. Each category is composed of a consistent list of mathematical design specification topics. These topics interact and the interaction is translated by a design category master equation to predict gross building area options based on the design specification and floor quantity options entered. When the gross building area options in sq. ft. are divided by the buildable land area in acres derived in cell F10, the result is a list of shelter capacity options in cells F44-F53 related to the floor quantity options entered in cells A44-A53 and the optional design specification values entered above. Line-item implications are presented on lines 44-53 and shelter capacity options are specifically shown in cells F44-F53 of Table 1.

In other words, all forecasts in the Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module of Table 1 are implications calculated from the design specification values entered in the gray cells of the Land and Core Modules of Table 1. This is how the Shelter Division responds to stimulus in the anatomy of the Built Domain. A definition of intent is simply equal to a limitation of the line item implications calculated.

Please forgive me for repeating an earlier paragraph. “There is no measurement and evaluation research that defines acceptable parameters of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context for a given building design category and land use activity based on their design specification values. Until they are established, debate will continue to be distracted by isolated details that cannot be placed in perspective.”

URBAN DESIGN PLANS VS. PROJECTS

The impact of a shelter project on the anatomy of the Built Domain can be magnified when piecemeal project distraction replaces comprehensive urban design site planning over the larger neighborhood, district, and city areas needed to reconcile shelter capacity with the movement, open space, and life support arteries that serve it.

The issue becomes more complex when an exception to activities permitted in a zone is granted on a lot-by-lot basis. Additional exception requests inevitably follow on a random basis that dismantles the concept of a plan and encourages fragmentation.

Planning-by-exception simply produces unanticipated results downstream, further annexation, sprawl, excessive intensity, confusion over the scope of necessary adjustment, and continued debate over the definition of freedom and minimum regulation that cannot clarify intent.  

CONCLUSION

The LinkedIn discussion that prompted this response was a good summary of the relationship between public fear of change and private initiative based on opposing abilities to anticipate. It is the curse of transformation, and no one can be sure where it leads without long term evaluation of the "change" implied. People's lives are being affected. It is an impossible situation that can only be reconciled with better ability to predict the future implications of current decisions.

I continue to wonder if professional opinion will have anything better to offer until it begins to pursue Tegiministics. (If curious, please see my essay, "Pursuing Urban Design and Zoning Knowledge" on my blog at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com)”

Walter M. Hosack, August 2025

• picture credit: © Enoch Leung 2025  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

PURSUING URBAN DESIGN and ZONING KNOWLEDGE

I first began considering the capacity of land to accommodate gross building areas when I began studying architecture. At the time the land area given for the problem was always adequate. The site plan issue was one of parking, pavement, and unpaved open space quantity arrangement in relation to the building floor plan needed for the shelter activity assignment, and the floor plan could reduce its footprint by increasing its floor quantity. The problem included consideration of the assets and liabilities on and around the site. The amount of land consumed for shelter capacity was never an issue.

Land area adequacy became an issue in practice, but it was a function of what was available. Tailoring land consumption to productive capacity was a rural, agricultural concept. Eventually I realized that the urban concept of approximate land consumption based on prior land surveys and current availability was at the heart of arbitrary consumption, sprawl, and excessive intensity that was slowly consuming agriculture and the Natural Domain, but I was not prepared to accurately evaluate the land needed to shelter the activities of an owner.

This became more apparent when I confronted density regulation. I became aware that density and all other zoning regulations were not mathematically correlated with each other or with the land available. The combination of density, parking, floor quantity, setbacks and so on, were often irreconcilable because they were independent requirements. In many cases, the conflict could not be resolved without variance approval for regulation exceptions that were considered arbitrary by the opposition, and virtually impossible to track as precedent-setting standards by the arbitrators. I realized that the difference between the independent regulations of zoning law and the correlated, interrelated demands of shelter design decisions represented a collision of two different languages.

The problem became more acute in multi-family residential zones when an ordinance led land owners to believe that they could reach a permitted density when it was not correlated with their average dwelling unit size objectives and parking requirements, not to mention correlation with all other applicable, independent regulation topics. This inevitably led to suspicion, mistrust, variance requests, and wildly different interpretations of leadership intent in some cases.

THE FIRST EXPERIENCE

The issue crystallized for me when I was asked to evaluate a multi-family housing proposal and responded that the site plan appeared too compressed or “tight”. My opinion was based on the visual impression of a site plan based on years of exposure and experience, but the density regulation permitted more than was requested and the quantity had already been reduced. At this point it became clear to me that the debate revolved around regulations without correlation. They often permitted excessive shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context compression in my opinion, and the method of density measurement was unequal to the correlation of design decisions required for adequate leadership guidance. Unfortunately, the implications in bold above had no quantitative definition. My interpretation had been learned as a product of trial-and-error education, and the intuitive lessons learned could be easily contradicted by the demands of an owner and the representations of legal counsel.

I came away knowing that the issue was mathematical, and that opinion needed a more quantitative and correlated mathematical foundation of experiment, evaluation, prediction, and conclusion before it could become a consistently credible leadership language. It had to be based on knowledge accumulation that recognized the interrelated, mathematical nature of design specification topics, values, and shelter capacity design decisions.

SEARCH FOR CONSISTENCY

My search for consistency began with the recognition that all human shelter falls into a limited number of building design categories when they are distinguished by their method of providing parking, including one that provides no parking. The result was six building design categories whose gross building area potential was a function of a given land area and a standard template of design specification topics and assigned values. I called the gross building area alternatives that could be achieved with optional floor quantities and design specification values shelter capacity.

Shelter capacity is equal to predicted gross building area options in sq. ft. per buildable acre of land occupied. The predictions are based on the values entered in the design specification template of the category. These gross building area options have shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that are calculated with separate, universal equations.

The collection of building design categories represents a set of forecast models with a consistent measurement system, predictive shelter capacity format, and related implication calculations comparable across all design categories and project installations. This is the measurement format I felt was needed to evaluate the shelter capacity of land and regulate its growth in a Built Domain geographically limited to protect its source of life – agriculture and the Natural Domain.

ACTIVITY GROUPS

Gross building area can be occupied by any permitted activity. Its internal capacity for activity varies with the specification values entered in a companion activity group template. The addition of an activity group template to a building category forecast model correlates the predicted gross building area options for land with each option’s internal capacity for the activity based on the specification values entered in the companion activity group template. The results have economic potential related to the scope of activity predicted within the gross building area options predicted.

I’ve illustrated the building design category-activity group relationship with the Residential Activity Group of specification templates in several previous essays. A more complete presentation is included in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design” available from Amazon.com.

CONCLUSION

Shelter capacity results have social, psychological, environmental, and economic implications that remain to be correlated with measurement and evaluation that can lead to knowledge regarding the quality of life implied by measurable alternatives.

Currently the Shelter Division of the Built Domain is served by Movement, Open Space, and Life Support Divisions in both the Urban and Rural Phyla of a Built Domain that is currently a parasitic threat to the Natural Domain. This threat cannot be addressed with debate over the details of independent, conflicting zoning regulations that require arbitrary adjustment, or land use master plans that depend on annexation of agriculture and the Natural Domain to address budget deficiencies based on land use activity and shelter capacity misallocation.

Shelter capacity evaluation is a measurement language capable of evaluating options and guiding decisions toward the goal of shelter for the activities of growing populations within limited geographic areas designated and designed to protect their quality and source of life, the Natural Domain. It is simply a classification and measurement language that can be used to pursue research and define conclusions capable of consistent leadership, however.

The Latin word for shelter, roof, or cover is “tegimen”. I pronounce it “tejimen”, even though this may offend Latin scholars, and would like to suggest the word “Tegimenics”, “Tegimenistics”, or "Tegimenology" as a label for those interested in pursuing the issue of shelter capacity and quality of life for growing populations in limited geographic areas on a planet in a universe that expects us to anticipate its unwritten Law of Limits. It is a language intended to give a quantitative voice and credible support for emerging but also ancient topics many refer to as urban design or city design with roots in architectural design.

SITE PLAN EXPLANATION

The forecast models I have discussed on many occasions depend on the site plan terminology I presented long ago. Figure 1 is an introduction for those who may be unfamiliar with site plans in general. There have been a few additions and adjustments along the way, but Figure 1 has been the foundation for all design specification topics and templates associated with a building design category. It is not comprehensive but can be a useful introduction.

PS:

This is a repeat of previous essay paragraphs.

“I self-published “The Equations of Urban Design” on Amazon.com in 2020 to summarize and improve my work in three previous books entitled, “Land Development Calculations”, editions 1 and 2 published by McGraw-Hill in 2001 and 2010, and “The Science of City Design” self-published on Amazon.com in 2016. They represent my continuing effort to explain the site plan allocation that precedes architectural design, urban design, city design and landscape architecture. It is the quantity allocation of building cover, parking cover, pavement, unpaved open space, and floor quantity in a site plan that determines shelter capacity options, context, and quality of life in mathematical terms equal to the leadership debate involving private enterprise and architecture, landscape architecture, government, city planning, real estate law, zoning regulation, and economic development. The mission is to establish a consistent leadership language for shelter debate and land consumption decisions on a planet that does not compromise with failure to anticipate.

I also maintain a blog entitled, “Cities and Design” at www.wmhosack.blogspot.com that began in September 2010. It currently contains 258 essays for anyone interested in following the topic. The more recent essays are also included on LinkedIn.” 

Walter M. Hosack, July 2025

FIGURE 1

The Mathematical Foundation of Shelter Design Decisions

 

A correlated set of floor quantity and site plan area decisions determines gross building area, shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context for any given buildable land area and building design category. A collection of these parcel decisions determines the physical context, but not the appearance, of shelter projects, blocks, tracts, zones, districts, cities, regions, and conurbations. The quantitative correlation of these quantity decisions has been overlooked for centuries because the evolution from shelter concept to completion has required drawings to define direction. The final style and appearance of the result has distracted us from a mathematical foundation that can be classified to consistently lead the choices that consume land to produce shelter capacity for any activity.

Shelter capacity evaluation focuses on the mathematical correlation of site plan area and floor quantity decisions. These decisions produce gross building area options and shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications that range from sprawl to excessive intensity, but these relationships remain to be mathematically defined in terms of consistent measurement, evaluation, and leadership potential.

The absence of shelter capacity measurement, evaluation, and mathematical expression has prevented the accumulation of knowledge and the formation of a leadership language that can consistently guide shelter decisions for the activities of growing populations toward choices that protect their quality and source of life in limited geographic areas.

I have written about building design categories, design specification templates, and the shelter capacity implications of specification value choices on many occasions using forecast models to illustrate the mathematical correlation required for consistent shelter capacity leadership. I have made the effort to put the discussion of shelter capacity and its relationship to quality of life on an equal footing with the languages of real estate law and economics.

The debate can only begin on an equal footing when a mathematical language of shelter capacity built on measurement, evaluation, prediction, and knowledge accumulation can forecast the implications of land area, building design category, and specification value choices. These are the choices that lead to the formation of urban context and appearance. The nascent awareness of the need for this leadership language and knowledge has been referred to as urban design, or city design in the words of my deceased but prescient professor Rudolf Frankel.

I self-published “The Equations of Urban Design” on Amazon.com in 2020 to summarize and improve my work in three previous books entitled, “Land Development Calculations”, editions 1 and 2 published by McGraw-Hill in 2001 and 2010, and “The Science of City Design” self-published in 2016. They represent my continuing effort to explain the site plan allocation that precedes architectural design, urban design, city design and landscape architecture. It is the quantity allocation of building cover, parking cover, pavement, unpaved open space, and floor quantity in a site plan that determines shelter capacity options, context, and quality of life in mathematical terms equal to the leadership debate involved with city planning, real estate law, zoning regulation, economic development, and private enterprise. The mission is to establish a consistent leadership language for shelter debate and land consumption decisions on a planet that does not compromise with failure to anticipate.

Walter M. Hosack, July 2025

Shelter Capacity Design Dissection

 

The identification and definition needed to shelter the activities of growing populations within economically stable and geographically limited communities.

 

The term “dissection” in the title of this essay means the comprehensive, consistent identification, measurement, and evaluation of the design specification topics that define building mass and the related site plan features of a building design category. They do not operate independently. The values assigned to these topics must be mathematically correlated before their shelter capacity, intensity, and intrusion implications can be calculated and guided toward context results that represent a desirable quality of life and coexistence with our source of life.

There is no divine guidance that directs the growth and anatomy of shelter toward adequate organization, context, and coexistence. Master plans and zoning ordinances have been our attempt to provide guidance, but conflicting regulations, rezoning, variance requests, and annexation have randomly diluted their intent. This has often left us with sprawl, excessive intensity, diminishing agriculture, and a threatened natural source of life. The results have confirmed our inability to identify and evaluate the building design categories, activity groups, design specification topics, and topic values that must be mathematically correlated at the project level to consistently produce shelter capacity for the activities of growing populations within limited areas of the planet.

SHELTER CAPACITY

Shelter capacity evaluation involves the capacity of land to accommodate gross building area options, their related site plan features, and their shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications. The shelter options are three-dimensional. The site support options are two-dimensional. Population density and activity options per square foot of gross building area measured or predicted are separate social issues.

Density has been an inadequate measure for the shelter capacity of land. It has not been able to bridge a gap that requires mathematical correlation of many related shelter capacity decisions before we can learn to protect the activities of growing populations within geographic limits defined to guard both their quality and source of life.

The dissection of a shelter project identifies the specification components and mathematical decisions that lead to the formation of shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context in a limited land area long before appearance becomes an issue. Identification is not enough, however. Measurement, evaluation, and correlation are needed to define and predict the mathematical parameters that have physical, social, psychological, environmental, and economic leadership potential. The knowledge acquired can help us step beyond the random results produced by isolated and often conflicting zoning ordinance regulations.

BUILDING DESIGN CATEGORIES and ACTIVITY GROUPS

A building design category is distinguished by the parking system chosen to serve its occupants such as (G1), (G2), (S1), and so on. An activity group is the generic occupant activity historically referred to as “land use” such as (R) for residential. A shelter type is a unique form and arrangement of shelter for an activity group member such as a single-family home (R1); a townhouse (R2), or an apartment (R3). An activity group member is identified by the specification characteristics related to its building design category, occupant activity, and shelter type.

The first seven chapters in Table 1 address six generic building design categories that may be occupied by any permitted activity. Chapters 9-17 explain how these categories are used to accommodate the Residential Activity Group.

For example, a G1 or G2 Building Design Category is typically used to accommodate single-family occupancy members of the Residential Activity Group that are designated (R1) in Chapters 9-12. The characteristics of this group member are defined in the specification templates of its G1.R1 and G2.R1 forecast models. The values entered in the templates are either measurements or value entries used to predict gross building areas and building cover options for the land area given. The implications calculated for these predictions indicate the suitability of the values for the purpose intended. These shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications are found using the secondary equations above the relevant columns in the model.

The G1 and G2 building design categories are also used to shelter the townhouse occupancy members of the Residential Activity Group that are designated (R2) in Chapter 13 of the Residential Activity Group. The characteristics of this group member are defined in the specification templates of its G1.R2 and G2.R2 forecast models. The values entered in the templates are either measurements or value entries used to predict gross building areas and building cover options for the land area given. The implications of these predictions indicate the suitability of the values for the purpose intended. These shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications are found using the secondary equations above the relevant columns in the model.

Any building design category may be used to shelter apartment occupancy members of the Residential Activity Group designated (R3) in Chapters 14-17 of Table 1. The characteristics of this group member are defined in the specification templates of its G1, G2, S1, S2, S3, and NP forecast models. The values entered in the templates are either measurements or value entries used to predict gross building areas and building cover options for the land area given. The implications of these predictions indicate the suitability of the values for the purpose intended. These shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context implications are found using the secondary equations above the relevant columns in the model.

The point is that the gross building area of a building design category may be occupied by any permitted activity, but subdivision of the gross building area for occupant activity may require additional design specification topics and values to define or predict the internal capacity of the building for the activity under consideration. The shelter capacity of the land for gross building area is a constant function of the building design category, site plan specifications, and floor quantity options that pertain to the generic building design category under consideration.

DESIGN SPECIFICATION TEMPLATE

Table 2 is an example introduced in many previous essays. It is included to show that the values assigned to the shaded cells in a design specification template are mathematically correlated by an architectural algorithm to predict their core area implications in cell F33 and G33.

The Design Specification Template in Table 2 is an example related to the generic G1 Building Design Category. The gray cells in the template represent a dissection of the category’s essential specification topics. The value assignments entered in the gray cells above cell F33 are mathematically correlated to determine their combined core area implications in cell F33 and G33.

The master equation in cell B39 combines this core value found in cells F33 and G33 with the additional specification values entered to find gross building area implications in cells B44-B53. These vary with the floor quantities entered in cells A44-A53 of the model. The gross building area options become the basis for all other predictions in the Planning Forecast Panel and Implications Module of the forecast model.

QUESTIONS and CHOICES

Our ability to shelter the activities of growing populations within geographic limits that protect our quality and source of life is the question that the equations in Table 1 have been derived to address. The forecast models and design specification templates involved with the answer offer the ability to measure, evaluate, and predict the implications of quantitative choices that have the potential to lead future shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and context debate and decisions. The templates do not make decisions. The intent is to improve the discussion by defining questions and potential answers with a common, quantitative language based on consistent measurement and evaluation. This can make it possible to express options and decisions with a credible leadership vocabulary and language equal to the challenge.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

A building can shelter any permitted activity. The correlation of shelter capacity, intensity, activity, and location of a building has context, quality, and economic implications.

Private investment implications are limited to the specific project costs involved and the profit per square foot potential of the activity, location, and scope anticipated.

Public implications concern the combined revenue potential per acre of municipal land consumed by a city’s combined shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and activity decisions for all projects in the city, since the average revenue received from all taxable acres must equal a city’s annual cost per acre for operations, maintenance, improvement, and debt service. In other words, land use allocation for shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, activity, and context represents the content of a city’s investment portfolio and the yield available to serve its population.

To my knowledge, no city can comprehensively monitor and adjust the relationships between shelter capacity, land use allocation, and revenue potential at the parcel, block, tract, or zone level of the community. In the absence of this ability to monitor and correlate, a city must rely on annual budget estimates and random economic development initiatives. These initiatives represent hope without the data, evaluation, knowledge, and vision required to increase revenue for the quality of life desired, and hope is not a strategy.

FINAL COMMENT

An improved method of definition, measurement, evaluation, and expression is needed before leadership debate can credibly address the issue of shelter capacity for the activities of growing populations within land areas limited to protect their source of life and improve their quality of life.

Walter M. Hosack, July 4, 2025