Thursday, November 15, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Sunset on Manila Bay is a spectacular experience, and is free for all to enjoy. But not for long, if developers have their way.
In 1992, a group called “Manila Goldcoast Development Corp.” lobbied for approval to reclaim the entire Manila Bay waterfront along Roxas Boulevard, between the Cultural Center of the Philippines and the US Embassy. This scheme was challenged by citizens, who fought to preserve the last remaining access to the bay along Manila's historical district. The citizens won. The Manila City Council passed City Ordinance No. 7777, prohibiting reclamation in this area.
However, Goldcoast was, tragically, able to get City Ordinance No. 7777 repealed. In February 2011, City Ordinance No. 8233 reversed the prohibition. A consortium agreement was signed in April 2012 to reclaim the same waterfront along Roxas Boulevard, about 288 hectares of land, even swallowing up the Manila Yacht Club and the Philippine Navy Headquarters.
In addition to blocking the view of the sunset from Malate and Ermita, the reclamation will worsen floods, extinguish the tourism area along Roxas Boulevard, destroy the potential of our historic Intramuros, remove 20 vital anchorage berths for ships and most of all, take away from us a waterfront we all love.
No aspect of this scheme will improve the City of Manila in any discernible way — it is all for the profit of a few individuals.
We must act to protest this reclamation and prevent further destruction and loss of our heritage.
We will stop them again.
Learn more about the issue: https://www.facebook.com/savemanilabay
Sign the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/s-o-s-manila-bay-save-our-sunset-stop-the-reclamation-of-manila-bay Read the Goldcoast agreement with the City of Manila: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.309598825804058.65518.309364572494150&type=1Section 9.3 states, "...None of the Parties shall disclose this Agreement or its content to any third person without the other Party's written consent as required to fulfill applicable legal or regulatory requirements, including those of a stock exchange." Is the City of Manila hiding anything?
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The UAP Center for Career Development will soon start review class for the January 2013 Board Exam for Architecture.
The Design Review Class will be given by the following lecturers:
Ar. Rey S. Gabitan - Rule 7 & 8 of the National Building Code
Design Guidelines for Residential, Commercial, Educational, Hospitality, Commercial and Terminal Facilities will be delivered by the following:
Ar. Annie C. Pugeda
Ar. Dondon de Guzman
Ar. Alfred Carandang
Ar. Ted Inocencio
Ar. Karen Naguit
Ar. Jean Cornejo
Course Fee shall be P3,500 inclusive of handouts:
Schedule: First batch: (August 26, Sep. 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30) 9:00am-4:00pm
Please call 412-6364 (look for Ms. Gigi) for more details
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Review classes for the January 2013 Architecture Board exam will start July 30, 2012 at the UAP Center for Career Development, 3rd floor of the UAP headquarters in Scout Rallos, Quezon City.
MWF section (6:00-9:00 pm) start July 30, 2012
Saturday section (8:00am-6:00pm) start August 4, 2012
Course Fee: Basic - P8,500
Design - P3,500
Refresher - P3,500
Package (3 courses): P13,500.00
FREE REVIEW HANDOUTS
Please call 412-6364 for more details. Look for Ms. Gigi
The performance of the second batch who took the June 2012 LEA:
1. 4th Placer - Angela Azalea Dalumpines (UP)
2. high 78% passing rate for solid CCD reviewees (those who enrolled in all 3 courses)
3. 123 new architects
Monday, February 6, 2012
By Raison John J. Bassig
THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) on 05 January 2012 favored the petition of the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) and reversed the decision of the RTC Branch 22 of Manila, thus, allowing the Civil Engineers to prepare and sign Architectural Documents. In its decision, CA cited that R.A.544 (Civil Engineering Law of 1950) and P.D.1096 (National Building Code of the Philippines of 1977) fail to specify the difference between “Architectural Documents” and “Civil/Structural Documents.”
However, Architectural Documents such as Perspectives, Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections, among others, have been described as exclusive to Architects in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A.9266 (Architecture Act of 2004) and the 2005 Revised IRR of P.D.1096. These IRR’s have already defined the distinctions between Architectural and Engineering works which were vague and confusing prior to their enactments. Consultations were even conducted between the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) and PICE before the passing of R.A.9266, the law governing the practice of Architecture in the Philippines.
Still, PICE argues that the nature of Architectural Documents is within the Civil Engineers’ domain. CA surprisingly approved PICE’s petition explaining, “…that while said documents are being labelled as “architectural” documents, there is no indication that these documents are exclusive to architects and can be prepared only by them except the fact that they are being labelled as such.”
Seemingly, CA failed to realize that by giving said authorization to Civil Engineers, it meant removing the very foundation of the architectural profession. As per R.A.9266, Engineers cannot sign Architectural Plans and Architects cannot sign Engineering Plans. Thus, Architecture is for Architects and Engineering is for Engineers.
The Architect-Engineer relationship is a symbiotic one, a partnership created by distinct qualifications. Both professionals may seem to have overlapping functions to non-technical people but they have completely different tasks and specializations. The difference lies in the limits of tradition, education and professional license.
In typical building projects, clients coordinate with Architects from conceptualization to completion. Through the Architectural Plans, Architects ensure that the building is constructed according to how clients envisioned it. Architects deal with space planning, budget, materials, functionality, durability, and beauty of the project. Working with him are specialized allied professionals like Interior Designers, Landscape Architects and Engineers. This is the general and global practice of Architecture.
Architects hire the services of Engineers only during the later stages of the project, when clients have approved the Architectural Plans. Based on these plans, Engineers will then design their respective Engineering Plans, namely, Structural Plans by Civil Engineers, Plumbing/Sanitary Plans by Master Plumbers/Sanitary Engineers, Electrical Plans by Electrical Engineers, and Mechanical Plans by Mechanical Engineers. This tradition of collaborative design has been successful as proven by the numerous iconic structures built by Architects and Engineers around the world.
Yet, preparing and signing Architectural Plans and Documents should be the exclusive right of Architects. This is their bread and butter. The practice of Architecture entails more than drawing lines in a given space. It involves an integrated, comprehensive, and holistic approach in solving problems like social behavior, historical-cultural implications, economics, functional engineering and aesthetics. These are part of the Architectural program and the Architectural Licensure Exams.
The competencies of Civil Engineers have always been respected by Architects. Despite the latter’s knowledge in engineering systems which are taught in the B.S. Architecture curriculum, they have not claimed the Engineering profession as their own. In fact, prior to amending R.A.545 (the old Architecture Law of 1950), Architects were allowed to prepare and sign Structural Plans and Documents. But with R.A.9266, Architects have conceded this scope of work to their Civil Engineer partners.
PICE should adhere to their own Code of Ethics, which states, “Civil Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.” Furthermore, they “shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.” Guided by this code, can one consider PICE's petition for Civil Engineers to practice Architecture as ethical?
Allowing one professional the authority to practice another profession without its corresponding license is an illogical and unethical proposition. It is like saying Nurses can also prescribe medications like Doctors, Veterinarians can operate on people like Surgeons, and Finance graduates can certify Tax Returns like CPAs.
In a 2003 Joint Resolution, UAP and PICE agreed “to attune the laws governing the practice of architecture and civil engineering” and “to define and distinguish more clearly the scopes of practice of architecture and civil engineering to minimize, if not eliminate any undesirable overlaps.”
Notwithstanding, Architects now ask: Why did PICE initiate this petition? Why did CA approve such petition? Why bring back the past when Architects and Engineers should be moving forward to a clear delineation of functions?
The aspirations of many Architectural students are now at stake and the careers of Filipino Architects are in jeopardy. Why bother to study for an Architecture degree, undergo a 2-year apprenticeship, and take the Board Exams? What PICE and CA are conveying: Just become a Civil Engineer and you can be an Architect for free. It is hoped that the puzzling motives behind PICE’s petition and CA’s decision are not to undermine the jobs of Architects and eventually kill the profession in our country.
Images of a black ribbon with the texts: “RA9266: Architecture Act of 2004”, “January 05, 2012”,“Respect begets Respect”, among others, have gone viral in the social networking site Facebook. Thousands of comments were posted by affected architects, students, and non-architectural practitioners about injustice, respect for rights, shattered dreams, and even insulting comparisons of the works of both professionals. What a sad sight!
Laws are supposed to bring peace, harmony and order. Instead, the PICE and CA initiatives are creating conflict, confusion, and chaos.
We have just witnessed the death of professionalism and morality. And some people call this “Justice?”
Raison John J. Bassig, 29, is a licensed Architect (1st place – 2006 Board Exams), Master Plumber (10th place – 2007 Board Exams), and Environmental Planner (4th place – 2008 Board Exams).
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Refresher Course for January 2012 Board Exam will commence January 4, 2012. Pls. call the UAP office at 02-4126364; 4126394; 4126403.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Together We Can
Architect Melva Rodriguez-Java, FUAP
Why has there been such an outcry against the proposed flyovers on Gorordo Avenue?
The banner headline of Cebu Daily News last October 3 was arresting: “DROP FLYOVERS FOR THE NUNS?” Who are these nuns and what are they into?
Curious because of the controversy, I dropped by the Asilo de la Milagrosa compound
last Monday to learn more about them. In June, 1934, a group of alumnae from the Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepcion (CIC) founded the Asilo de la Milagrosa, to cater to the needs of orphans and abandoned babies. War destroyed their first home on San Jose de la Montaña Street, but in the late 1940s, with the help of Cebuanos, the Daughters of Charity were able to construct a building to house their beneficiaries on Gorordo Avenue. Through more than 7 decades, the Asilo has remained steadfast in its commitment to serve abandoned, surrendered, and neglected children, and persons in crisis through sustainable programs. I was struck by the quiet manner in which the nuns and staff went about their daily chores unmindful of the uproar going on over the proposed flyover that would rise right in front of their church, eating up parts
of the church plaza..
Next I visited their church, the Shrine of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, built in
1954 as an integral component of the complex. Inside the church, shafts of light filtered in from colored glass panes and fell on the gilded altarpiece, bringing it to shimmer in the luminous interior. Unlike the free-standing altar pieces in other churches in Cebu, this one was hung on the wall. In the silence I understood why this House of Worship, this Sacred Temple of God deserved the highest reverence and protection from any physical and visual intrusion.
The Asilo de la Milagrosa and the Shrine of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal are just
two of several heritage places that will be adversely affected by the proposed flyovers. Also within walking distance are the Spanish Period Catholic Cemetery located in historic Carreta and the CIC campus built in 1945 just a few meters up Gorordo Avenue. Within less than a kilometer’s stretch are Camp Sotero Cabahg founded in the 1960s, the American Period U.P. Campus, and a number of ancestral houses including the Battig Piano School in the old family residence of internationally-recognized pianist Ingrid Sala Santa Maria.
Sec. 32 of R.A. 10096 or the Heritage Law of 2009 mandates National Agencies,
including the DPWH, to consult and coordinate closely with the National Commission of Culture and the Arts (NCCA) in the implementation of their programs as they impact on heritage structures. Has the DPWH done this yet?
Cheaper and more effective alternatives
Here I would like to quote a portion of what the brilliant Engineer Fortunato Sanchez
wrote In the Sept. 2, 2011 issue of CDN: “Rep. Cutie del Mar said that P150 million has been allocated for road widening from Mahiga Bridge to Quezon Avenue, broken down into P100 million allocated to right-of-way with the balance of P50 million for other structures.
“This 2.5-km widening translates to a cost of P60 million per kilometer. If the 600
million flyover can be converted, it can cover 10 kilometers. This can widen the 4-km H. Abellana Street along Ateneo de Cebu and the parallel 2.5-km H. Cortes Street that could suck 30 percent of the traffic along the Banilad-Talamban, corridor benefitting a huge area. A flyover cannot suck traffic out since the vehicles stay on the same road. There would still be enough money left to make a transportation master plan and to partly solve the pestering drainage problem of Metro Cebu.”
In Loboc, Bohol, the people stopped the construction of the DPWH bridge that was
headed towards their precious old church. In Beijing, the new Chinese National Theatre had to be dug into the ground because the Chinese people did not allow it to rise higher than their cherished People’s Hall. In Boston, a new skyscraper across the park was clad with huge mirrors to reflect the small heritage chapel across and in deference to it.
Cebuanos must take a stand to protect our historic urban core and to decide on a more
informed choice of solutions to our traffic woes. With public officials and civil society working together, and with the strong support from the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, The National Museum of the Philippines and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, we surely can!
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
PRC publicized the nominees for Chairman/members for various Professional Regulatory Boards. In the press release by PRC dated September 30, 2011 and signed by Teresita Mansala [PRC Chairperson], it says,
The Professional Regulation Commission, in compliance with Section I, Article II of Executive Order No. 496, Series of 1991, which reads: “The Commission shall, upon receipt of the resolution from the accredited professional organization, immediately publish the same in a newspaper of general circulation for the purpose of inviting anyone who may have derogatory information against any of the nominees which may render him unfit for the position to inform the said Commission within a period of ten (10) days from such publication xxx”, hereby publishes the names of the nominees as follows:
1. For appointment as Chairman/Members of the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture, as nominated by the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP):
a. MR. FIDEL JOSE SIAPNO
b. MR. MARIO S. VALDERRAMA
c. MR. NICOLAS G. RICAFRENTE
d. MR. LEOPOLDO V. SANDOVAL
e. MR. ROBERT S. SAC
f. MR. ERIBERTO V. AGUIRRE
g. MR. MINERVA C. ROSEL
h. MR. EDUARDO S. CASARES
i. MS. PAMELA N. AMADOR
j. MR. LUIS C. MONTES, JR.
k. MR. JOENEL C. KHO
l. MR. ARMAND MICHAEL R. EUSTAQUIO
The press release is courtesy of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
The names of the other 3 nominees from UAP were already published on June 20 this year. The other nominees are:
ARCH. YOLANDA D. REYES
ARCH. CORAZON TANDOC
ARCH. ROY CORDERO
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The UAP Center for Career Development is set to start classes for the Architectural Design Course intended for the January 2012 board exam starting August 14, 2011. The topics and lecturers will be as follows:
Module 1: Calculating for the AMBF, PSO, TOSL, ISA, USA & MACA for Low-Rise to Medium-Rise Residential Buildings – Rule 7 & 8 of the RIRR of NBC
(Arch. Rey S. Gabitan)
Module 2: Calculating for the GFA, TGFA, FLAR &, BHL for Low-Rise to Medium-Rise Residential Buildings – Rule 7 & 8 of the RIRR of NBC
(Arch. Rey S. Gabitan)
Module 3: Calculating for the AMBF, PSO, TOSL, ISA, USA & MACA for High-Rise Residential and Commercial Buildings – Rule 7 & 8 of the RIRR of NBC
(Arch. Rey S. Gabitan)
Module 4: Calculating for the GFA, TGFA, FLAR &, BHL for High-Rise Residential and Commercial Buildings; Calculating AMVB for R-1 & C-3 – Rule 7 & 8 of the RIRR of NBC
(Arch. Rey S. Gabitan)
Module 5: Calculating for the AMBF, PSO, TOSL, ISA, USA & MACA for Institutional and Industrial Buildings – Rule 7 & 8 of the RIRR of NBC
(Arch. Rey S. Gabitan)
Module 6: Calculating for the GFA, TGFA, FLAR &, BHL for Institutional and Industrial Buildings; Frequently Asked Questions – Rule 7 & 8 of the RIRR of NBC
(Arch. Rey S. Gabitan)
Module 7: Site Planning, Space Planning, Architectural Design, Structural Conceptualization and Architectural Interiors for Mercantile and Business Facilities - Commercial
(Arch. Alfred Carandang)
Module 8: Site Planning, Space Planning, Architectural Design, Structural Conceptualization and Architectural Interiors for Residential and Industrial Facilities
(Arch. Annie Pugeda)
Module 9: Site Planning, Space Planning, Architectural Design, Structural Conceptualization and Architectural Interiors for Health Facilities
(Arch. Ted Villamor G. Inocencio)
Module 10: Site Planning, Space Planning, Architectural Design, Structural Conceptualization and Architectural Interiors for Terminal Facilities
(Arch. Ted Villamor G. Inocencio)
Module 11: Site Planning, Space Planning, Architectural Design, Structural Conceptualization and Architectural Interiors for Educational and Institutional Facilities
(Arch. Karen Anne Naguit)
Module 12: Site Planning, Space Planning, Architectural Design, Structural Conceptualization and Architectural Interiors for Hospitality Facilities and Other Building Types
(Arch. Armando Eugene de Guzman III)