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However, Goldcoast was, tragically, able to get City Ordinance No. 7777 repealed.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
Create Your Badge
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
Create Your Badge
Refresher Course for January 2012 Board Exam will commence January 4, 2012. Pls. call the UAP office at 02-4126364; 4126394; 4126403.