The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) announces that 146 out of 339 (43%) passed the Foreign Licensure Examination for Architects (FLEA) given by the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) in Al-Khobar and Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) last 26 & 27 November 2009 and in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Doha, Qatar last 02 & 03 December 2009.
For the first time in the more than 80-year history of the Philippine licensure examinations for architects (LEAs), the major Subject of Architectural Design and Site Planning was administered as a NON-drafting examination, signaling the long overdue migration of the LEA from a largely skill-oriented format to a substantially knowledge-oriented format, also making the checking of the LEA result 100% computerized, thereby fully complying with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004).
The members of the PRBoA who gave the licensure examination are Architect (Ar) Armando N. Alli, Chairman; Ar Angeline T. Chua Chiaco and Ar Marietta B. Segovia, Members.
1. Roll of Successful Examinees in the
LICENSURE EXAMINATION FOR ARCHITECT - AL-KHOBAR, K.S.A. (40 Passers)
Held on NOVEMBER 26 & 27, 2009
Released on DECEMBER 21, 2009
Seq. No. N a m e
1 CISNEROS, EDGARDO ORIOQUE
2 DELOS REYES, HERMOSO JR YAMSON
3 FLORES, VIRGILIO DURAN
4 GELLAMUCHO, BYRON AHUNIN
5 MONTELOYOLA, JOY FERNANDEZ
6 QUARIO, ROMUALDO PRUDENCIO
List of successful examinees whose REGISTRATION shall be DEFERRED pending compliance with some registration requirements:
1 ADOLFO, JONALD MENDOZA
2 AVARICIO, ROMMEL CAABAY
3 BALON, BERNARD BALANE
4 BERINGUELA, RUSSELL DE LAS ALAS
5 CADAG, ALLAN LLAMERA
6 CALIMLIM, WILFREDO MINGUILLO
7 CATIIS, JOEL NOVIO
8 DACANAY, ENRIQUE JR VICENTE
9 DE LEON, ROMMEL DE GUZMAN
10 DIOQUINO, JEFFREY FABIAN
11 DUMAGAT, WINSTON DAGPIN
12 ESTREMERA, RUBEN TURINGAN
13 HERNANDEZ, NERWIN SAN DIEGO
14 IGSIE, JOSEPH ADANZA
15 JOAQUIN, TEODORICO CASTILLO
16 LADIMO, HENRY RAZO
17 MALACURA, CESAR JR TABARANCA
18 MARIANO, ALFREDO ANDRES
19 MICU, REGINALDO LACESTE
20 MINGI, GENEROSO JR MONTELLANO
21 NACU, FERNANDO DE GUZMAN
22 NAVARRO, RICARDO LLESIS
23 OCAY, SERVEDIO JR EDAGA
24 PANGILINAN, ANGELITO MEDINA
25 PELAYO, FRANCIS EARL ROMANO MERCADO
26 PENAFIEL, RYANE RAMOS
27 PEROCELLO, PAUL GICA
28 PERRERAS, WINIFRED MARTINEZ
29 PINGOL, MANOLITO LIMUCO
30 RAMIREZ, ROWAN PEREGRINO
31 SANTIAGO, ALBERTO JR MANIULIT
32 SORIANO, ARTURO FONTANILLA
33 SORO, JOEL JASON ODION
34 VILORIA, EUNICE LOIS RANER
NOTHING FOLLOWS....................
2. Roll of Successful Examinees in the
LICENSURE EXAMINATION FOR ARCHITECTS - JEDDAH, K.S.A. (13 Passers)
Held on NOVEMBER 26 & 27, 2009
Released on DECEMBER 21, 2009
Seq. No. N a m e
1 EVANGELISTA, JEM BARAOIDAN
2 GACOSTA, RENO GIPEGA
List of successful examinees whose REGISTRATION shall be DEFERRED pending compliance with some registration requirements:
1 DEL ROSARIO, ALBERTO CALISAY
2 KASHIM, BENRAJIV JIKILULLA
3 LAGRANA, ALFREDO JR MARTINEZ
4 LOVERIA, LOLITO JR VILLALON
5 MARIN, REYMUND ROTONI
6 OPPUS, ANTONIO SOCO
7 PALMARES, MAURO ENCINARES
8 PALOMO, REYNATO MARTINEZ
9 POLINTAN, FEDERICO REYES
10 TELMO, RENE RONGO
11 TINGKAHAN, MARJUNE LADJAALAM
NOTHING FOLLOWS....................
3. Roll of Successful Examinees in the
LICENSURE EXAMINATION FOR ARCHITECTS – ABU DHABI, U.A.E. (44 Passers)
Held on DECEMBER 2 & 3, 2009
Released on DECEMBER 21, 2009
Seq. No. N a m e
1 ABUAN, MANUEL JR DACOCO
2 ALAAN, RICHELE CARIÑO
3 BAESA, YVETTE ROLDAN
4 BATAC, DIOSDADO JR GUEVARRA
5 CABAL, EXPIDITO MANATAD
6 CANICULA, FILOMENO MCNEIL ALCAUSIN
7 CASTRO, GUILLERMO LOPEZ
8 CONSIGNADO, JOCELYN CRUZ
9 CRISOSTOMO, JUAN PAOLO DE JESUS
10 DAGUMAN, GLADYS MAE PUEBLO
11 DE DIOS, CARLITO JR BALICUDCUD
12 DELLO, GERARD VICTOR ONA
13 ELE, FORTUNATO JR FIDELINO
14 ERFE, JOHN ILIE AMBROSIO CABUGAO
15 FABROS, MALAYA VALDEZ
16 FERNANDEZ, RONAISSA CRUZ
17 GARCIA, ARNOLD MENDOZA
18 GONZALES, WILLIAM GABILAN
19 HERNANDEZ, ROCHELLE SANCHEZ
20 LANA, ARNY VILLANUEVA
21 LEAL, RONALD VILLANUEVA
22 LOPEZ, GILBERT MIGUEL
23 MAURICIO, RHIO ANNE SUMALINOG
24 MIRANDA, LOUIE TORRES
25 PAGALUNAN, EDEN CATUIRA
26 PAJEL, ROSS FELIX
27 PALILEO, HARRIET CUNANAN
28 RANTE, EUGENE VIERNES
29 RIVERA, FRANK RIVERA
30 SABANDO, EDCYL PEÑARANDA
31 SOLETA, ALDWIN ANG
32 TABOADA, JOSEPHUS JR YU
33 TALAUGON, MARY GUENEVIEVE HORTADO
34 UBANAN, ELMO DOMINGO
35 VALENCIA, MARVIN GONZALES
36 VALLEJOS, RICHARD TOLENTINO
37 VENTURA, REDENTOR GELVOLIGAYA
List of successful examinees whose REGISTRATION shall be DEFERRED pending compliance with some registration requirements:
1 ABANES, CHRISTOPHER GEORGE RAMOS
2 BALUYOT, MAY FABUNAN
3 BARTOLOME, JOBEL NABO
4 DE CASTRO, MYCHAELA CORREA
5 DELOS REYES, GABBY CANLAS
6 ROMERO, LEO GARCIA
7 UMAYAM, RUBEN MEDINA
NOTHING FOLLOWS....................
4. Roll of Successful Examinees in the
LICENSURE EXAMINATION FOR ARCHITECTS - DOHA, QATAR (49 Passers)
Held on DECEMBER 2 & 3, 2009
Released on DECEMBER 21, 2009
Seq. No. N a m e
1 AFINIDAD, JOHN REY HAPAL
2 ALEGADA, MILUNA SIMPRON
3 ANTONIO, ALVIN DIWA
4 AYALA, CHRISTOPHER BELARMINO
5 AÑOS, ELMER ABING
6 BANTAYAN, NELSON OLAC
7 BARAÑAO, ROLITO FERNANDEZ
8 BASIANO, NEIL NAZARREA
9 BAÑAS, FERNANDO PASCUAL
10 BUNDA, DANIEL JOHN BUNDA
11 CANONICATO, ADONIS CORCINO
12 CELARIO, JACQUILOU GARCIA
13 CENCIA, ERIBERTO JR PELICANO
14 GONZALES, JOHN PATRICK ZARA
15 HERMOSA, MARY GRACE PEÑAFLORIDA
16 JORQUIA, JOEMAR EMILANAN
17 LOLO, JEFREY JUANITE
18 LOSARIA, LEONARDO JR LARROZA
19 MALONZO, VIRGILIO DELOS SANTOS
20 MANABAT, RICHARD SIBONGA
21 MANGALUS, EDWIND RIVERA
22 MILANO, JEOFFREY RAMOS
23 PEN, MITCHEL MOGATO
24 PEREZ, ROMMEL DE ASIS
25 POMERA, JAIME LOU EVANOSO
26 QUEANO, ARDEL CUARTO
27 RAMOS, RYAN GARCIA
28 RIVERA, RONNIE BORJA
29 SACLIN, RONIE ESPEDIDO
30 SALAZAR, JUNNIFER GAYAS
31 SARAYNO, ARIEL SALAS
32 TELEN, GIOVANNI CAPARIÑO
33 TING, REYNALDO LAURENTE
34 VANTA, JONATHAN MESINA
35 VARGAS, ROMAN LERON
36 VISITACION, JULIUS DUCLAYAN
List of successful examinees whose REGISTRATION shall be DEFERRED pending compliance with some registration requirements:
1 ABELLANOSA, FRANCIS EARL GETUABAN
2 ARNESTO, CAMILO FORTUNO
3 BALATBAT, KENNETH MARTINEZ
4 CALANTUAN, RAMON CHANJUECO
5 CALOPE, REYNALDO CAÑETE
6 CASAREO, ALFRED PAUL SORIANO
7 GARCIA, MICHAEL NIÑO GONZALES
8 GARCIA, MONA LIZZA ARIENZA
9 GEOLINA, EDWIN ECONAR
10 LIMCUMPAO, DAVE GATDULA
11 MACARANAS, MARIO HERMAN MORILLO
12 MONTERO, RONALD GETUBIG
13 RODRIGUEZ, JUNJE DIAZ
NOTHING FOLLOWS....................
SOURCE: PRCBOA
Review Quizzes
EnP Review Quiz
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Why Architecture Matters by Paul Goldberger
Why Architecture Matters is not a work of architectural history or a guide to the styles or an architectural dictionary, though it contains elements of all three. The purpose of Why Architecture Matters is to “come to grips with how things feel to us when we stand before them, with how architecture affects us emotionally as well as intellectually”—with its impact on our lives. “Architecture begins to matter,” writes Paul Goldberger, “when it brings delight and sadness and perplexity and awe along with a roof over our heads.” He shows us how that works in examples ranging from a small Cape Cod cottage to the “vast, flowing” Prairie houses of Frank Lloyd Wright, from the Lincoln Memorial to the highly sculptural Guggenheim Bilbao and the Church of Sant’Ivo in Rome, where “simple geometries . . . create a work of architecture that embraces the deepest complexities of human imagination.”
Based on decades of looking at buildings and thinking about how we experience them, the distinguished critic raises our awareness of fundamental things like proportion, scale, space, texture, materials, shapes, light, and memory. Upon completing this remarkable architectural journey, readers will enjoy a wonderfully rewarding new way of seeing and experiencing every aspect of the built world.
"Why Architecture Matters reminds us that in a democratic capitalist society, the only sure guarantee that we will get good architecture is if we shake off our ignorance and start to take a personal interest in the design of our neighborhoods. Here is a succinct, lyrical and heartfelt book that celebrates the best works of architecture and points the way to being able to build more of it in the world today. There are so many guides to the world of art, so few to the world of architecture. This is among the very best."--Alain de Botton, author of The Architecture of Happiness (Alain de Botton )
"A beautifully written and generous meditation on the art of building that every aspiring architect should read."-- Witold Rybczynski, author of The Perfect House (Witold Rybczynski )
Based on decades of looking at buildings and thinking about how we experience them, the distinguished critic raises our awareness of fundamental things like proportion, scale, space, texture, materials, shapes, light, and memory. Upon completing this remarkable architectural journey, readers will enjoy a wonderfully rewarding new way of seeing and experiencing every aspect of the built world.
"Why Architecture Matters reminds us that in a democratic capitalist society, the only sure guarantee that we will get good architecture is if we shake off our ignorance and start to take a personal interest in the design of our neighborhoods. Here is a succinct, lyrical and heartfelt book that celebrates the best works of architecture and points the way to being able to build more of it in the world today. There are so many guides to the world of art, so few to the world of architecture. This is among the very best."--Alain de Botton, author of The Architecture of Happiness (Alain de Botton )
"A beautifully written and generous meditation on the art of building that every aspiring architect should read."-- Witold Rybczynski, author of The Perfect House (Witold Rybczynski )
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Reformat of the LEA Archl Design Subject
In October 2009, the PRC approved the PRBoA Resolution to REFORMAT the Architectural Design and Site Planning Subject (the "Subject"), which comprise forty percent (40%) of the licensure examination for architects (LEA).
Once officially confirmed by the PRC for administration in the January 2010 Manila LEA, the Subject will then be a NON-DRAFTING ("KNOWLEDGE-based") examination and will also be of the multiple short situational problem, multiple choice format (with sketching and calculations required but not graded). The Subject mode being superseded is a single long situational problem format requiring a manually drafted solution (considered a "SKILL-based" examination).
Once confirmed for the January 2010 Manila LEA, the future examinees shall be allowed to bring copies ONLY OF Rules VII and VII of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of P.D. No. 1096, otherwise known as the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP to DAY 2 of the Manila LEA.
The said PD 1096 Rules could be readily downloaded for free at the Latest Publications section of the PRBOA website i.e. posted at the following dates:
a) 2009-12-13 Rule VII of 2004 IRR of PD1096/ 1977 NBCP
(or 2008-06-07 Natl Bldg Code IRR Rule VII);
b) 2009-12-13 Rule VIII of 2004 IRR of PD1096/ 1977 NBCP
(or 2008-06-07 Natl Bldg Code IRR Rule VIII) and
c) 2009-12-13 Correct Tables of Rule VII Guidelines.
Once confirmed, the Examinees may NOT bring NOR use copies of the Atty. Vicente Foz version of the National Building Code sold at the National Bookstore due to apparently material deficiencies in the text of some sections of the said publication.
SOURCE: PRCBOA WEBSITE
SO NOW IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT THE EXAM IS NON-DRAFTING. WE WILL JUST BE WAITING FOR THE OFFICIAL APPROVAL OF PRC OF THE BOA RECOMMENDATION/RESOLUTION, BUT IT IS ALREADY ALMOST SURE. GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE!
Once officially confirmed by the PRC for administration in the January 2010 Manila LEA, the Subject will then be a NON-DRAFTING ("KNOWLEDGE-based") examination and will also be of the multiple short situational problem, multiple choice format (with sketching and calculations required but not graded). The Subject mode being superseded is a single long situational problem format requiring a manually drafted solution (considered a "SKILL-based" examination).
Once confirmed for the January 2010 Manila LEA, the future examinees shall be allowed to bring copies ONLY OF Rules VII and VII of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of P.D. No. 1096, otherwise known as the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP to DAY 2 of the Manila LEA.
The said PD 1096 Rules could be readily downloaded for free at the Latest Publications section of the PRBOA website i.e. posted at the following dates:
a) 2009-12-13 Rule VII of 2004 IRR of PD1096/ 1977 NBCP
(or 2008-06-07 Natl Bldg Code IRR Rule VII);
b) 2009-12-13 Rule VIII of 2004 IRR of PD1096/ 1977 NBCP
(or 2008-06-07 Natl Bldg Code IRR Rule VIII) and
c) 2009-12-13 Correct Tables of Rule VII Guidelines.
Once confirmed, the Examinees may NOT bring NOR use copies of the Atty. Vicente Foz version of the National Building Code sold at the National Bookstore due to apparently material deficiencies in the text of some sections of the said publication.
SOURCE: PRCBOA WEBSITE
SO NOW IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT THE EXAM IS NON-DRAFTING. WE WILL JUST BE WAITING FOR THE OFFICIAL APPROVAL OF PRC OF THE BOA RECOMMENDATION/RESOLUTION, BUT IT IS ALREADY ALMOST SURE. GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Architecture Board Exam in Middle East
Many are asking takers in the Middle East regarding the design reformat which was already implemented there. Here are some pointers given by them in the ShoutMix. Many will really appreciate if they could give an idea of the questions asked in the exam.
from middle east:
colors+lighting
Columnatiojn adn intercolumniation! + temples
understand the TABLE on Section 7 and 8...the calculation of GFA,TGFA,FLAR,PSO,ISA,USA, Prohibited..at iba pa! signage...arceded and non arcaded!
"orientation din is the most impotant thing u shoul be familliarized with....the the orientation of the RROW."
"lahat nang sagot ay maaring tama! try to understand the behavior of SUN+WIND"
huwag magmadali sa pagsagot! masyadong tricky ang questions! sa una kala mo tam ka na pero kapag inulit mo tanong iba na ang hinahanap! be wise!
May Industrial, Residential, Commercial, Institutional at Site Planning subdivion projects ang cover ng design exams, lahat ng yan dapat alam mo.
At dapat marunong kang gumamit ng NBC rule7 & 8 kasi halos lahat ng tanung may depend sa laws. Kaya dapat marunong ka gumamit ng NBC.
"Kailangan mo pa din magdrawing sa A4 papaer para alam mo lahat ng itatanung nila"
Halimbawa....ilanpo ang terrazzo tiles na gagamitin sa sala.Dapat alam mo ang size palang ng terrazzo.
"Design Problem?Bibigyan kayo ng Project at sa situation na yun...doon nila tatanungin lahat ng details,setbacks...areas at approach mo sa design."
Actual Construction experience is a great weapon for the new format exam...Pang Architektu talaga at alam ang Bldg.Laws
"i-double check niyo yung mga sagot,and it's not impossible na pwede niyong ma-perfect yung exam basta may presence of mind and keep your faith to God."
"inalize niyo muna yung tanong and choose the best answer. then sa questionnaire muna kayo sumagot before transferring ur answer to aswer sheet,"
"construction book,and of course trust your experience and be familiarize sa law compliance alam ko kaya niyong sagutin lahat basta unawain niyo at"
sa mga magtetake ng exam i will advice you that don't memorize anything, kelangan lang ng extensive reading even magazines or other related
"read alot of docs with regards to ALE..all topic specially in history...."
structural..more on reading the plan..ilang rebars..ties.location of beam with respect ot column location..etch...etch
sa constrcution! sample umaulan? ano gagawin mo sa newly formed concrete?
"mga 25% ng exam makukuha sa rule 7 and 8, the rest ay sa actual practice"
"for example sa design, ano ang adjacent sa scrub-up room sa hospital?"
"ung exam ay 5 groups, 1) low to medium rise residential, 2) high rise residential 3) commercial, 4) institutional 5) special"
"me drafting part sa planning ung iplot mo ang lot based on given lot description at dun nakabase ang mga questions sa drawing na gagawin mo"
"spceially on min and maimum developmet potential ng isang lote..whre in most of us architect dont know..lalo na kung compliance sa LAW"
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE, PLS. POST IT HERE IN THE COMMENTS BOX. MANY WILL REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.
from middle east:
colors+lighting
Columnatiojn adn intercolumniation! + temples
understand the TABLE on Section 7 and 8...the calculation of GFA,TGFA,FLAR,PSO,ISA,USA, Prohibited..at iba pa! signage...arceded and non arcaded!
"orientation din is the most impotant thing u shoul be familliarized with....the the orientation of the RROW."
"lahat nang sagot ay maaring tama! try to understand the behavior of SUN+WIND"
huwag magmadali sa pagsagot! masyadong tricky ang questions! sa una kala mo tam ka na pero kapag inulit mo tanong iba na ang hinahanap! be wise!
May Industrial, Residential, Commercial, Institutional at Site Planning subdivion projects ang cover ng design exams, lahat ng yan dapat alam mo.
At dapat marunong kang gumamit ng NBC rule7 & 8 kasi halos lahat ng tanung may depend sa laws. Kaya dapat marunong ka gumamit ng NBC.
"Kailangan mo pa din magdrawing sa A4 papaer para alam mo lahat ng itatanung nila"
Halimbawa....ilanpo ang terrazzo tiles na gagamitin sa sala.Dapat alam mo ang size palang ng terrazzo.
"Design Problem?Bibigyan kayo ng Project at sa situation na yun...doon nila tatanungin lahat ng details,setbacks...areas at approach mo sa design."
Actual Construction experience is a great weapon for the new format exam...Pang Architektu talaga at alam ang Bldg.Laws
"i-double check niyo yung mga sagot,and it's not impossible na pwede niyong ma-perfect yung exam basta may presence of mind and keep your faith to God."
"inalize niyo muna yung tanong and choose the best answer. then sa questionnaire muna kayo sumagot before transferring ur answer to aswer sheet,"
"construction book,and of course trust your experience and be familiarize sa law compliance alam ko kaya niyong sagutin lahat basta unawain niyo at"
sa mga magtetake ng exam i will advice you that don't memorize anything, kelangan lang ng extensive reading even magazines or other related
"read alot of docs with regards to ALE..all topic specially in history...."
structural..more on reading the plan..ilang rebars..ties.location of beam with respect ot column location..etch...etch
sa constrcution! sample umaulan? ano gagawin mo sa newly formed concrete?
"mga 25% ng exam makukuha sa rule 7 and 8, the rest ay sa actual practice"
"for example sa design, ano ang adjacent sa scrub-up room sa hospital?"
"ung exam ay 5 groups, 1) low to medium rise residential, 2) high rise residential 3) commercial, 4) institutional 5) special"
"me drafting part sa planning ung iplot mo ang lot based on given lot description at dun nakabase ang mga questions sa drawing na gagawin mo"
"spceially on min and maimum developmet potential ng isang lote..whre in most of us architect dont know..lalo na kung compliance sa LAW"
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE, PLS. POST IT HERE IN THE COMMENTS BOX. MANY WILL REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Pointers and Sample Questions
I have decided to make a post where instead of putting it in the shoutbox some people could share some information on the board exams. So here it is, hoping others could view them in the future. So if you have something to share, please post it here in the comments box.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
FuturArc Prize 2010: Sustainable Homes in Asia
This year, Asia's leading Green design competition, FuturArc Prize 2010, invites architectural professionals and students to share their vision of a Home for Ecological Living in Asia. The competition, organized by FuturArc Journal, is supported by the World Green Building Council and various architectural and Green building institutions in Asia and Australia, including Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia (IAI) and Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI).
COMPETITION BRIEF: sustainableHOME@Asia a PROTOYPE for ecological living
A home is more than a house; it is a concept deeply rooted in our collective psyche encompassing physical and emotional well-being: shelter from elements, connectivity with family, community and nature, and—in a rapidly changing world—a sanctuary of sorts, recourse from uncertainty.
How we should be designing homes in Asia is far from understood. The real estate market seem to allow, with impunity, the right to transplant concepts of mass housing and lifestyle statements from one part of the world to another, leaving us socially alienated with expanding ecological footprints. We need a new mindset to craft the new Home, one that addresses old challenges and new, embraces modernity and traditions, and offers us ways of coping with change.
The FuturArc Prize 2010 seeks to find new paradigms for designing the Home, as varied as the communities, climates and cultures in which they are situated.
The competition calls for a prototype for single or multiple family units amounting to no more than 10,000 square metres in total built-up area. Site selection is at the entrant's discretion and should be explained clearly in the submission. Only sites in Australia and Asia will be considered. Registration for the competition is free. All entrants are required to register online via the FuturArc Prize 2010 competition website at www.futurarc.com/prize. More information on the registration and submission requirements can also be found at the competition website.
TIMELINE & PRIZES
The competition is open from now till 15 December 2009. Entries must be submitted online at www.futurarc.com/prize. Winners will be notified on 31 March 2010. Awards and cash prizes (totalling up to SGD30,000) will be awarded in subsequent prize giving ceremonies.
Winning entries will be determined by an international jury of Green building experts. Dr Nirmal Kishnani the jury's chair said, "The FuturArc Prize, now into its third year, has become a veritable snapshot of the region, from Hong Kong to Sydney. Last year's entries raised the question of what sustainability means to different communities: urban and rural, modern and traditional, rich and poor. This year we expect more local perspectives and solutions to what is essentially a global problem. With each successive round, the bar has been raised higher; the jury has high expectations for 2010."
THE JURY
Nirmal Kishnani, PhD, is Chief Editor of the FuturArc Journal. He is both an educator and practitioner in the area of Green buildings, presently teaching at the Department of Architecture of the National University of Singapore. He has lectured and written widely on the subject of Greening in Asia and has been a consultant to projects across the region, most recently as head of a sustainability unit operating from Singapore. Dr Kishnani is Jury Chair of FuturArc Prize 2010.
Ray Cole, PhD, is the Director of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the University of British Columbia and Academic Director of the School's Design Center for Sustainability. Dr Cole was selected as a North American Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Distinguished Professor for "sustained commitment to building environmental research and teaching" in 2001. In 2003 he received the Architectural Institute of British Columbia Barbara Dalrymple Memorial Award for Community Service and the US Green Building Council's Green Public Service Leadership Award.
Peter Head, OBE FREng FRSA, is a Director in Arup (UK) where he heads a global team for planning and integrated urbanism. He is project director for the planning and development of the Dongtan Eco-city demonstrator on Chongming Island in Shanghai, and the Wanzhuang Eco-City in LangFang near Beijing. He was featured in the October 2008 issue of Time magazine, nominated as one of 30 global eco-heroes. In that same year, he was awarded the Sir Frank Whittle Medal by the Royal Academy of Engineering for his efforts to deliver an environmentally sustainable built environment. Peter is also strategic adviser to the Chair of the C40 Large Cities and Climate Leadership Group and the Clinton Carbon Positive Programme.
Kazuo Iwamura, M.E. is a Professor in the Faculty of Environment and Information studies at the Musashi Institute of Technology in Yokohama Japan and CEO of IWAMURA Atelier Co., Ltd. He is also Chair of ARCASIA's Committee for Green & Sustainable Architecture, UIA Councilor of Region IV (Asia + Oceania), Director of the UIA Work Programme Architecture for a Sustainable Future and a member of the board of the World Green Building Council.
Chrisna du Plessis, PhD, is a Principal Researcher at the Built Environment unit of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa. With a background in architecture she is currently concentrating on urban sustainability science at both a theoretical and technological level. She was an ad hoc spokesperson on sustainability issues for the International Council for Research and Innovation for Building and Construction (CIB), and prepared the CIB/UNEP Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries. She is a member of CIB Working Group 116 on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments and the International Initiative for Sustainable Built Environments (iiSBE).
About the Competition
The FuturArc Prize was launched in 2007 by the BCI Group of Companies through its publication arm, FuturArc Journal, to seek out innovative Green building designs for sites in Australasia. The Competition has two objectives: first, to create a platform for talented individuals—professi onals and students—who are keen on environmental issues; second, to encourage the construction industry as a whole to move towards sustainable design.
About the Promoter
FuturArc Journal is the Competition Organiser. Published quarterly, the Journal is the region's leading voice in sustainable architecture and design as it recognises the impact of buildings on society and the environment. FuturArc promotes architecture that demonstrates creativity and social and environmental responsibility. For more information on the magazine, visit www.futurarc.com.
The Competition Registrar is BCI Asia Construction Information Pte Ltd, a subsidiary of the BCI Group of Companies.
FuturArc Prize Competition Registrar
371 Beach Road, #02-25 KeypointSingapore 199597t +65 6538 6836f +65 6538 6896e competitionregistra r@futurarc. com
COMPETITION BRIEF: sustainableHOME@Asia a PROTOYPE for ecological living
A home is more than a house; it is a concept deeply rooted in our collective psyche encompassing physical and emotional well-being: shelter from elements, connectivity with family, community and nature, and—in a rapidly changing world—a sanctuary of sorts, recourse from uncertainty.
How we should be designing homes in Asia is far from understood. The real estate market seem to allow, with impunity, the right to transplant concepts of mass housing and lifestyle statements from one part of the world to another, leaving us socially alienated with expanding ecological footprints. We need a new mindset to craft the new Home, one that addresses old challenges and new, embraces modernity and traditions, and offers us ways of coping with change.
The FuturArc Prize 2010 seeks to find new paradigms for designing the Home, as varied as the communities, climates and cultures in which they are situated.
The competition calls for a prototype for single or multiple family units amounting to no more than 10,000 square metres in total built-up area. Site selection is at the entrant's discretion and should be explained clearly in the submission. Only sites in Australia and Asia will be considered. Registration for the competition is free. All entrants are required to register online via the FuturArc Prize 2010 competition website at www.futurarc.com/prize. More information on the registration and submission requirements can also be found at the competition website.
TIMELINE & PRIZES
The competition is open from now till 15 December 2009. Entries must be submitted online at www.futurarc.com/prize. Winners will be notified on 31 March 2010. Awards and cash prizes (totalling up to SGD30,000) will be awarded in subsequent prize giving ceremonies.
Winning entries will be determined by an international jury of Green building experts. Dr Nirmal Kishnani the jury's chair said, "The FuturArc Prize, now into its third year, has become a veritable snapshot of the region, from Hong Kong to Sydney. Last year's entries raised the question of what sustainability means to different communities: urban and rural, modern and traditional, rich and poor. This year we expect more local perspectives and solutions to what is essentially a global problem. With each successive round, the bar has been raised higher; the jury has high expectations for 2010."
THE JURY
Nirmal Kishnani, PhD, is Chief Editor of the FuturArc Journal. He is both an educator and practitioner in the area of Green buildings, presently teaching at the Department of Architecture of the National University of Singapore. He has lectured and written widely on the subject of Greening in Asia and has been a consultant to projects across the region, most recently as head of a sustainability unit operating from Singapore. Dr Kishnani is Jury Chair of FuturArc Prize 2010.
Ray Cole, PhD, is the Director of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the University of British Columbia and Academic Director of the School's Design Center for Sustainability. Dr Cole was selected as a North American Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Distinguished Professor for "sustained commitment to building environmental research and teaching" in 2001. In 2003 he received the Architectural Institute of British Columbia Barbara Dalrymple Memorial Award for Community Service and the US Green Building Council's Green Public Service Leadership Award.
Peter Head, OBE FREng FRSA, is a Director in Arup (UK) where he heads a global team for planning and integrated urbanism. He is project director for the planning and development of the Dongtan Eco-city demonstrator on Chongming Island in Shanghai, and the Wanzhuang Eco-City in LangFang near Beijing. He was featured in the October 2008 issue of Time magazine, nominated as one of 30 global eco-heroes. In that same year, he was awarded the Sir Frank Whittle Medal by the Royal Academy of Engineering for his efforts to deliver an environmentally sustainable built environment. Peter is also strategic adviser to the Chair of the C40 Large Cities and Climate Leadership Group and the Clinton Carbon Positive Programme.
Kazuo Iwamura, M.E. is a Professor in the Faculty of Environment and Information studies at the Musashi Institute of Technology in Yokohama Japan and CEO of IWAMURA Atelier Co., Ltd. He is also Chair of ARCASIA's Committee for Green & Sustainable Architecture, UIA Councilor of Region IV (Asia + Oceania), Director of the UIA Work Programme Architecture for a Sustainable Future and a member of the board of the World Green Building Council.
Chrisna du Plessis, PhD, is a Principal Researcher at the Built Environment unit of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa. With a background in architecture she is currently concentrating on urban sustainability science at both a theoretical and technological level. She was an ad hoc spokesperson on sustainability issues for the International Council for Research and Innovation for Building and Construction (CIB), and prepared the CIB/UNEP Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries. She is a member of CIB Working Group 116 on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments and the International Initiative for Sustainable Built Environments (iiSBE).
About the Competition
The FuturArc Prize was launched in 2007 by the BCI Group of Companies through its publication arm, FuturArc Journal, to seek out innovative Green building designs for sites in Australasia. The Competition has two objectives: first, to create a platform for talented individuals—professi onals and students—who are keen on environmental issues; second, to encourage the construction industry as a whole to move towards sustainable design.
About the Promoter
FuturArc Journal is the Competition Organiser. Published quarterly, the Journal is the region's leading voice in sustainable architecture and design as it recognises the impact of buildings on society and the environment. FuturArc promotes architecture that demonstrates creativity and social and environmental responsibility. For more information on the magazine, visit www.futurarc.com.
The Competition Registrar is BCI Asia Construction Information Pte Ltd, a subsidiary of the BCI Group of Companies.
FuturArc Prize Competition Registrar
371 Beach Road, #02-25 KeypointSingapore 199597t +65 6538 6836f +65 6538 6896e competitionregistra r@futurarc. com
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Architectural Design Subject Reformat
Resolution No. 2009 - 14
Series of 2009
REFORMATTING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING SUBJECT OF THE BOARD LICENSURE EXAMINATION FOR ARCHITECTS (BLEA) TO FULLY COMPLY WITH SEC. 7 (m) OF R.A. NO. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004)
WHEREAS, Section 7 (m), Article I of Republic Act No. 9266, known as the Architecture Act of 2004, states, to wit:
“Section 7. Powers and Functions of the Board. – xxx
(m) To adopt a program for the full computerization of the licensure examination; xxx“ (emphasis ours)
WHEREAS, Sec. 7 (q) of R.A. No. 8981, cited as the “PRC Modernization Act of 2000” empowers the Professional Regulation Commission to carry out the full computerization of its system including the Board licensure examinations (the “BLE”);
WHEREAS, the present format of the Architectural Design and Site Planning Subject (the “Subject”) of the Board Licensure Examination for Architects (the “BLEA”) requires manual drafting skillsets in solving a single, situational design (cum site planning) problem, for the examinee to successfully undertake and pass the Subject;
WHEREAS, the two (2) other BLEA Subject sets are non-drafting Subjects that only require the examinees to answer a combined total of two hundred and fifty (250) questions under a multiple choice format cum multiple situational problems, the answers to which are read only by optical media readers (OMR);
WHEREAS, the required shift from a manual drafting, single design (cum site planning) problem format to a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem format for the Subject shall achieve the following:
a) remove the subjectivity generally/ specifically associated with the manual checking of the examinee’s answer in the form of plates consisting of drawing sheets;
b) remove perennial doubts by examinees as to the validity of the checking of the design solution, which can only be done manually within a period of thirty (30) days as prescribed by law;
c) remove the bias against the examinees with limited manual drafting skillsets;
d) allow the examinees better chances of passing the Subject since there will be multiple short situational problems to solve, covering several design archetypes rather than just one long situational problem;
e) eliminate situations wherein examinees’ mistakes in the appreciation/ comprehension of one long situational problem definitely increases the chances of failure in the Subject;
f) eliminate the need for cumbersome manual drafting implements/ paraphernalia/ apparatus to be brought to the test site by the examinees e.g. drawing board, T-square, 30-/60-degree triangles, protractor, etc.;
g) eliminate the perennial confusion and misinterpretation of drawing/ drafting requirements and affixing signatures or prohibited images/ graphics on the sheets/ drawings;
h) allow examinees with disabilities to take the Subject with ease; and
i) shall allow the future reduction of the Subject test period from the present ten (10) hours.
WHEREAS, the PRBoA has met on several occasions to discuss the mechanics and the sample questions for the planned Subject test reformat;
WHEREAS, the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (the “PRBoA”) has consulted the stakeholders in the profession and has received positive responses;
WHEREAS, the PRC Rating Division has been consulted on the planned Subject test reformat and has found the suggested PRBoA reformat workable and in conformity with existing Commission practices and standards;
WHEREAS, the PRBoA has already conducted four (4) licensure examinations for architects (LEAs) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in December 2007 and again in March 2009, in the form of the Foreign Board Licensure Examination for Architects (the “FBLEA”), a component of the Special Professional Licensure Board Examination (the “SPLBE”), upon the instruction of H.E. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
WHEREAS, the December 2007 FBLEA in KSA was a very successful pilot-test that allowed the PRBoA to reduce the number of LEA examination days from three (3) to two (2), a system which has already been applied in the Manila BLEAs since January 2008;
WHEREAS, the expected limited number of examinees at the FBLEA component of the four (4) SPLBEs scheduled in late November and early December 2009 at Al-Khobar (KSA), Jeddah (KSA), Doha (Qatar) and Abu Dhabi (UAE), presents another golden opportunity to pilot-test a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem for the Subject that will now be checked only by the OMR, thus substantially complying with Sec. 7 (m) of R.A. No. 9266;
WHEREAS, the conduct of the FBLEA is in keeping with the policy of holding BLEs by the PRC and the concerned Professional Regulatory Boards (PRBs) abroad to meet the special needs of Filipino overseas workers, as enunciated by H.E. Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
NOW THEREFORE, the PRBoA RESOLVES, as it is hereby RESOLVED, to substantially comply with Sec. 7 (m) of R.A. No. 9266 by pilot-testing a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem format for the Architectural Design and Site Planning Subject of the FBLEA component of the four (4) SPLBEs scheduled in late November and early December 2009 at Al-Khobar (KSA), Jeddah (KSA), Doha (Qatar) and Abu Dhabi (UAE);
RESOLVED, that the pilot-test for a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem format require the FBLEA examinees to answer a total of one hundred and fifty (150) questions under a multiple situational problem cum multiple choice format, the answers to which are to be read only by the OMR;
RESOLVED, that the pilot-test for a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem format for the 4 FBLEAs be administered over the ten (10) hours originally assigned for the old manual drafting test format;
FURTHER RESOLVED, to make representations with and/ or instruct the concerned PRC divisions to make the necessary adjustments and preparations to help assure the success of the pilot-test; and
FURTHERMORE RESOLVED, that if the pilot-test is again successful, the same Subject test reformat be applied in the 2010 Manila BLEAs and all FBLEAs of SPLBEs thereafter.
RESOLVED, FINALLY, that this Resolution shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its full and complete publication in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines; that concerned offices and divisions be directed to carry out the herein Resolution; and that copies hereof be furnished to all concerned persons for its information and dissemination to all stakeholders.
Done in the City of Manila on the 25th day of September 2009.
Original Signed
ARMANDO N. ALLÍ
Chairman
Original Signed Original Signed
ANGELINE T. CHUA CHIACO MARIETTA B. SEGOVIA
Member Member
ATTESTED TO:
Original Signed
CARLOS G. ALMELOR
Secretary, Professional Regulatory Boards
APPROVED:
Original Signed
NICOLAS P. LAPEÑA, JR.
Chairman
Original Signed Original Signed
RUTH RAÑA-PADILLA NILO L. ROSAS
Commissioner Commissioner
file: REVa&cc09sepReso_DesFBLEA.
SAMPLES OF REFORMATTED QUESTIONS FOLLOW.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTES:
1) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SAMPLE OF THE REFORMATTED QUESTION SET (FOR THE LEA SUBJECT ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING), THE CORRECT ANSWERS MAY OR MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE STATED CHOICES HEREAFTER. IT IS UP TO THE EXAMINEES TO TRY TO KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWERS BY DOING THE APPROPRIATE READINGS AND RESEARCHES FROM THE PERTINENT DATA SOURCES.
2) COPIES OF RULES VII AND VIII OF THE 2004 REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS (IRR) OF P.D. NO. 1096, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 1977 NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES NBCP, AS DOWNLOADED FREE FROM THE LATEST PUBLICATIONS SECTION OF THE PRBOA WEBSITE AT www.architectureboard.ph SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR USE BY THE EXAMINEE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXAMINATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING (DAY 2 OF THE LEA).
SAMPLE PROBLEM
A startup construction and development company has decided that its newly acquired rectangular-shaped property of two thousand square meter [2,000.0 sqm, with a 120.0 meter (m) frontage] located in a part of Quezon City, Metro Manila recently zoned as high density residential (R-3). The property, an interior lot facing the south, uniformly slopes at 4.0% towards the street (a 16.0 m wide RROW with a 1.8 m wide sidewalk at each side).
The property shall host a proposed medium-rise RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM Project, envisioned as a development with a Basement component, a Podium component and a Tower component. The adjacent lots at the sides and rear of the property and those across the street are all sites of existing 3-storey residences within family or corporate compounds.
A1. Test for Knowledge of General Compliances Relative to Site Planning
1. Under the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP), what shall be the applicable percentage (%) of site occupancy (PSO) for the property?
a. 65%
b. 60%
c. 55%
d. 50%
B. Test for Knowledge of Site Planning
1. Given its orientation, what are the dominant sun-paths for the property?
a. SE to SW and NE to NW
b. SW to SE and NW to NE
c. SE to NW and NE to SW
d. SE to NW and NE to SW
C. Test for Knowledge of Space Planning)
1. Which of the following should NOT be provided at the basement component of the project?
a. parking (below grade or lower than the elevation of the street); driveways, ramps, etc.
b. elevator lobby and service stairs
c. telecommunications equipment room
d. garbage chute room and solid waste storage
D. Test for Knowledge of Architectural Design of Buildings
1. If the residential condominium units are to be air-conditioned, what shall be the minimum distance (in meters) between the finished floor line (FFL) and the finished ceiling line (FCL)?
a. 2.44
b. 2.24
c. 2.10
d. 1.90
E. Test for Knowledge of Structural Conceptualization
1. Which of the following structural elements can be erected along a side or rear property line if the property is resting on relatively flat terrain?
a. firewalls and perimeter walls
b. retaining wall
c. endwall
d. zocalo wall
F. Test for Knowledge of Architectural Interiors (AI)
1. Which of the following is NOT considered an architectural interior (AI) element for the project?
a. eaves
b. elevator lobby ceiling
c. unit party wall
d. bathroom floor
Series of 2009
REFORMATTING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING SUBJECT OF THE BOARD LICENSURE EXAMINATION FOR ARCHITECTS (BLEA) TO FULLY COMPLY WITH SEC. 7 (m) OF R.A. NO. 9266 (The Architecture Act of 2004)
WHEREAS, Section 7 (m), Article I of Republic Act No. 9266, known as the Architecture Act of 2004, states, to wit:
“Section 7. Powers and Functions of the Board. – xxx
(m) To adopt a program for the full computerization of the licensure examination; xxx“ (emphasis ours)
WHEREAS, Sec. 7 (q) of R.A. No. 8981, cited as the “PRC Modernization Act of 2000” empowers the Professional Regulation Commission to carry out the full computerization of its system including the Board licensure examinations (the “BLE”);
WHEREAS, the present format of the Architectural Design and Site Planning Subject (the “Subject”) of the Board Licensure Examination for Architects (the “BLEA”) requires manual drafting skillsets in solving a single, situational design (cum site planning) problem, for the examinee to successfully undertake and pass the Subject;
WHEREAS, the two (2) other BLEA Subject sets are non-drafting Subjects that only require the examinees to answer a combined total of two hundred and fifty (250) questions under a multiple choice format cum multiple situational problems, the answers to which are read only by optical media readers (OMR);
WHEREAS, the required shift from a manual drafting, single design (cum site planning) problem format to a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem format for the Subject shall achieve the following:
a) remove the subjectivity generally/ specifically associated with the manual checking of the examinee’s answer in the form of plates consisting of drawing sheets;
b) remove perennial doubts by examinees as to the validity of the checking of the design solution, which can only be done manually within a period of thirty (30) days as prescribed by law;
c) remove the bias against the examinees with limited manual drafting skillsets;
d) allow the examinees better chances of passing the Subject since there will be multiple short situational problems to solve, covering several design archetypes rather than just one long situational problem;
e) eliminate situations wherein examinees’ mistakes in the appreciation/ comprehension of one long situational problem definitely increases the chances of failure in the Subject;
f) eliminate the need for cumbersome manual drafting implements/ paraphernalia/ apparatus to be brought to the test site by the examinees e.g. drawing board, T-square, 30-/60-degree triangles, protractor, etc.;
g) eliminate the perennial confusion and misinterpretation of drawing/ drafting requirements and affixing signatures or prohibited images/ graphics on the sheets/ drawings;
h) allow examinees with disabilities to take the Subject with ease; and
i) shall allow the future reduction of the Subject test period from the present ten (10) hours.
WHEREAS, the PRBoA has met on several occasions to discuss the mechanics and the sample questions for the planned Subject test reformat;
WHEREAS, the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (the “PRBoA”) has consulted the stakeholders in the profession and has received positive responses;
WHEREAS, the PRC Rating Division has been consulted on the planned Subject test reformat and has found the suggested PRBoA reformat workable and in conformity with existing Commission practices and standards;
WHEREAS, the PRBoA has already conducted four (4) licensure examinations for architects (LEAs) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in December 2007 and again in March 2009, in the form of the Foreign Board Licensure Examination for Architects (the “FBLEA”), a component of the Special Professional Licensure Board Examination (the “SPLBE”), upon the instruction of H.E. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
WHEREAS, the December 2007 FBLEA in KSA was a very successful pilot-test that allowed the PRBoA to reduce the number of LEA examination days from three (3) to two (2), a system which has already been applied in the Manila BLEAs since January 2008;
WHEREAS, the expected limited number of examinees at the FBLEA component of the four (4) SPLBEs scheduled in late November and early December 2009 at Al-Khobar (KSA), Jeddah (KSA), Doha (Qatar) and Abu Dhabi (UAE), presents another golden opportunity to pilot-test a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem for the Subject that will now be checked only by the OMR, thus substantially complying with Sec. 7 (m) of R.A. No. 9266;
WHEREAS, the conduct of the FBLEA is in keeping with the policy of holding BLEs by the PRC and the concerned Professional Regulatory Boards (PRBs) abroad to meet the special needs of Filipino overseas workers, as enunciated by H.E. Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
NOW THEREFORE, the PRBoA RESOLVES, as it is hereby RESOLVED, to substantially comply with Sec. 7 (m) of R.A. No. 9266 by pilot-testing a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem format for the Architectural Design and Site Planning Subject of the FBLEA component of the four (4) SPLBEs scheduled in late November and early December 2009 at Al-Khobar (KSA), Jeddah (KSA), Doha (Qatar) and Abu Dhabi (UAE);
RESOLVED, that the pilot-test for a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem format require the FBLEA examinees to answer a total of one hundred and fifty (150) questions under a multiple situational problem cum multiple choice format, the answers to which are to be read only by the OMR;
RESOLVED, that the pilot-test for a non-drafting multiple design (cum site planning) problem format for the 4 FBLEAs be administered over the ten (10) hours originally assigned for the old manual drafting test format;
FURTHER RESOLVED, to make representations with and/ or instruct the concerned PRC divisions to make the necessary adjustments and preparations to help assure the success of the pilot-test; and
FURTHERMORE RESOLVED, that if the pilot-test is again successful, the same Subject test reformat be applied in the 2010 Manila BLEAs and all FBLEAs of SPLBEs thereafter.
RESOLVED, FINALLY, that this Resolution shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its full and complete publication in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines; that concerned offices and divisions be directed to carry out the herein Resolution; and that copies hereof be furnished to all concerned persons for its information and dissemination to all stakeholders.
Done in the City of Manila on the 25th day of September 2009.
Original Signed
ARMANDO N. ALLÍ
Chairman
Original Signed Original Signed
ANGELINE T. CHUA CHIACO MARIETTA B. SEGOVIA
Member Member
ATTESTED TO:
Original Signed
CARLOS G. ALMELOR
Secretary, Professional Regulatory Boards
APPROVED:
Original Signed
NICOLAS P. LAPEÑA, JR.
Chairman
Original Signed Original Signed
RUTH RAÑA-PADILLA NILO L. ROSAS
Commissioner Commissioner
file: REVa&cc09sepReso_DesFBLEA.
SAMPLES OF REFORMATTED QUESTIONS FOLLOW.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTES:
1) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SAMPLE OF THE REFORMATTED QUESTION SET (FOR THE LEA SUBJECT ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING), THE CORRECT ANSWERS MAY OR MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE STATED CHOICES HEREAFTER. IT IS UP TO THE EXAMINEES TO TRY TO KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWERS BY DOING THE APPROPRIATE READINGS AND RESEARCHES FROM THE PERTINENT DATA SOURCES.
2) COPIES OF RULES VII AND VIII OF THE 2004 REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS (IRR) OF P.D. NO. 1096, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 1977 NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES NBCP, AS DOWNLOADED FREE FROM THE LATEST PUBLICATIONS SECTION OF THE PRBOA WEBSITE AT www.architectureboard.ph SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR USE BY THE EXAMINEE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXAMINATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLANNING (DAY 2 OF THE LEA).
SAMPLE PROBLEM
A startup construction and development company has decided that its newly acquired rectangular-shaped property of two thousand square meter [2,000.0 sqm, with a 120.0 meter (m) frontage] located in a part of Quezon City, Metro Manila recently zoned as high density residential (R-3). The property, an interior lot facing the south, uniformly slopes at 4.0% towards the street (a 16.0 m wide RROW with a 1.8 m wide sidewalk at each side).
The property shall host a proposed medium-rise RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM Project, envisioned as a development with a Basement component, a Podium component and a Tower component. The adjacent lots at the sides and rear of the property and those across the street are all sites of existing 3-storey residences within family or corporate compounds.
A1. Test for Knowledge of General Compliances Relative to Site Planning
1. Under the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (1977 NBCP), what shall be the applicable percentage (%) of site occupancy (PSO) for the property?
a. 65%
b. 60%
c. 55%
d. 50%
B. Test for Knowledge of Site Planning
1. Given its orientation, what are the dominant sun-paths for the property?
a. SE to SW and NE to NW
b. SW to SE and NW to NE
c. SE to NW and NE to SW
d. SE to NW and NE to SW
C. Test for Knowledge of Space Planning)
1. Which of the following should NOT be provided at the basement component of the project?
a. parking (below grade or lower than the elevation of the street); driveways, ramps, etc.
b. elevator lobby and service stairs
c. telecommunications equipment room
d. garbage chute room and solid waste storage
D. Test for Knowledge of Architectural Design of Buildings
1. If the residential condominium units are to be air-conditioned, what shall be the minimum distance (in meters) between the finished floor line (FFL) and the finished ceiling line (FCL)?
a. 2.44
b. 2.24
c. 2.10
d. 1.90
E. Test for Knowledge of Structural Conceptualization
1. Which of the following structural elements can be erected along a side or rear property line if the property is resting on relatively flat terrain?
a. firewalls and perimeter walls
b. retaining wall
c. endwall
d. zocalo wall
F. Test for Knowledge of Architectural Interiors (AI)
1. Which of the following is NOT considered an architectural interior (AI) element for the project?
a. eaves
b. elevator lobby ceiling
c. unit party wall
d. bathroom floor
Monday, October 12, 2009
Designer Village Challenge 2009
The destruction caused by natural disasters such as typhoons has long been one of the major contributors to the perpetuation of poverty in developing countries like the Philippines. The suffering of the poor are amplified as climate change - reinforced storms lead to loss of life and property, and a costly halt in their way of life. They are plunged deeper into poverty when they are faced with the economic burden of having to rebuild their homes and livelihood. Many have been forced to relocate to urban centers, further congesting and expanding informal settlements. According to the Global Climate Risk Index, the Philippines is one of the ten most afflicted countries in the world in terms of the number of lives and property lost as a result of damage due to climate, and these are mainly in the form of increasing intensities of typhoons visiting the islands annually. In short, poverty and the lack of climate adaptability has proven to be a treacherous formula for poor communities.
Current mitigation and disaster management strategies are simply insufficient to shield the poor from the onslaught of the changing climate. Building disaster-resistant structures ahead of time would drastically reduce the impact of climate on poverty, bringing an end to the viscous cycle of: disaster – destruction – reconstruction. Moreover, the sense of security brought about by disaster-resistant structures would empower communities to uplift the quality of their lives as they gain more control over it. Without the fear that a storm can easily wipe away the lives that they have built, hopes and plans for the future may grow clearer and within reach.
This competition responds to the urgent need for radical adaptation. Designer Village Challenge calls for a masterplan and design of an eco-agro-tourism development for a rural community in the tropical hotspot of Camarines Sur, Philippines, a province that has repeatedly experienced catastrophic damage caused by strong tropical cyclones. The province of Camarines Sur has made it their mission to rise above it with progressive and pioneering projects that seek to alleviate the condition of its people. With the help of the global architecture community it believes that it can be an example of strength, resilience and innovative adaptability.
The top 3 winning designs will be awarded US $ 10,000, US $ 5,000 and US $ 3,000 respectively. The 1st prize winning design will be built by the Provincial Government in Camarines Sur as a prototype master planned community of 150 houses. Gawad Kalinga, the largest and most active non-government slum upgrading and rural community builders in Asia shall also build one of the winning designs. In addition, all design entries will be compiled and published into an encyclopedia of architecture and planning solutions for climate adaptability. The United Architects of the Philippines shall facilitate the competition and function as its secretariat.
The competition is open to all local and international architects, registered according to the relevant laws in their respective countries. All entrants are required to provide relevant professional registration on the registration form. Where an entry is made by a team of professionals, the team must be led by a person meeting the above criteria. That member must be indicated on the registration form as the entrant.
COMPETITION SECRETARIAT
United Architects of the Philippines
53 Scout Rallos Street, Diliman, Quezon City
1103 PHILIPPINES
Telephone (63-2) 4126364, (63-2) 4126374
Fax (63-2) 3721796
Email: info@designervillage.org
Website: www.designervillagechallenge.org
Current mitigation and disaster management strategies are simply insufficient to shield the poor from the onslaught of the changing climate. Building disaster-resistant structures ahead of time would drastically reduce the impact of climate on poverty, bringing an end to the viscous cycle of: disaster – destruction – reconstruction. Moreover, the sense of security brought about by disaster-resistant structures would empower communities to uplift the quality of their lives as they gain more control over it. Without the fear that a storm can easily wipe away the lives that they have built, hopes and plans for the future may grow clearer and within reach.
This competition responds to the urgent need for radical adaptation. Designer Village Challenge calls for a masterplan and design of an eco-agro-tourism development for a rural community in the tropical hotspot of Camarines Sur, Philippines, a province that has repeatedly experienced catastrophic damage caused by strong tropical cyclones. The province of Camarines Sur has made it their mission to rise above it with progressive and pioneering projects that seek to alleviate the condition of its people. With the help of the global architecture community it believes that it can be an example of strength, resilience and innovative adaptability.
The top 3 winning designs will be awarded US $ 10,000, US $ 5,000 and US $ 3,000 respectively. The 1st prize winning design will be built by the Provincial Government in Camarines Sur as a prototype master planned community of 150 houses. Gawad Kalinga, the largest and most active non-government slum upgrading and rural community builders in Asia shall also build one of the winning designs. In addition, all design entries will be compiled and published into an encyclopedia of architecture and planning solutions for climate adaptability. The United Architects of the Philippines shall facilitate the competition and function as its secretariat.
The competition is open to all local and international architects, registered according to the relevant laws in their respective countries. All entrants are required to provide relevant professional registration on the registration form. Where an entry is made by a team of professionals, the team must be led by a person meeting the above criteria. That member must be indicated on the registration form as the entrant.
COMPETITION SECRETARIAT
United Architects of the Philippines
53 Scout Rallos Street, Diliman, Quezon City
1103 PHILIPPINES
Telephone (63-2) 4126364, (63-2) 4126374
Fax (63-2) 3721796
Email: info@designervillage.org
Website: www.designervillagechallenge.org
Monday, October 5, 2009
On Storm Ondoy and What the Government May Consider Doing
by Armando N. Alli
A. A Tale of 2 Floods (During Storm Ondoy)
Storm Ondoy of that fateful Saturday, September 26, 2009, was reportedly not a strong storm and did not appear to be anything out of the ordinary. The rains started at nighttime but by mid-morning, there was no letup as a consistent amount of rain just poured and poured, and poured. We were to later learn that in about 10 hours, as much as 18 inches of rain fell on Metro Manila that day. We were probably lucky to have been there to find that out.
Many residents of Marikina City woke up that morning completely unaware of the life-changing and life-taking events that were about to transpire a few hours later. Provident Village was at a large bend in the Marikina River, just across the new SM mall. The floodwater that rushed into their homes that day did not leave them much time to save themselves and many were trapped and killed right in their very homes, ironically where they were supposed to be safe. This event was replicated many times over, although in lesser degrees and with less casualties, elsewhere in Marikina City and in Metro Manila. The water subsided sometime thereafter to reveal a swath of devastation and ruined lives. Mercifully, the Marikina River was able to do its job of taking the water away.
A few kilometers downriver, a slightly different kind of flooding took place in Pasig City and in Cainta and Taytay of Rizal Province but nonetheless as deadly and as destructive. The areas lying at the EAST bank of the Manggahan Floodway were inundated and many lives were also lost or ruined and placed at very great risk as a result. While the floodwaters in some areas receded or somehow found its way to the Manggahan Floodway (as in the west bank areas of the floodway), many areas remained under water for almost a week and that situation continues to this day. The drainage system of natural and man-made waterways was NOT working at all at the areas beyond the EAST bank of the Manggahan Floodway. If the water is not removed immediately, sickness and disease and maybe desperate human actions are soon expected to take their toll.
We need to get to the answers to these questions fast because new and stronger/ more destructive storms are already upon us and these will multiply the suffering of our countrymen. What happened? Did our National and Local Governments fail us? What were the DPWH, the DILG and the MMDA doing all of this time? Did our civil engineers in charge of our infrastructure, particularly the drainage system, fail to do their jobs? Is there anyone to blame? Or are we all to blame?
B. What needs to be reexamined in terms of State Policy?
Let us first examine State Policies that may have had something to do with what happened:
For whatever reason/ consideration, the DPWH has apparently relinquished the planning and management of the flood control system for the Metro Manila Area (MMA) to the MMDA, a practice that could be questioned as the same is a primary DPWH role; furthermore, it could be possible that the MMDA may not legally carry out such a mandate (not having been created by law), the main reason why its actions are often contested by the LGUs;
About 18 years ago, the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) surprisingly and inexplicably allowed the LGU City/ Municipal Engineers (in charge of horizontal infrastructure) to simultaneously serve as Acting Building Officials (in charge of vertical infrastructure), a practice that persists to this day despite the non-exigency of the supposed situation/s that were used to justify Municipal/ City Engineers assuming such roles; there is NO check and balance in such as system; as Acting Building Officials, the said City/ Municipal Engineers are tasked to implement both the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1096) and the Water Code; ALL these functions are given to only one (1) individual to directly/ indirectly discharge the functions of up to thirteen (13) different state-regulated professions; lapses (deliberate or otherwise) and possibly knowing violation of the said laws by the said entities are key reasons why we could be having flooding problems;
The 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1096) is a general and earlier law that must defer to stipulations under special and later laws such as the professional regulatory laws (PRLs); the DPWH is virtually usurping the functions of the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) and its Professional Regulatory Boards (PRBs) by unilaterally interpreting such PRLs without proper consultation; the DPWH is also issuing Memorandum Orders, with provisions that may be violative of PRLs or even standing Court Orders and mandating LGU Building Officials to immediately enforce the same, without benefit of public hearings/ consultation;
The State Policies on horizontal developments, particularly as these refer to open spaces, should be reviewed, amended and repealed since we need to conserve low-lying land for agricultural production i.e. use only the lower slopes of hills and mountains for land development rather than agriculturally productive, flat land and we visibly need to increase open spaces, particularly those that can hold or absorb large amounts of surface water;
The State Policies on population control/ management, and possibly on rural-urban migration may need to be revisited as we apparently have ineffective policies that have resulted in continuing population increase and movement/ displacement; and
The incineration of wastes is banned under the Clean Air Act; this may need to be revisited since we now have an incalculable amount of natural and artificial/ man-made waste and debris that need to be disposed of at the soonest time possible.
C. What can be done?
We now ask ourselves what can we now do or at least attempt to do?
As the DPWH is presently handling both horizontal and vertical infrastructure, there is now NO check and balance in the system i.e. the DPWH, through its LGU Building Officials (who are mostly Municipal/ City Engineers in an acting capacity as Building Officials) review and approve building plans that apparently consistently violate the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP (P.D. No. 1096), the Fire Code of the Phils. (R.A. No. 9514, formerly P.D. No. 1185), the Accessibility Law (B.P. No. 344) and the Water Code, especially in terms of the mandated waterway easements, with apparent little regard for the consequences on both the natural and built environments, on the general population and on the end-users; if the DPWH cannot implement and enforce these laws, chief of which is P.D. No. 1096, which it is tasked to fully implement and enforce, then the DPWH is clearly NOT the proper agency to handle such matters;
the LGU City/Municipal Engineers which are under DILG control (acting as Building Officials under DPWH control) are presently in charge of both horizontal and vertical infrastructure for almost all LGUs nationwide; again, there is NO check and balance in such a system because it assumes that such a person (usually a civil engineer) is capable of understanding and discharging the component functions of about twelve (12) other state-regulated professionals, chief among them the Architects and Environmental Planners; the LGU City/ Municipal Engineers may have little to no training or knowledge about environmental planning and architecture;
As the DPWH and its LGU Building Officials (or City/ Municipal Engineers) are clearly incapable of enforcing the National Building Code of the Philippines (PD No. 1096) and the Water Code through the dismantling and removal of illegal structures on waterways and since the HUDCC appears to also be incapable of dealing with the physical problems of informal settlers, there may be need for a separate Department, the focus of which shall be in the areas of settlements planning, housing, land development, relocation programs for informal settlers and vertical structures;
We may therefore need to revisit earlier legislative proposals (if any) for the creation of a proposed Department of Planning and Housing, which MUST be the SOLE central authority on ALL physical, land and water use/ site planning, transportation planning and all vertical design regulatory functions for the National Government; the Environmental Planners and Architects who shall be assisting the policy makers are the state-regulated professionals needed for this job, probably not the Civil Engineers who are more adept at program/ project implementation;
So that its focus would NOT be divided, the DPWH must SOLELY concentrate on horizontal infrastructure i.e. the coordinative horizontal planning (with the proposed Department of Planning and Housing), construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, civil works, flood control structures and related structures, water supply and management, traffic management, waste management, protection of coastal areas and resources and related works;
the DPWH can help the other agencies implement vertical projects but the planning and design of such vertical projects should NOT be done by the DPWH due to its relatively poor record in vertical design i.e. school and government office buildings and related vertical public infrastructure that are poorly space-planned, that do not last and are not sensitive to the requirements of tropical and sustainable design, resulting in a waste of public funds;
The DPWH must be mandated to fully implement and enforce Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines) that LIMIT ONLY to Architects the signing and sealing of ALL ARCHITECTURAL documents for projects in the Philippines, provisions already fully harmonized in 2004 by the DPWH itself with the multiple provisions of the Architecture Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9266) that say the same thing; there is NO TRO, NO injunction and NO pending constitutional question on either Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 or on R.A. No. 9266; the May 2005 injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 was already LIFTED/ DISSOLVED in January of 2008 (and affirmed in May 2009) by 2 immediately executory Court Orders but the DPWH Secretary, a civil engineer by training, still continues to allow 114,000 civil engineers/ CEs nationwide (who have very little or no knowledge of architecture) to sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL documents in violation of law and the 2 standing Court Orders; since there has been no TRO nor injunction issued by the Court of Appeals to date on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096, the DPWH Secretary is now attempting to re-label/ reclassify ARCHITECTURAL documents as civil documents to continue to allow CEs nationwide to sign the re-labeled ARCHITECTURAL documents; if the CEs still continue to sign ARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents, then the problems exposed by Storm Ondoy shall persist all over the Philippines and continue to wreak havoc on our lives;
REPEAL the section of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) that inexplicably allowed the LGU City/ Municipal Engineers (in charge of horizontal infrastructure) to simultaneously serve as Acting Building Officials (in charge of horizontal infrastructure); there is NO check and balance in such a system; thereafter, Building Officials (who should be Architects by law, i.e. R.A. No. 9266) and City/ Municipal Architects must become mandatory for all LGUs; the Building Official is a fulltime job while the City/ Municipal Architects can be employed on a part-time basis;
the City/ Municipal Planning Officers must be an Environmental Planner or someone sufficiently trained by the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planning (PIEP) or possibly even certified by PRC PRB Board of Environmental Planning as capable of functioning as an LGU Planning Officer; in relation to this, Congressional action on the pending bill on environmental planning (to repeal P.D. No. 1308) should now be accelerated;
All architectural and physical/ land/ use planning programs and projects that are to be implemented/ undertaken under the Government Procurement and Reform Act (GPRA) of 2003 (R.A. No. 9184) must primarily involve Architects and Environmental Planners, not civil engineers; the Bid and Award Committee (BAC) Observers for such procurement activities (goods, services or infrastructure) must come primarily from the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) or the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners (PIEP) or other similar organizations that can effectively, impartially and professionally advise the BAC of the procuring entity; the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) should implement and enforce the same the soonest as it is already provided for under their July 2009 Revised IRR for R.A. No. 9184;
Reconsider, amend or repeal the ban in incineration of solid wastes as provided for under the Clean Air Act, but preferably only if substitutes for plastics and non-biodegradable packaging materials are already in place; this could effectively reduce the need for dumpsites and the volume of waste that find its way into our waterways;
land is a scarce resource that should be wisely used; it is now possibly the time to consider and promote high density vertical developments rather than low density horizontal residential developments on converted farmland; it is also time to introduce such high density structures to fill up vacant or underutilized land that abound in our urban settlements (infilling) so that urban sprawl could be curtailed; these could have a great effect on the performance of our waterway and flood control systems;
as the resources of the State are finite, there should be greater and more effective population control policies/ mechanisms in place; otherwise, certain segments of society, particularly the middle class, will keep on supporting them involuntarily through the taxes that they pay; there may be need to accelerate quality legislative work on the pending reproductive health bills;
For the National Government to revisit the following Metro Manila physical flood control proposals advanced by various entities over the past 4 decades:
SHORT TERM
commission a short study (including a quick hydrology/ flood survey) or commence an official investigation to find out what really happened last 26 September 2009 and why floodwaters remain stagnant at Pasig, Cainta and Taytay; the DPWH must explain why the water in these areas are not being drained; the study must map out the extent of flooding that day and the following days; the investigation must necessarily also include finding out what happened during the great Iloilo City flood of 2 years ago;
mandate all LGUs to remove all impediments at all waterways, including the illegal structures of informal settlers i.e. which reduce the carrying capacity of waterways and contribute to debris formation;
temporarily allow the burning of wastes and debris to reduce the possible of these wastes finding their way back to the waterways;
de-silt the Laguna Lake to increase its holding capacity;
deepen the Pasig River to increase its carrying capacity and construct canals to connect its meandering sections to facilitate floodwater flow (if technically feasible);
upgrade the dismal capabilities of the NDCC for disaster response;
MEDIUM TERM
clear the Manggahan Floodway embankments of ALL illegal structures estimated at about 25,000 (including those erected by the LGUs) and of ALL its estimated 250,000 informal settlers (to be done by the DPWH, DILG/ LGUs, HUDCC, etc.);
redevelop the Marikina River bank/ bend areas identifiable as overflow areas or mini-flood plains so that these could properly serve their purposes in future storm events (by DPWH, DILG, MMDA, LGUs, etc.);
undertake a comprehensive hydrology/ flooding study for the Metro Manila Area and the Greater Manila Area (which includes Cainta, Taytay, Antipolo City, San Mateo and Montalban) so that their flood control systems could be integrated and so that upstream holding/ impounding areas that can delay the arrival of Sierra Madre storm waters/ surface runoff could be identified; we should be able to somehow harness/use all of these freshwater for our benefit; a series of new dam systems for impounding water for domestic or utility applications could also be proposed under such a study;
update the MMETROPLAN study of the 1970s;
LONG TO VERY LONG TERM
i) construct the Paranaque Spillway that would relieve the Laguna Lake during storm events; if a right-of-way (ROW) could be found, the Paranaque Spillway could be integrated with other infrastructure developments i.e. related to transport, conveyance of utility systems, possible property development, etc.
reproduced from (source)
A. A Tale of 2 Floods (During Storm Ondoy)
Storm Ondoy of that fateful Saturday, September 26, 2009, was reportedly not a strong storm and did not appear to be anything out of the ordinary. The rains started at nighttime but by mid-morning, there was no letup as a consistent amount of rain just poured and poured, and poured. We were to later learn that in about 10 hours, as much as 18 inches of rain fell on Metro Manila that day. We were probably lucky to have been there to find that out.
Many residents of Marikina City woke up that morning completely unaware of the life-changing and life-taking events that were about to transpire a few hours later. Provident Village was at a large bend in the Marikina River, just across the new SM mall. The floodwater that rushed into their homes that day did not leave them much time to save themselves and many were trapped and killed right in their very homes, ironically where they were supposed to be safe. This event was replicated many times over, although in lesser degrees and with less casualties, elsewhere in Marikina City and in Metro Manila. The water subsided sometime thereafter to reveal a swath of devastation and ruined lives. Mercifully, the Marikina River was able to do its job of taking the water away.
A few kilometers downriver, a slightly different kind of flooding took place in Pasig City and in Cainta and Taytay of Rizal Province but nonetheless as deadly and as destructive. The areas lying at the EAST bank of the Manggahan Floodway were inundated and many lives were also lost or ruined and placed at very great risk as a result. While the floodwaters in some areas receded or somehow found its way to the Manggahan Floodway (as in the west bank areas of the floodway), many areas remained under water for almost a week and that situation continues to this day. The drainage system of natural and man-made waterways was NOT working at all at the areas beyond the EAST bank of the Manggahan Floodway. If the water is not removed immediately, sickness and disease and maybe desperate human actions are soon expected to take their toll.
We need to get to the answers to these questions fast because new and stronger/ more destructive storms are already upon us and these will multiply the suffering of our countrymen. What happened? Did our National and Local Governments fail us? What were the DPWH, the DILG and the MMDA doing all of this time? Did our civil engineers in charge of our infrastructure, particularly the drainage system, fail to do their jobs? Is there anyone to blame? Or are we all to blame?
B. What needs to be reexamined in terms of State Policy?
Let us first examine State Policies that may have had something to do with what happened:
For whatever reason/ consideration, the DPWH has apparently relinquished the planning and management of the flood control system for the Metro Manila Area (MMA) to the MMDA, a practice that could be questioned as the same is a primary DPWH role; furthermore, it could be possible that the MMDA may not legally carry out such a mandate (not having been created by law), the main reason why its actions are often contested by the LGUs;
About 18 years ago, the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) surprisingly and inexplicably allowed the LGU City/ Municipal Engineers (in charge of horizontal infrastructure) to simultaneously serve as Acting Building Officials (in charge of vertical infrastructure), a practice that persists to this day despite the non-exigency of the supposed situation/s that were used to justify Municipal/ City Engineers assuming such roles; there is NO check and balance in such as system; as Acting Building Officials, the said City/ Municipal Engineers are tasked to implement both the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1096) and the Water Code; ALL these functions are given to only one (1) individual to directly/ indirectly discharge the functions of up to thirteen (13) different state-regulated professions; lapses (deliberate or otherwise) and possibly knowing violation of the said laws by the said entities are key reasons why we could be having flooding problems;
The 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1096) is a general and earlier law that must defer to stipulations under special and later laws such as the professional regulatory laws (PRLs); the DPWH is virtually usurping the functions of the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) and its Professional Regulatory Boards (PRBs) by unilaterally interpreting such PRLs without proper consultation; the DPWH is also issuing Memorandum Orders, with provisions that may be violative of PRLs or even standing Court Orders and mandating LGU Building Officials to immediately enforce the same, without benefit of public hearings/ consultation;
The State Policies on horizontal developments, particularly as these refer to open spaces, should be reviewed, amended and repealed since we need to conserve low-lying land for agricultural production i.e. use only the lower slopes of hills and mountains for land development rather than agriculturally productive, flat land and we visibly need to increase open spaces, particularly those that can hold or absorb large amounts of surface water;
The State Policies on population control/ management, and possibly on rural-urban migration may need to be revisited as we apparently have ineffective policies that have resulted in continuing population increase and movement/ displacement; and
The incineration of wastes is banned under the Clean Air Act; this may need to be revisited since we now have an incalculable amount of natural and artificial/ man-made waste and debris that need to be disposed of at the soonest time possible.
C. What can be done?
We now ask ourselves what can we now do or at least attempt to do?
As the DPWH is presently handling both horizontal and vertical infrastructure, there is now NO check and balance in the system i.e. the DPWH, through its LGU Building Officials (who are mostly Municipal/ City Engineers in an acting capacity as Building Officials) review and approve building plans that apparently consistently violate the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines/ NBCP (P.D. No. 1096), the Fire Code of the Phils. (R.A. No. 9514, formerly P.D. No. 1185), the Accessibility Law (B.P. No. 344) and the Water Code, especially in terms of the mandated waterway easements, with apparent little regard for the consequences on both the natural and built environments, on the general population and on the end-users; if the DPWH cannot implement and enforce these laws, chief of which is P.D. No. 1096, which it is tasked to fully implement and enforce, then the DPWH is clearly NOT the proper agency to handle such matters;
the LGU City/Municipal Engineers which are under DILG control (acting as Building Officials under DPWH control) are presently in charge of both horizontal and vertical infrastructure for almost all LGUs nationwide; again, there is NO check and balance in such a system because it assumes that such a person (usually a civil engineer) is capable of understanding and discharging the component functions of about twelve (12) other state-regulated professionals, chief among them the Architects and Environmental Planners; the LGU City/ Municipal Engineers may have little to no training or knowledge about environmental planning and architecture;
As the DPWH and its LGU Building Officials (or City/ Municipal Engineers) are clearly incapable of enforcing the National Building Code of the Philippines (PD No. 1096) and the Water Code through the dismantling and removal of illegal structures on waterways and since the HUDCC appears to also be incapable of dealing with the physical problems of informal settlers, there may be need for a separate Department, the focus of which shall be in the areas of settlements planning, housing, land development, relocation programs for informal settlers and vertical structures;
We may therefore need to revisit earlier legislative proposals (if any) for the creation of a proposed Department of Planning and Housing, which MUST be the SOLE central authority on ALL physical, land and water use/ site planning, transportation planning and all vertical design regulatory functions for the National Government; the Environmental Planners and Architects who shall be assisting the policy makers are the state-regulated professionals needed for this job, probably not the Civil Engineers who are more adept at program/ project implementation;
So that its focus would NOT be divided, the DPWH must SOLELY concentrate on horizontal infrastructure i.e. the coordinative horizontal planning (with the proposed Department of Planning and Housing), construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, civil works, flood control structures and related structures, water supply and management, traffic management, waste management, protection of coastal areas and resources and related works;
the DPWH can help the other agencies implement vertical projects but the planning and design of such vertical projects should NOT be done by the DPWH due to its relatively poor record in vertical design i.e. school and government office buildings and related vertical public infrastructure that are poorly space-planned, that do not last and are not sensitive to the requirements of tropical and sustainable design, resulting in a waste of public funds;
The DPWH must be mandated to fully implement and enforce Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 (the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines) that LIMIT ONLY to Architects the signing and sealing of ALL ARCHITECTURAL documents for projects in the Philippines, provisions already fully harmonized in 2004 by the DPWH itself with the multiple provisions of the Architecture Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9266) that say the same thing; there is NO TRO, NO injunction and NO pending constitutional question on either Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 or on R.A. No. 9266; the May 2005 injunction on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 was already LIFTED/ DISSOLVED in January of 2008 (and affirmed in May 2009) by 2 immediately executory Court Orders but the DPWH Secretary, a civil engineer by training, still continues to allow 114,000 civil engineers/ CEs nationwide (who have very little or no knowledge of architecture) to sign and seal ARCHITECTURAL documents in violation of law and the 2 standing Court Orders; since there has been no TRO nor injunction issued by the Court of Appeals to date on Secs. 302.3 & 4 of the 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096, the DPWH Secretary is now attempting to re-label/ reclassify ARCHITECTURAL documents as civil documents to continue to allow CEs nationwide to sign the re-labeled ARCHITECTURAL documents; if the CEs still continue to sign ARCHITECTURAL plans/ documents, then the problems exposed by Storm Ondoy shall persist all over the Philippines and continue to wreak havoc on our lives;
REPEAL the section of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) that inexplicably allowed the LGU City/ Municipal Engineers (in charge of horizontal infrastructure) to simultaneously serve as Acting Building Officials (in charge of horizontal infrastructure); there is NO check and balance in such a system; thereafter, Building Officials (who should be Architects by law, i.e. R.A. No. 9266) and City/ Municipal Architects must become mandatory for all LGUs; the Building Official is a fulltime job while the City/ Municipal Architects can be employed on a part-time basis;
the City/ Municipal Planning Officers must be an Environmental Planner or someone sufficiently trained by the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planning (PIEP) or possibly even certified by PRC PRB Board of Environmental Planning as capable of functioning as an LGU Planning Officer; in relation to this, Congressional action on the pending bill on environmental planning (to repeal P.D. No. 1308) should now be accelerated;
All architectural and physical/ land/ use planning programs and projects that are to be implemented/ undertaken under the Government Procurement and Reform Act (GPRA) of 2003 (R.A. No. 9184) must primarily involve Architects and Environmental Planners, not civil engineers; the Bid and Award Committee (BAC) Observers for such procurement activities (goods, services or infrastructure) must come primarily from the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) or the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners (PIEP) or other similar organizations that can effectively, impartially and professionally advise the BAC of the procuring entity; the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) should implement and enforce the same the soonest as it is already provided for under their July 2009 Revised IRR for R.A. No. 9184;
Reconsider, amend or repeal the ban in incineration of solid wastes as provided for under the Clean Air Act, but preferably only if substitutes for plastics and non-biodegradable packaging materials are already in place; this could effectively reduce the need for dumpsites and the volume of waste that find its way into our waterways;
land is a scarce resource that should be wisely used; it is now possibly the time to consider and promote high density vertical developments rather than low density horizontal residential developments on converted farmland; it is also time to introduce such high density structures to fill up vacant or underutilized land that abound in our urban settlements (infilling) so that urban sprawl could be curtailed; these could have a great effect on the performance of our waterway and flood control systems;
as the resources of the State are finite, there should be greater and more effective population control policies/ mechanisms in place; otherwise, certain segments of society, particularly the middle class, will keep on supporting them involuntarily through the taxes that they pay; there may be need to accelerate quality legislative work on the pending reproductive health bills;
For the National Government to revisit the following Metro Manila physical flood control proposals advanced by various entities over the past 4 decades:
SHORT TERM
commission a short study (including a quick hydrology/ flood survey) or commence an official investigation to find out what really happened last 26 September 2009 and why floodwaters remain stagnant at Pasig, Cainta and Taytay; the DPWH must explain why the water in these areas are not being drained; the study must map out the extent of flooding that day and the following days; the investigation must necessarily also include finding out what happened during the great Iloilo City flood of 2 years ago;
mandate all LGUs to remove all impediments at all waterways, including the illegal structures of informal settlers i.e. which reduce the carrying capacity of waterways and contribute to debris formation;
temporarily allow the burning of wastes and debris to reduce the possible of these wastes finding their way back to the waterways;
de-silt the Laguna Lake to increase its holding capacity;
deepen the Pasig River to increase its carrying capacity and construct canals to connect its meandering sections to facilitate floodwater flow (if technically feasible);
upgrade the dismal capabilities of the NDCC for disaster response;
MEDIUM TERM
clear the Manggahan Floodway embankments of ALL illegal structures estimated at about 25,000 (including those erected by the LGUs) and of ALL its estimated 250,000 informal settlers (to be done by the DPWH, DILG/ LGUs, HUDCC, etc.);
redevelop the Marikina River bank/ bend areas identifiable as overflow areas or mini-flood plains so that these could properly serve their purposes in future storm events (by DPWH, DILG, MMDA, LGUs, etc.);
undertake a comprehensive hydrology/ flooding study for the Metro Manila Area and the Greater Manila Area (which includes Cainta, Taytay, Antipolo City, San Mateo and Montalban) so that their flood control systems could be integrated and so that upstream holding/ impounding areas that can delay the arrival of Sierra Madre storm waters/ surface runoff could be identified; we should be able to somehow harness/use all of these freshwater for our benefit; a series of new dam systems for impounding water for domestic or utility applications could also be proposed under such a study;
update the MMETROPLAN study of the 1970s;
LONG TO VERY LONG TERM
i) construct the Paranaque Spillway that would relieve the Laguna Lake during storm events; if a right-of-way (ROW) could be found, the Paranaque Spillway could be integrated with other infrastructure developments i.e. related to transport, conveyance of utility systems, possible property development, etc.
reproduced from (source)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Important Links for Review
Pls. click on the item for a link to the review materials:
1. Clarification on the revised PD 1096 and RA 9266: Powerpoint presentation by Arch. Armando Alli (Get the Facts Right)
2. IRR of the Government Procurement Law (RA 9184)
3.Revised Fire Code of the Philippnes (RA 9514)
4.IRR of National Building Code (coded)
5.IRR on Billboards
6. 1979 Architects National Code
7. BP 344 and its ammended IRR
8. 2006 Architects National Code of Ethics
1. Clarification on the revised PD 1096 and RA 9266: Powerpoint presentation by Arch. Armando Alli (Get the Facts Right)
2. IRR of the Government Procurement Law (RA 9184)
3.Revised Fire Code of the Philippnes (RA 9514)
4.IRR of National Building Code (coded)
5.IRR on Billboards
6. 1979 Architects National Code
7. BP 344 and its ammended IRR
8. 2006 Architects National Code of Ethics
Friday, September 11, 2009
Review Questions: Building Utilities 11
Here is a sample quiz for Building Utilities: Plumbing and Sanitary Systems and Equipment (see scope of subject below this post) which is given in the afternoon of Day 1 of the Architects Licensure Examination. Try this quizzes as part of your review.
There are 15 questions in this Quiz. You may repeat the quiz by refreshing your browser and different questions will appear.. Enjoy!!!
Password: atlascped
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
UTILITIES
A. Rationale and Description
1. Understanding of the basic practices, principles, general design and installation and/or construc-tion of utilities required for a building/ struc¬ture and its grounds/premises;
2. Understanding and analyses of utility, facility, and equipment require¬ments in relation to aesthetics, function, and stability of a building/ structure and its pre¬mises.
B. Terminal Competencies for LEA Candidates
1. Ability to identify and apply the fundamentals of building utilities and systems;
2. Ability to apply fundamental concepts and principles covering the general design and installation of electrical, mechanical, electronic/ communications, fire protection, building management, plumbing and sanitary systems, waste management systems, and the like in buildings and its grounds, consistent with trade practices and recommendations by the pertinent professionals;
3. Ability to applies the pertinent code provisions relative to the planning/ lay-outing, design, installation, operation and maintenance of such utility systems and their components;
4. Ability to converse and coordinate with the professionals and their staff concerned with such utility systems and components;
5. Ability to apply the basic principles of planning, designing, operating and maintaining such utility systems and components;
6. Ability to identify and to apply the different important aspects of acoustics and lighting as these relate to planning and design principles for buildings/ structures and their grounds; and
7. Ability to relate the psychological and physiological effects of such utility systems, sound and light on building occupants/ end-users.
C. Scope
Design and construction and/or installation of the following utility systems and their respective components:
1. Sanitary and Plumbing Systems and Equipment
a. Water source, storage, supply and distribu¬tion;
b. Plumbing rough-in and fixtures;
c. Drainage and sewerage systems; and
d. Waste collection, disposal, treatment and/or recycling.
2. Mechanical Systems
a. Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems;
b. Conveyors and other building mechanical equipment e.g. elevators, funiculars, escalators, walkalators, etc.;
3. Electrical and Other Power Systems
a. Electrical power and lighting supply, distri¬bution and fixtures; and
b. Electrical power source and alternative power sources.
4. Acoustics and Illumination
a. The psycho-physics of acoustics and lighting; and
b. Acoustical treatment and corrections.
5. Disaster Prevention and Protection Systems; Security Systems
a. Building fire-fighting, prevention, and pro¬tection apparatus;
b. Installation and/or construction of the different protection systems;
c. Materials and fixtures; and
d. Disaster prevention and mitigation systems.
6. Communication Systems
a. Electronics system; and
b. Telephone, intercom, internet/ DSL, cable TV, audio/video facilities, public address (PA) system, etc.
7. Building management and other systems
a. Climate/ lighting/ security controls and related applications for buildings/ structures;
b. Robotics and related intelligent building features.
Review Questions: Building Utilities 10
Here is a sample quiz for Building Utilities: Mechanical and Fire Protection Systems and Security Systems (see scope of subject below this post) which is given in the afternoon of Day 1 of the Architects Licensure Examination. Try this quizzes as part of your review.
There are 15 questions in this Quiz. You may repeat the quiz by refreshing your browser and different questions will appear.. Enjoy!!!
Password: atlascped
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
UTILITIES
A. Rationale and Description
1. Understanding of the basic practices, principles, general design and installation and/or construc-tion of utilities required for a building/ struc¬ture and its grounds/premises;
2. Understanding and analyses of utility, facility, and equipment require¬ments in relation to aesthetics, function, and stability of a building/ structure and its pre¬mises.
B. Terminal Competencies for LEA Candidates
1. Ability to identify and apply the fundamentals of building utilities and systems;
2. Ability to apply fundamental concepts and principles covering the general design and installation of electrical, mechanical, electronic/ communications, fire protection, building management, plumbing and sanitary systems, waste management systems, and the like in buildings and its grounds, consistent with trade practices and recommendations by the pertinent professionals;
3. Ability to applies the pertinent code provisions relative to the planning/ lay-outing, design, installation, operation and maintenance of such utility systems and their components;
4. Ability to converse and coordinate with the professionals and their staff concerned with such utility systems and components;
5. Ability to apply the basic principles of planning, designing, operating and maintaining such utility systems and components;
6. Ability to identify and to apply the different important aspects of acoustics and lighting as these relate to planning and design principles for buildings/ structures and their grounds; and
7. Ability to relate the psychological and physiological effects of such utility systems, sound and light on building occupants/ end-users.
C. Scope
Design and construction and/or installation of the following utility systems and their respective components:
1. Sanitary and Plumbing Systems and Equipment
a. Water source, storage, supply and distribu¬tion;
b. Plumbing rough-in and fixtures;
c. Drainage and sewerage systems; and
d. Waste collection, disposal, treatment and/or recycling.
2. Mechanical Systems
a. Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems;
b. Conveyors and other building mechanical equipment e.g. elevators, funiculars, escalators, walkalators, etc.;
3. Electrical and Other Power Systems
a. Electrical power and lighting supply, distri¬bution and fixtures; and
b. Electrical power source and alternative power sources.
4. Acoustics and Illumination
a. The psycho-physics of acoustics and lighting; and
b. Acoustical treatment and corrections.
5. Disaster Prevention and Protection Systems; Security Systems
a. Building fire-fighting, prevention, and pro¬tection apparatus;
b. Installation and/or construction of the different protection systems;
c. Materials and fixtures; and
d. Disaster prevention and mitigation systems.
6. Communication Systems
a. Electronics system; and
b. Telephone, intercom, internet/ DSL, cable TV, audio/video facilities, public address (PA) system, etc.
7. Building management and other systems
a. Climate/ lighting/ security controls and related applications for buildings/ structures;
b. Robotics and related intelligent building features.
Review Questions: Tropical Design
Part 1 of Tropical Design Quiz. Enjoy! For incorrect answers, click (+ show previous question).
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
Buy Rey a Beer :-) if you liked this Quiz, so I could post more!.
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Buy Rey a Beer :-) if you liked this Quiz, so I could post more!.
Review Questions Planning 03
Part 3 of Planning Quiz. Enjoy! For incorrect answers, click (+ show previous question).
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
Buy Rey a Beer :-) if you liked this Quiz, so I could post more!.
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Buy Rey a Beer :-) if you liked this Quiz, so I could post more!.
Review Questions Building Utilities 9
Part 9 of Building Utilities Quiz. Enjoy! For incorrect answers, click (+ show previous question).
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
Buy Rey a Beer :-) if you liked this Quiz, so I could post more!.
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Buy Rey a Beer :-) if you liked this Quiz, so I could post more!.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Review Questions: Building Utilities 08
Part 8 of Building Utilities Quiz. Enjoy! For incorrect answers, click (+ show previous question).
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
Buy Rey a Beer :-) if you liked this Quiz, so I could post more!.
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
Buy Rey a Beer :-) if you liked this Quiz, so I could post more!.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Review Questions: Building Utilities 07
Ccd ArkiReview
Create Your Badge
Here's Building Utilities Quiz 07.
There will be 15 questions randomly picked from a database of 40 questions.
Each time you take the quiz, there will be different questions appearing. Enjoy!!!
Take the Exam again HERE.
Large screen setup HERE
SHOULD YOU NOTICE ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS POSSIBLY DUE TO HUMAN TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US ASAP (PROVIDE COMMENTS). THANK YOU!!!
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
UTILITIES
A. Rationale and Description
1. Understanding of the basic practices, principles, general design and installation and/or construc-tion of utilities required for a building/ struc¬ture and its grounds/premises;
2. Understanding and analyses of utility, facility, and equipment require¬ments in relation to aesthetics, function, and stability of a building/ structure and its pre¬mises.
B. Terminal Competencies for LEA Candidates
1. Ability to identify and apply the fundamentals of building utilities and systems;
2. Ability to apply fundamental concepts and principles covering the general design and installation of electrical, mechanical, electronic/ communications, fire protection, building management, plumbing and sanitary systems, waste management systems, and the like in buildings and its grounds, consistent with trade practices and recommendations by the pertinent professionals;
3. Ability to applies the pertinent code provisions relative to the planning/ lay-outing, design, installation, operation and maintenance of such utility systems and their components;
4. Ability to converse and coordinate with the professionals and their staff concerned with such utility systems and components;
5. Ability to apply the basic principles of planning, designing, operating and maintaining such utility systems and components;
6. Ability to identify and to apply the different important aspects of acoustics and lighting as these relate to planning and design principles for buildings/ structures and their grounds; and
7. Ability to relate the psychological and physiological effects of such utility systems, sound and light on building occupants/ end-users.
C. Scope
Design and construction and/or installation of the following utility systems and their respective components:
1. Sanitary and Plumbing Systems and Equipment
a. Source, storage, supply and distribu¬tion;
b. Plumbing rough-in and fixtures;
c. Drainage and sewerage systems; and
d. Waste collection, disposal, treatment and/or recycling.
2. Mechanical Systems
a. Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems;
b. Conveyors and other building mechanical equipment e.g. elevators, funiculars, escalators, walkalators, etc.;
3. Electrical and Other Power Systems
a. Electrical power and lighting supply, distribution and fixtures; and
b. Electrical power source and alternative power sources.
4. Acoustics and Illumination
a. The psycho-physics of acoustics and lighting; and
b. Acoustical treatment and corrections.
5. Disaster Prevention and Protection Systems; Security Systems
a. Building fire-fighting, prevention, and protection apparatus;
b. Installation and/or construction of the different protection systems;
c. Materials and fixtures; and
d. Disaster prevention and mitigation systems.
6. Communication Systems
a. Electronics system; and
b. Telephone, intercom, internet/ DSL, cable TV, audio/video facilities, public address (PA) system, etc.
7. Building management and other systems
a. Climate/ lighting/ security controls and related applications for buildings/ structures;
b. Robotics and related intelligent building features.
Create Your Badge
Here's Building Utilities Quiz 07.
There will be 15 questions randomly picked from a database of 40 questions.
Each time you take the quiz, there will be different questions appearing. Enjoy!!!
Take the Exam again HERE.
Large screen setup HERE
SHOULD YOU NOTICE ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS POSSIBLY DUE TO HUMAN TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US ASAP (PROVIDE COMMENTS). THANK YOU!!!
To learn more, enroll in our Architecture Board Exams Review Courses. Click HERE for details.
Try other Arki Quizzes HERE
UTILITIES
A. Rationale and Description
1. Understanding of the basic practices, principles, general design and installation and/or construc-tion of utilities required for a building/ struc¬ture and its grounds/premises;
2. Understanding and analyses of utility, facility, and equipment require¬ments in relation to aesthetics, function, and stability of a building/ structure and its pre¬mises.
B. Terminal Competencies for LEA Candidates
1. Ability to identify and apply the fundamentals of building utilities and systems;
2. Ability to apply fundamental concepts and principles covering the general design and installation of electrical, mechanical, electronic/ communications, fire protection, building management, plumbing and sanitary systems, waste management systems, and the like in buildings and its grounds, consistent with trade practices and recommendations by the pertinent professionals;
3. Ability to applies the pertinent code provisions relative to the planning/ lay-outing, design, installation, operation and maintenance of such utility systems and their components;
4. Ability to converse and coordinate with the professionals and their staff concerned with such utility systems and components;
5. Ability to apply the basic principles of planning, designing, operating and maintaining such utility systems and components;
6. Ability to identify and to apply the different important aspects of acoustics and lighting as these relate to planning and design principles for buildings/ structures and their grounds; and
7. Ability to relate the psychological and physiological effects of such utility systems, sound and light on building occupants/ end-users.
C. Scope
Design and construction and/or installation of the following utility systems and their respective components:
1. Sanitary and Plumbing Systems and Equipment
a. Source, storage, supply and distribu¬tion;
b. Plumbing rough-in and fixtures;
c. Drainage and sewerage systems; and
d. Waste collection, disposal, treatment and/or recycling.
2. Mechanical Systems
a. Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems;
b. Conveyors and other building mechanical equipment e.g. elevators, funiculars, escalators, walkalators, etc.;
3. Electrical and Other Power Systems
a. Electrical power and lighting supply, distribution and fixtures; and
b. Electrical power source and alternative power sources.
4. Acoustics and Illumination
a. The psycho-physics of acoustics and lighting; and
b. Acoustical treatment and corrections.
5. Disaster Prevention and Protection Systems; Security Systems
a. Building fire-fighting, prevention, and protection apparatus;
b. Installation and/or construction of the different protection systems;
c. Materials and fixtures; and
d. Disaster prevention and mitigation systems.
6. Communication Systems
a. Electronics system; and
b. Telephone, intercom, internet/ DSL, cable TV, audio/video facilities, public address (PA) system, etc.
7. Building management and other systems
a. Climate/ lighting/ security controls and related applications for buildings/ structures;
b. Robotics and related intelligent building features.
