Sunday, November 23, 2008
Bahay Pinoy Update
You can now view more information about the "Bahay Pinoy" Bamboo House Design Competition at http://bahaypinoy2008.blogspot.com
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Module 2 Site Selection and Resource Analysis
“For every site, there is an ideal use. For every use, there is an ideal site”
Site Selection Criteria
GROSS SITE SELECTION - most preferable site in a larger milieu.
DISCRETE SITE SELECTION - sites within the locale identified in the gross site selection process
FUNCTIONAL SITE SELECTION - done in a big site where project is just part of the whole. Provide a “best use analysis” to determine best spot.
MAJOR SITE SELECTION CRITERIA:
Formulation should be based on the specific site needs of the project.
Establishes site values highly compatible with the requirements of the project
Considered as the most potent ones in creating the tone for site selection
MINOR SITE SELECTION CRITERIA:
Factors that are usually considered and is generally applicable to most type of projects, like utility systems, accessibility, and the like.
Devise rating scale:
Numerical rating:
3 – highly desirable
2 – desirable
1 - undesirable
Baseline Information
The process of site planning begins with the gathering of basic data relating specifically to the site under consideration and the surrounding areas.
This include such items as:
a. assessment of the natural environment and the associated physical characteristics of site
b. detailed analysis of the users
c. assessment of potential of site
d. assessment of possibilities
e. assessing the impact on the natural and visual environments
Systematic Summary of Findings
Information must be organized to permit an easy evaluation of the possible development options.
Sieve-mapping – an overlay method of mapping natural determinants used to determine the suitability of a particular site for prospective land uses.
Sieve mapping can be done manually using acetates or vellum, or thru the use of computer softwares like CADD and GIS.
SIEVE MAPPING
a. each natural factor like geology and soils is illustrated in maps on vellum or acetate.
b. Opportunity maps are produced from a composite of maps.
c. Constraint maps – constraints to development must be mapped for each component to show their influence on development.
d. Synthesis of opportunities and constraints is formed to produce a suitability map for a prospective use.
Summary of Site Analysis:
One of the most important parts of any comprehensive site evaluation, a summary site analysis illustrates the interrelationship of a site’s spatial, natural, and cultural conditions
The analysis should delineate the portion of the parcel most suited to development as well as any ecologically sensitive areas.
Areas in need of more detailed evaluation also should be identified.
Analysis should be straightforward and present information in its most basic and meaningful form.
Site features or conditions that most directly affect the development of the land should be graphically highlighted and illustrated.
Maps should include obvious factors such as rock outcroppings or wetlands as well as more subtle considerations such as the direction of a prevailing breeze or an unusual specimen tree.
Market Evaluation
Should be prepared concurrently with the site evaluation to determine a project’s likely market demand and the site’s realistic development and absorption potential.
Market operates according to traditions and principles that cannot be ignored.
Investigation should extend to the following:
a. Economic Factors
- economic conditions, trends, employment of prospective market
b. Demographic and psychographic factors
- income levels, age components, lifestyle
- who are the potential market?
- how does the local market differ from the overall metropolitan market?
c. Competitive factors
- How many competitors?
- What are their strengths and weaknesses?
- How well is it designed and marketed?
- What is needed to create a unique selling position?
d. Site Evaluation
- unlike site analysis, site evaluation examines area character, consumer traffic patterns, area services, and access routes from the consumer’s point of view.
- what is the overall perception of site location?
- is there a ready market to be tapped?
- what will consumers see on their way to the site that may influence their perceptions?
e. Demand determination
- who are the prospective users?
- what are their needs, wants, and desires?
- how will demand be satisfied?
f. Site programming
- based on market demand and development goals, specific land planning design recommendations should take into consideration theme, circulation patterns, relationship to adjacent sites, waterscaping or sitescaping, etc.
Alternative Plans and Concepts
Land and site evaluations are merged with the preliminary market information to test the program and to evaluate alternative layout concepts
Alternative solutions should be presented in diagrammatic for, enough at first to record only the essentials of a scheme.
Strategies for developing alternative site plans:
a. do not be satisfied with the first solution.
b. do not assume that there is only one way to make a proposed project work.
c. ask questions that elicit multiple answers.
d. recognize that a lot of ideas create better solutions.
e. ask “what if” questions
f. challenge the rules.
Selecting the Preferred Development Concept
Which solution….
a. …best satisfies the development’s program requirements and best fits the site?
b. …best satisfies the quality-of-place objectives established for the proposed project?
c. …can be implemented? The preferred solution is not necessarily the easiest one to implement.
d. …provides reasonable cost benefits?
Preferred development concept is likely to reflect a combination of several ideas uncovered through the comparison of alternative plans.
The opportunities and constraints related to the development criteria, development standards, local regulations should also be considered in the selection.
Final Development Plan
The planning and design process requires constant refinement and adjustment.
Feedback and continued testing should be an integral part of every phase as the plans move closer to completion.
Prepare schematic plans, preliminary development plans, phasing plans, final development plans
Site Selection Criteria
GROSS SITE SELECTION - most preferable site in a larger milieu.
DISCRETE SITE SELECTION - sites within the locale identified in the gross site selection process
FUNCTIONAL SITE SELECTION - done in a big site where project is just part of the whole. Provide a “best use analysis” to determine best spot.
MAJOR SITE SELECTION CRITERIA:
Formulation should be based on the specific site needs of the project.
Establishes site values highly compatible with the requirements of the project
Considered as the most potent ones in creating the tone for site selection
MINOR SITE SELECTION CRITERIA:
Factors that are usually considered and is generally applicable to most type of projects, like utility systems, accessibility, and the like.
Devise rating scale:
Numerical rating:
3 – highly desirable
2 – desirable
1 - undesirable
Baseline Information
The process of site planning begins with the gathering of basic data relating specifically to the site under consideration and the surrounding areas.
This include such items as:
a. assessment of the natural environment and the associated physical characteristics of site
b. detailed analysis of the users
c. assessment of potential of site
d. assessment of possibilities
e. assessing the impact on the natural and visual environments
Systematic Summary of Findings
Information must be organized to permit an easy evaluation of the possible development options.
Sieve-mapping – an overlay method of mapping natural determinants used to determine the suitability of a particular site for prospective land uses.
Sieve mapping can be done manually using acetates or vellum, or thru the use of computer softwares like CADD and GIS.
SIEVE MAPPING
a. each natural factor like geology and soils is illustrated in maps on vellum or acetate.
b. Opportunity maps are produced from a composite of maps.
c. Constraint maps – constraints to development must be mapped for each component to show their influence on development.
d. Synthesis of opportunities and constraints is formed to produce a suitability map for a prospective use.
Summary of Site Analysis:
One of the most important parts of any comprehensive site evaluation, a summary site analysis illustrates the interrelationship of a site’s spatial, natural, and cultural conditions
The analysis should delineate the portion of the parcel most suited to development as well as any ecologically sensitive areas.
Areas in need of more detailed evaluation also should be identified.
Analysis should be straightforward and present information in its most basic and meaningful form.
Site features or conditions that most directly affect the development of the land should be graphically highlighted and illustrated.
Maps should include obvious factors such as rock outcroppings or wetlands as well as more subtle considerations such as the direction of a prevailing breeze or an unusual specimen tree.
Market Evaluation
Should be prepared concurrently with the site evaluation to determine a project’s likely market demand and the site’s realistic development and absorption potential.
Market operates according to traditions and principles that cannot be ignored.
Investigation should extend to the following:
a. Economic Factors
- economic conditions, trends, employment of prospective market
b. Demographic and psychographic factors
- income levels, age components, lifestyle
- who are the potential market?
- how does the local market differ from the overall metropolitan market?
c. Competitive factors
- How many competitors?
- What are their strengths and weaknesses?
- How well is it designed and marketed?
- What is needed to create a unique selling position?
d. Site Evaluation
- unlike site analysis, site evaluation examines area character, consumer traffic patterns, area services, and access routes from the consumer’s point of view.
- what is the overall perception of site location?
- is there a ready market to be tapped?
- what will consumers see on their way to the site that may influence their perceptions?
e. Demand determination
- who are the prospective users?
- what are their needs, wants, and desires?
- how will demand be satisfied?
f. Site programming
- based on market demand and development goals, specific land planning design recommendations should take into consideration theme, circulation patterns, relationship to adjacent sites, waterscaping or sitescaping, etc.
Alternative Plans and Concepts
Land and site evaluations are merged with the preliminary market information to test the program and to evaluate alternative layout concepts
Alternative solutions should be presented in diagrammatic for, enough at first to record only the essentials of a scheme.
Strategies for developing alternative site plans:
a. do not be satisfied with the first solution.
b. do not assume that there is only one way to make a proposed project work.
c. ask questions that elicit multiple answers.
d. recognize that a lot of ideas create better solutions.
e. ask “what if” questions
f. challenge the rules.
Selecting the Preferred Development Concept
Which solution….
a. …best satisfies the development’s program requirements and best fits the site?
b. …best satisfies the quality-of-place objectives established for the proposed project?
c. …can be implemented? The preferred solution is not necessarily the easiest one to implement.
d. …provides reasonable cost benefits?
Preferred development concept is likely to reflect a combination of several ideas uncovered through the comparison of alternative plans.
The opportunities and constraints related to the development criteria, development standards, local regulations should also be considered in the selection.
Final Development Plan
The planning and design process requires constant refinement and adjustment.
Feedback and continued testing should be an integral part of every phase as the plans move closer to completion.
Prepare schematic plans, preliminary development plans, phasing plans, final development plans
Friday, November 14, 2008
Ang Pinakamagandang Bahay sa Balat ng Lupa
Everyone thinks of their house as "home", the most beautiful place to be.
Most of housing designs have been modeled after European and American exemplars which are incongruous with our tropical climate. The resultant living conditions in these houses would then necessitate high energy and operating costs. The organizers feel it is time to challenge the aspirations of people through a redefinition of the concept of beauty in houses.
The competition aims to redefine the ideal of "beauty" or what is beautiful about a house to include sustainable concepts that will speak about how a house is lived in and how a house attuned to the tropical climate can be a beautiful place to live in.
Design Problem
The competition will be for the complete architectural design of a low-medium income housing unit to be constructed on a 200-square meter lot in the UP-Diliman Campus. Each competition category will be assigned its own lot. The parameters of the design problem are:
1. The house would serve the needs of a family of a maximum of five (5) persons.
2. The house design may be a starter house that can be adapted to meet the needs of a typical family as it grows and contracts as the children grow and then eventually leave home.
3. The cost of the house should be within the range of P750,000.00 – the maximum affordable economic housing loan of PAG-IBIG.
4. The house design should be in compliance with all building laws and regulations.
The design should be a statement of the designer's definition of "magandang bahay", demonstrating the following:
1. Incorporation of locally available sustainable /green systems and/or materials. Alternative building materials or construction systems should be both forward and backward integrating, i.e., they should have the potential for application to both low-cost and upscale construction scenarios.
2. Appropriateness of the house for tropical living
3. Feasibility of the design to meet cost requirements
4. Adaptability of the house design to meet the varied life patterns of potential users
5. The integrity of the design in incorporating all the requirements into a delightful whole
Prizes There are two categories and following prizes will be awarded per category:
Professional Category
1. First Place: PhP 100,000, plus plaque of award; Award of design contract for the implementation of the design.
2. Second Place: PhP 75,000, plus plaque of award
3. Third Place: PhP 50,000, plus plaque of award
Student Category
1. First Place: PhP 75,000, plus plaque of award;
2. Second Place: PhP 50,000, plus plaque of award
3. Third Place: PhP 25,000, plus plaque of award
4. The First Place winner for the Professional Category will be awarded the design contract to implement the winning design. The design will be built by LCSPI.
5. A professional will be commissioned by Lafarge Cement Services (Philippines), Inc. to execute the First Place winner for the Student Category.
FOR MORE DETAILS, VISIT:
http://www.geocities.com/pmbbl_2008
Most of housing designs have been modeled after European and American exemplars which are incongruous with our tropical climate. The resultant living conditions in these houses would then necessitate high energy and operating costs. The organizers feel it is time to challenge the aspirations of people through a redefinition of the concept of beauty in houses.
The competition aims to redefine the ideal of "beauty" or what is beautiful about a house to include sustainable concepts that will speak about how a house is lived in and how a house attuned to the tropical climate can be a beautiful place to live in.
Design Problem
The competition will be for the complete architectural design of a low-medium income housing unit to be constructed on a 200-square meter lot in the UP-Diliman Campus. Each competition category will be assigned its own lot. The parameters of the design problem are:
1. The house would serve the needs of a family of a maximum of five (5) persons.
2. The house design may be a starter house that can be adapted to meet the needs of a typical family as it grows and contracts as the children grow and then eventually leave home.
3. The cost of the house should be within the range of P750,000.00 – the maximum affordable economic housing loan of PAG-IBIG.
4. The house design should be in compliance with all building laws and regulations.
The design should be a statement of the designer's definition of "magandang bahay", demonstrating the following:
1. Incorporation of locally available sustainable /green systems and/or materials. Alternative building materials or construction systems should be both forward and backward integrating, i.e., they should have the potential for application to both low-cost and upscale construction scenarios.
2. Appropriateness of the house for tropical living
3. Feasibility of the design to meet cost requirements
4. Adaptability of the house design to meet the varied life patterns of potential users
5. The integrity of the design in incorporating all the requirements into a delightful whole
Prizes There are two categories and following prizes will be awarded per category:
Professional Category
1. First Place: PhP 100,000, plus plaque of award; Award of design contract for the implementation of the design.
2. Second Place: PhP 75,000, plus plaque of award
3. Third Place: PhP 50,000, plus plaque of award
Student Category
1. First Place: PhP 75,000, plus plaque of award;
2. Second Place: PhP 50,000, plus plaque of award
3. Third Place: PhP 25,000, plus plaque of award
4. The First Place winner for the Professional Category will be awarded the design contract to implement the winning design. The design will be built by LCSPI.
5. A professional will be commissioned by Lafarge Cement Services (Philippines), Inc. to execute the First Place winner for the Student Category.
FOR MORE DETAILS, VISIT:
http://www.geocities.com/pmbbl_2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
2008 YP Design Challenge winners announced
12 November 2008
Dear Sirs and Madams:
Greetings from TAO-Pilipinas!
We are pleased to announce the winners and finalists of the YP Design Challenge – Sustainable Shelter category. The jury panel composed of Arch/EnP. Arlene Lusterio of TAO-Pilipinas, Arch/EnP. Dinky von Einsiedel of CONCEP Inc. and PIEP, and Engr. Ramby Nolido of RA Nolido Construction Corp., deliberated on November 10, 2008 and selected the winning entries from among 22 submissions.
Selection of winning entries were based on the following criteria: Sustainable Design Features (25%); Originality and Innovativeness (25%); Cost-effectiveness (20%); Environmentally-sound Construction (20%); and Socio-Cultural Sensitivity and Affordability (10%).
First Award (PhP 20,000 prize)
No First Place was awarded by the jury.
Second Award (PhP 12,000 prize each)
Second Place was shared by two entries.
Mark Cris Abarquez
Team members: Leonard Bryan T. Tecson, Johmar E. Beley
4th year BS Architecture students, Far Eastern University (FEU)
Adviser: Arch. Antonio C. De Vera
Jasmine M. Soriano
2008 BS Architecture graduate, Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP)
Third Award (PhP 8,000 prize)
Randy A. Amonoy
Team members: Jerome T. Dañas, Ildefonso M. Madiano Jr.
5th year BS Architecture students, Technological University of the Philippines (TUP)
Special Award for Innovation (PhP 5,000 prize)
Special Award was given by the jury for an entry that showed outstanding efforts
in specific aspects of the design proposal.
Alvin C. Trinidad
4th year BS Architecture student, University of the Philippines (UP)
Adviser: Arch. Nicolo Del Castillo
Finalists
Short-listed entries that passed the final screening were categorized as Notable Designs.
Myra P. Ocampo
Team member: Muriel D. Sellote
4th year BS Architecture students, Far Eastern University (FEU)
Adviser: Arch. Antonio C. De Vera
Benjamin P. Casono
4th year BS Architecture student, University of the Philippines (UP)
Adviser: Arch. Nicolo Del Castillo
Franz Miko Verzon
2nd year BS Architecture student, University of Santo Tomas (UST)
The presentation boards of the winning entries and finalists may be viewed online at www.ypdesignchallenge.tao-pilipinas.org. Jury comments for each of the selected entries will also be posted online soon. TAO-Pilipinas shall organize the awarding ceremonies on December 2008 and exhibition of winning and notable designs by January 2009.
We also would like to inform you that the registration for the YP Design Challenge categories Portable Playground and Trash Transformation is still open. Registration deadline is on November 20 and the submission period is from November 26 to November 28, 2008. We hope that this new schedule would allow more of your students to join the design competition.
Again, we encourage your faculty to consider integrating the competition as a student design plate of your class for the semester. You may choose to register only your pre-selected top designs of the class (especially for professors using the design assignment as an internal class competition).
Thank you for allowing your students to incorporate the competition into their studies and supporting their efforts. We hope for your continued involvement with the project.
Most sincerely,
Ge
Geraldine R. Matabang
Young Professionals Program Coordinator
TAO-Pilipinas, Inc.
23A Matiyaga St., Bgy. Central, Diliman, QC
Telefax: 441-0998
Mobile: 0915-3166822
Dear Sirs and Madams:
Greetings from TAO-Pilipinas!
We are pleased to announce the winners and finalists of the YP Design Challenge – Sustainable Shelter category. The jury panel composed of Arch/EnP. Arlene Lusterio of TAO-Pilipinas, Arch/EnP. Dinky von Einsiedel of CONCEP Inc. and PIEP, and Engr. Ramby Nolido of RA Nolido Construction Corp., deliberated on November 10, 2008 and selected the winning entries from among 22 submissions.
Selection of winning entries were based on the following criteria: Sustainable Design Features (25%); Originality and Innovativeness (25%); Cost-effectiveness (20%); Environmentally-sound Construction (20%); and Socio-Cultural Sensitivity and Affordability (10%).
First Award (PhP 20,000 prize)
No First Place was awarded by the jury.
Second Award (PhP 12,000 prize each)
Second Place was shared by two entries.
Mark Cris AbarquezTeam members: Leonard Bryan T. Tecson, Johmar E. Beley
4th year BS Architecture students, Far Eastern University (FEU)
Adviser: Arch. Antonio C. De Vera
Jasmine M. Soriano2008 BS Architecture graduate, Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP)
Third Award (PhP 8,000 prize)
Randy A. AmonoyTeam members: Jerome T. Dañas, Ildefonso M. Madiano Jr.
5th year BS Architecture students, Technological University of the Philippines (TUP)
Special Award for Innovation (PhP 5,000 prize)
Special Award was given by the jury for an entry that showed outstanding efforts
in specific aspects of the design proposal.
Alvin C. Trinidad4th year BS Architecture student, University of the Philippines (UP)
Adviser: Arch. Nicolo Del Castillo
Finalists
Short-listed entries that passed the final screening were categorized as Notable Designs.
Myra P. Ocampo
Team member: Muriel D. Sellote
4th year BS Architecture students, Far Eastern University (FEU)
Adviser: Arch. Antonio C. De Vera
Benjamin P. Casono
4th year BS Architecture student, University of the Philippines (UP)
Adviser: Arch. Nicolo Del Castillo
Franz Miko Verzon
2nd year BS Architecture student, University of Santo Tomas (UST)
The presentation boards of the winning entries and finalists may be viewed online at www.ypdesignchallenge.tao-pilipinas.org. Jury comments for each of the selected entries will also be posted online soon. TAO-Pilipinas shall organize the awarding ceremonies on December 2008 and exhibition of winning and notable designs by January 2009.
We also would like to inform you that the registration for the YP Design Challenge categories Portable Playground and Trash Transformation is still open. Registration deadline is on November 20 and the submission period is from November 26 to November 28, 2008. We hope that this new schedule would allow more of your students to join the design competition.
Again, we encourage your faculty to consider integrating the competition as a student design plate of your class for the semester. You may choose to register only your pre-selected top designs of the class (especially for professors using the design assignment as an internal class competition).
Thank you for allowing your students to incorporate the competition into their studies and supporting their efforts. We hope for your continued involvement with the project.
Most sincerely,
Ge
Geraldine R. Matabang
Young Professionals Program Coordinator
TAO-Pilipinas, Inc.
23A Matiyaga St., Bgy. Central, Diliman, QC
Telefax: 441-0998
Mobile: 0915-3166822
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
PRBOA June 2009 LEA Syllabi
To those reviewing for the June 2009 exam, please take time to read the proposed syllabi prepared by the PRBOA. Please take note of the coverage of the exam especially the aditional subject on architetcural interiors. It would be worthwhile to note that this subject was not included in your curriculum. If you have further comments, please write the PRBOA listed in my links. You can view the proposed syllabi at
http://architectureboard.ph/uploads/1223128778-draft_June2009%20LEA%20Syllabi.pdf
http://architectureboard.ph/uploads/1223128778-draft_June2009%20LEA%20Syllabi.pdf
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Bahay Pinoy Design Competition
THE “BAHAY PINOY” DESIGN COMPETITION is a project of the Rotary-UAP Joint Committee on Housing of the United Architects of the
The project shall be to design low-cost single-detached dwelling with a 20-30 sqm. floor area with no particular lot utilizing bamboo as the major building material for both structural and architectural components
WHO MAY JOIN
The competition is open to the following:
Category I - Registered Filipino Architect (Team/Individual)
Category II - Graduate of BS Architecture / Students (3rd year, 4th year & 5th year of architecture course)
COMPETITION TIMETABLE
Launching (
Deadline for registration (
Deadline for submission of questions (
Deadline to dispatch answers to questions (
Deadline for submission of entries (
Judging (
Deadline for submission of boards by winners (
Awarding (
Registration Fee
Category I–ONE THOUSAND PESOS (PhP 1,000.00)
Category II-FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (PhP 500.00)
PRIZES
Category I
First Prize Php 100,000.00
Second Prize Php 50,000.00
Third Prize Php 10,000.00
Category II
First Prize PhP 25,000.00
Second Prize PhP 10,000.00
Third Prize PhP 5,000.00
DELIVERABLES
- Competition Entry Form
- Three (3) sets A3 size:
•- Architectural drawings showing perspective, plans,
four (4) elevations and two (2) sections.
•- Structural concept details of primary framing of walls,
columns and roof system.
•- Concept report/detailed drawings describing the design approach and
innovative features.
•- Direct cost estimate of the project.
After the deliberation and six (6) winners have been announced by the jury,
the six (6) winners will be notified through e-mail/fax/telephone and
be required to submit, re:
•Three (3) boards of A1 size (594mm x 841mm)
a) Board 1 – Perspective (eye-level)
b) Board 2 – Floor plan, 4 elevations & 2
sections
c) Board 3 – Concepts & Details
•
594mm (vertical) and 841mm (horizontal)
•
dimensions in metric scale preferably 1:100m.
•
Detailed cost estimate of the project.
•
Electronic files of each board in pdf format saved to a CD.
Instructions and Presentations
Drawings may be done in color or monochrome.
Boards shall have a 1mm black line all around, setback 25mm from the edge
COMPETITION SECRETARIAT
United Architects of the
Telephone (63-2)4126364, (63-2)4126374 Fax (63-2)3721796
Email: bahaypinoy @ yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!
