Part

! " #$ %
If I were a young family man with a wife and two schooling kids and I want to
give them a house, who is the professional I will approach; a developer, a civil
engineer constructor (not contractor) , or an architect? Definitely, Ill seek the
service of either the developer or the constructor. Ill call the architect only as
a last resort.

Line up along the broad aisles of the big malls in Metro Manila and other
cities are vendors peddling houses like fast foods. They call themselves the
Developers. They distribute brochures to the passers-by which contain all the
necessary information every prospective house-owner wants to know; like the
beautifully-drawn colored perspective of the houses, the plans, the location,
the environment, and even the accessibility to the nearest city. The houses
are of different types and styles and ranges from low-cost residence to very
costly high-rise condominiums. Each house has its own respective cost.
Undoubtedly, these are all designed by none else but the architects.

If the buyer is interested, a usually young man or woman at the counter will
expertly explain everything about the houses. They could even recommend
some financiers. The prospective buyer is then invited to a gathering early
one Sunday morning at McDonalds or Jollibee for what they call open
house. One will find that he is not alone. There are several more interested
buyers. After a free breakfast, they are escorted to the place or subdivision
where the actual model of the houses are built, complete with appliances such
as a refrigerator, a TV, a dining set, a sala set, a stove, beds, curtains, etc.
The guests are enticingly invited to tour and scrutinize the houses. If the
subdivision is small, the houses are already built on their respective lots ready
for selling. After a thorough negotiation he may pay the down payment and
his family can move-in the next day. The appliances are removed except
those they want to retain which are paid separately.

If one had his own lot, he picks a house he can afford from the brochure.
After the down payment, the house is built immediately, supervised by a civil
engineer, very seldom by an architect.

It is as easy as that, no hassle.

True, the Developers profit, with all those expenses, may reach to about 40%
or more than the fees of the Architects, but the buyers do not know that. All
they know is that they are buying a certain commodity, especially that they
could choose the house that they think is suitable for them and can move in
immediately.

Before the 90s of the last century, the architects, novice or oldsters, are
enjoying solely the full extent of the architectural designing of houses and
buildings. Now, it is the kingdom of the developers, with the architects, their
plain subjects. It is now the new architects that are suffering. Could we still
turn the tide back?

Sometime in 2004, a young architect, who had been working as a draftsman

for more than ten years, came to me for an advice for at last he got his first
client. He asked me that his client has a million pesos to spend but he had
his requirements. As a newbie, he is still afraid to go solo, so I gave him the
2
best advice I could give. I told him that the charge for the design only is 6%
according to our UAP Architectural Document. But charge 3% only or you
wont get the job, I advised him.

He returned the next day and said the owner turned him down because the
owner thinks that it is expensive to pay for the drawing alone for it has no
physical value yet. He bargained for a tremendous low price which the
architect did not accept.

Soon the architect came back and said that a civil engineer was called. He
asked for 10%, and after some thorough discussion, the owner immediately
released the 10% or 100,000 pesos after which a contract was signed.

What went wrong? The architect, who is only asking for 3% and to even pay
by installment, was rejected while the civil engineer, who asked for 10% got
the job.

The engineer offered to render a finish product, not the design of the product.
He told the owner I will build you a house, and that the 10% is a down
payment for the preparation prior to the construction.

Firstly, he told the owner, he will hire an architect to design the house. He
will inspect the lot if there were public utilities such as water, electricity and
sewerage systems. Then he will hire a geodetic engineer to survey the lot.
He will also hire a structural, sanitary and electrical engineers to supplement
and coordinate with the architects design. He would confer with him about
the design until it is finished. After all these preparations, all the documents
will be presented to him for his scrutiny and then for the application for
building permit to be also signed by him. The owner doesnt have to do
anything but entrust all these to the engineer. If the owner is ready, he would
give the engineer another 30% to start the construction. The design and the
construction run in one smooth flow as a one procedure or system. It is a
complete service of a real professional.

Actually, the engineer did not hire an architect for to hire one is expensive.
He hired an architectural graduate or under-board. This architectural designer
is still a novice and inexperienced and therefore his works are still of very low
in quality and value. But by the engineers stroke of his signature, the
unprofessional documents became professional.

To the civil engineers, this action is not unethical for they have been practicing
that for the last 50 years. But according to the Code of Ethical Conduct under
THE ARCHITECTS RESPONSIBILITIES IN RELATION TO HIS CLIENTS,
that is unethical practice to architects, to quote at 2g: The Architect shall not
undertake, under a fixed contract sum agreement, the construction of any
project based on plans prepared by him.

It is a fact known to many architects that many contractors hire their own
architects and submit the plans for the application for building permits under
the contractor companys name, not under the architects name. It is only
recently that they cannot do that.

3
Even as the civil engineers cannot sign architectural documents anymore,
they are still at the upper hand because they are legitimate building
constructors, and they could hire new and inexperienced and jobless
architects.

There is of course our Design-Built Service but this could also be practiced by
even the new civil engineers but not the new architects who could only design
and inspect their works.

In these kind of small, medium and big projects, who is more convenient to
deal with, money-wise and worry-wise; the developer, the engineer or the
architect who could only design and inspect the construction?

The saddest part of the two previous stories is that the architects, who are the
principal players, are only hirelings. The developer and the engineer got all
the credits and praises, and the architect, not even mentioned. He sits at the
background virtually unknown.

Furthermore, many times these engineers and developers are also only
copying the designs from foreign (mostly American and European) and local
magazines which are flooding many bookstores. They could easily be noticed
because the designs are Tudor, Mediterranean, Spanish, etc. and their
combinations; and the interiors are Japanese or Chinese. One seldom finds
Filipino designs. But what is a Filipino design anyway?

And they have all the advertisements on hand; big and small posters at the
malls, and even blaring huge billboards along main highways, especially at
EDSA. Now, can any of our young and even old architects beat that?

Architecture, as defined clearly by R.A.9266, is the art, science and

profession of the design and construction of buildings in its totality, including
environment. R.A. 9266 is not only the revision of the old and obsolete R.A.
545 where the civil engineers had equal hands, or even higher, in the practice
of architecture. R.A. 9266 is absolutely and exclusively for architects only.
No other profession could meddle with it. Yet when it comes to construction,
we throw them away to the civil engineers as if we dont want them. We are
depriving ourselves the exclusiveness of our own profession. We are
depriving our youngsters and coming-up architects to expand in technology.
We are degrading our own profession. In our Architectural Document,
Construction is only an allied profession. There was even an attempt to
delete Construction to the category of Fellows by, surprisingly, the College of
Fellows themselves.

Our Architects National Code Document, which was enacted 30 years ago, is
already as old as time. It was not thoroughly revised. Many of the old
essence are still there; that is, many vital ideas of the document still clings to
the old R.A. 545, instead of blending thoroughly with the new Architectural Act
2004 as its basis.

The practice of making Design Service as the regular and main occupation of
architecture is only appropriate for buildings of great magnitude that costs
hundreds of millions of pesos. They can only be adapted to high-rise,
4
complex and compound buildings or structures; but not to lesser buildings that
costs by the hundreds of thousands or a few millions pesos only. Only the
superior group of architects get these kinds of projects and their earnings on
design is already big and quite substantial that few of them are not interested
to go farther.

But not on the buildings below their range. If we follow the official fee
described in our documents, the architects (except the elite) will end up on the
poor house. Only the engineers, who could hire architects, will prosper.
There is truth in the saying that there is little money in Design; Construction is
where the money is.

Like all practitioners, the professional services should always be up to its

ultimate end. Design is not the ultimate end or the finish product of
architecture. Architects should always both design and construct his project
for they go together. One is incomplete without the other. Design, like what
the engineer on the previous example had done, is only a part of the
preparation, and the construction, the implementation. The product of the two
is architecture. It is more advantageous to the architect if he did what the
engineer did because he is both a designer and a constructor. He could field-
in another architect if he could not construct it.

If the construction is given to a Contractor, the Project Manager hired by the

Owner must always be the Designing Architect himself or his representative
who is also an architect, and should be responsible to the implementation of
the design. It should be a continuation of his service to the Owner. The so-
called Project Manager hired by the Owner and not an Architect is worthless.
They called themselves Project Manager, but they are not managing anything
(see also part III). They only monitor, check and inspect the flow of the
construction. Construction Management, 204b, UAP Doc. should be revised
for that is not their job. They are ineffectual because that can be done by the
architect himself or his representative. Further to this, it is stated in their
contract that they have impunity legally whatever happens to the construction,
meaning they are not in anyway responsible if something went wrong even it
is their fault. What are they there for? Many of them are Contractors working
on the sideline if they have no construction. Their presence there is
redundant.

In a construction, especially the big ones, there is one Project Manager: the
one hired by the Contractor, or the one hired by the Owner if the work is under
administration.

The Contractor, who is in contract with the Owner, has the sole right to run the
construction under his Construction Manager such as the scheduling, the
organization, coordination, control, cash flow, etc., etc. The alleged Project
Manager hired by the Owner is only a balancer, checker, monitorer, fiscalizer,
and has nothing to do with the management. That should be the work of
the Architect or anybody representing him (Please see part II).

An architect refusing to manage the construction of his design may be

avoiding responsibility. Construction is the continuation of design and the
finishing product of that design. In fact, the responsibility of any profession or
any field of discipline is on the implementation and not in the preparation.
5
Some portions of the Architects National Code should be revised and should
be discussed and attended by major architectural practitioners such as the
Designers, Constructors, (not Contractors because they are businessman and
not professionals), bona fide Project Managers, Professors, and Government
Architects. The two organizations, the PIA and the AAIF, should also be
invited for the deliberation. The present documents were almost decided and
fashioned by the elites and the professors who are, year in and year out,
mostly the dominating national officers of UAP mandating the law. These
high-ranking architects fairly understand the plights of their compatriots below
their level especially the newcomers, while the professors and instructors only
teach subjects in architecture and not necessarily on the full actual practice.

Architects should always practice the totality of the profession, like the
lawyers, the teachers, the plumbers, the embalmers, and others whose jobs
are rendering services to their clients, customers, patients, and others paying
for their services. These people want their moneys worth and they can get
that only if the servicing entity delivers the finished product or the ultimate or
final result, and not the idea of the product or design only. The quality and
physical value of architecture is not on the effect of the design, but in the
effect after the construction; although it is always Design which is the
fundamental priority of our profession.

It is fortunate that many older and experienced architects are now resorting to
Design-Built, as they are becoming wiser; but the point is that from the
beginning, architects should practice Design-Built, instead of Design only. Sad
to say, new civil engineers are well versed in the methodology of the science
and technology of building or architectural construction than the new
architects. Thats the reason many contractors and even architects entrust
the construction supervision or management to the civil engineers.

The highest position a new architect could have if he is employed is only as a

draftsman; some of them hired by contractors. The civil engineers position is
as a supervisor or inspector of a construction, which is higher in category than
the draftsman. The civil engineers could easily grasp the methodology of
construction in a few years than the architects because the methodology itself
is taught to them in college.

Architectural Technology and/or its methodology are given not enough

substantial emphasis in the regular course in college because the full focus is
and must be the Architectural Design. Since the technology is the secondary
nature of our profession, it could be extended through a Master Degree or
Graduate Study coupled with Project Construction Management in Buildings.

WHAT IS ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING?

An Architectural Engineer is the person responsible for making the many

systems integrated into the building work effectively and coordinately with
each other, including the immediate surroundings. These systems may
include, but not limited to, Fire Protection, Electrical, Plumbing, Structural,
Mechanical, Structural, etc. In the previous board examinations for architects,
6
there was a section called Architectural Engineering under which are the
Structural, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical subjects.

Is Architectural Engineering also Civil Engineering? In the Philippines, it is.

Civil Engineering covers all the construction of public structures like streets,
bridges, dams, dikes, etc., including private and public buildings, while
Architectural Engineering is limited to buildings and habitable structures. If
civil engineers design horizontal structures or public structures and the
architects, the vertical, CE includes the vertical in construction. Architects and
Civil Engineers alike are therefore Architectural Engineers.

It is only appropriate for the architectural profession to train the young and
new architects the science of Architectural Engineering to complete the
definition that architecture is the art and science in design and construction in
its totality which is the right and privilege granted to us by our republic through
our Architectural Law 2004. This could be reinforced through seminars,
workshops, or as a graduate study.

CONCLUSION

These definitions come from the University of Phoenix in Arizona, U.S.A.

Architecture is the job of design buildings, mostly from an aesthetic

viewpoint.

Architectural Engineering is the job of designing or analyzing buildings for

their structural stability (i.e. making sure that the aesthetic idea produced by
the architect will actually stand and be safe).

Architectural Technology involves using architectural design tools (mostly

computer based design and modeling tools) to assist the architect in
producing designs.

In a small firm, an architect might have to do all three jobs, but in a larger firm,
an architect will lead the team, which will also comprise other architects,
engineers and technologists, to produce the overall design. In all of these
scenarios, the architect is clearly the lead here; it is his or her ideas that need
to get translated from thoughts to concrete, buildable and livable buildings.
(Does it mean that civil engineering has nothing to do with architectural
engineering?)

SIDE COMMENT

Of the more than 24,000 architects in the country, only a little more than 2,000
could attend the UAP yearly national conventions. Why? Granting that many
are deceased, other reasons are that some architects, young and old alike,
are jobless or receiving a minimal amount of compensation as draftsman or
other lesser architectural jobs. The annual and convention fees are big
amounts to them. Majority of young architects seek greener pastures in rich
countries thereby causing drain-brain of architects in our country.

7
It is very seldom that architects abroad land as designers because of
differences in culture and materials of their host countries; nor are they hired
in the construction because employers prefer civil engineers for the job. If we
could provide additional knowledge in other field of architecture which is
building technology and construction, many displaced architects and even the
under-board will shift to this field of work. Many found their job as draftsman
or other table works boring and tiring sitting routinely before a drafting table or
computer day in and day out without excitement. In construction, their zest
bolsters considerably because there are lots of physical versatile movements
and generates more intimacy with the laborers, managers, contractors,
inspectors and the owner himself.

And is it not inspiring to see the building which

was once on a paper grows and materialized before your eyes, fellow
architects?

A REMINDER FROM THE ARCHIVES

The first Gold Medal of Merit Award and Certificate was bestowed by the
Philippine Institute of Architects to Arch. Andres Luna de San Pedro in 1950
not only for design, service and loyalty to the institute and public service, but
also to the science of construction.

Aside from many distinctions given to him in 1990, one of

these is Arch. Leando V. Locsins precision in engineering technology.

One of Arch. Juan F. Nakpils outstanding

talents is also the execution of his created edifices.

This only discloses that our

ancestral architects, distinguished or not, are also in the field of exercising
their profession in architectural engineering, technology and construction; and
they are having grand times on it.*********