ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

Natural, environmental, physical factors

SITES
A B C
CRITERIA % STA. BARBARA ROSALES CALASIAO

Criteria Equipment Criteria Equipment Criteria Equipment

Ranking percentage Ranking percentage Ranking percentage
Land area /lot 20 10 15 6-7 16 9 18
Accessibility (modes of
10 5 7 4 8 2 7
transportation)
Soil characteristic & condition 10 3 9 2 10 4 7
Accessibility of utility and
service needs (electricity, 5 7 4 7 3 6
10
water, communication,
service, waste management)
Vulnerability to natural
hazards (Flooding, site 10 5 9 3 10 2 8
erosion, seismologic activity)
Site drainage 5 4 4 2 5 3 3
Topography 10 5 10 3 9 4 8
Climate 10 5 10 4 9 4 9
Orientation 5 5 5 4 5 3 3
Existing vegetation 5 3 3 2 3 1 1
Future expansion 5 4 4 5 5 5 5
TOTAL 85 87 75

Legal, Institutional, Administrative, and Aesthetical Factor

SITES
A B C
CRITERIA % STA. BARBARA ROSALES CALASIAO

Criteria Equipment Criteria Equipment Criteria Equipment

Ranking percentage Ranking percentage Ranking percentage
Property land used & zoning 20 18 20 17
Ease of ownership 16 22 16
25
Land cost 35 20 25 20
Compatibility with adjacent 18 15 18
20
land used
72 82 71
TOTAL 100
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

Socio-Economic and Cultural Factor

SITES
A B C
CRITERIA % STA. BARBARA ROSALES CALASIAO

Criteria Equipment Criteria Equipment Criteria Equipment

Ranking percentage Ranking percentage Ranking percentage
Site potential 20 3 20 2 20 1 13
Accessibility to major roads 5 20 4 25 3 25
30
Must be within urban area 20 4 14 2 15 4 18
Accessibility to important 6 13 6 14 5 13
15
existing facilities
Presidential access and 15 7 15 5 14 6 10
circulation
TOTAL 100 82 88 79
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

Ratings for Natural, Environmental and physical factors

 Evaluation (for land area Criteria):
1- Lot size is inadequate to meet the suggested minimum lot size requirement set in the national
building code.
2- Lot size is adequate to meet the suggested minimum lot size requirement set in national building
code.
3- Lot size exceed 50% of the suggested minimum lot sized requirement set in the national building
code and provides area for another expansion or provision of another adjacent amenities and
activities .
4- Lot size exceed 75% minimum lot sized requirement set in the national building code and
provides area for another expansion or provision of another adjacent amenities and activities.
5- Lot size exceed 100% minimum lot sized requirement set in the national building code and
provides area for another expansion or provision of another adjacent amenities and activities.

 Evaluation (for Accessibility Network Criteria)

1- Accessed by taxis and private vehicles.
2- Accessed by PUVs and private vehicles.
3- Accessed by jeepneys, PUVs and private vehicles.
4- Accessed by public bus, jeepneys, PUVs and private vehicles.
5- Near an airport terminal and accessible through public, buses, jeepneys, PUVs and private
vehicles.

 Evaluation (for soil characteristic and condition criteria)

1- Soil is unstable all over and soil is mostly consists of made ground of fill.
2- Soil is unstable for most parts of sites and is mostly consists of peat and organic soil.
3- Some remote area of the site have unstable soil and mostly consists of cohesive soil (hard, firm
and soft clays).
4- Most area of the site have stable soil and is mostly consists of non-cohesive soil (hard clays, gravel
and sand).
5- Soil are stable and mostly consists of rocks (igneous, gneissic, limestone, schist, slate, mustone).
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

Ratings for Natural, Environmental and physical factors

 Evaluation (for accessibility to utility and services criteria):
1- No existing utilities and service and has known difficulties on the site.
2- No existing utilities and service but far from the site.
3- No existing utilities and service but is accessible near the site.
4- Existing utilities and services are available adjacent to or near the site.
5- Existing utilities and services are available within the site.

 Evaluation (for vulnerabilities to natural hazard criteria):

1- Site is in proximity to hazards.
2- Site is in proximity to three of more hazards.
3- Site is in proximity to two hazards.
4- Site is in proximity to one hazard.
5- Site free if any potential damage/injury from natural hazards.

 Evaluation (for site drainage criteria):

1- Site is motely low and the neighboring areas drain into it.
2- Drainage accumulates in some portion of the site.
3- Drainage accumulates in the neighboring near the site.
4- Site has definite drainage with water coming from adjacent properties but can merely be contained.
5- Site has definite drainage with no unnecessary water coming from adjacent properties.

 Evaluation (for topography criteria):

1- Site is contains major topography irregular and cannot hold possible uses.
2- Site is not even, and can hold certain possible use.
3- Site is not even, but can still hold all possible uses.
4- Site is chiefly even and can hold all possible uses.
5- Site is relatively flat and can hold all possible use.
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

Ratings for natural, environmental and physical factors

 Evaluation (for climate criteria):
1- The site has irregular dry and wet season.
2- Site experiences greater wet season than dry season.
3- Site experience greater dry season than wet season.
4- Site has fair climate and weather condition.
5- Site has good climate and weather condition.

 Evaluation (for orientation criteria):

1- The site does not have good sun and wind orientation.
2- The site has satisfactory sun and wind orientation.
3- The site has good sun orientation but satisfactory win orientation.
4- The site has both good sun and wind orientation.
5- The site has both excellent sun and wind orientation.

 Evaluation (for existing vegetation criteria):

1- The site has no existing vegetation.
2- The site has 10% existing vegetation.
3- The site has 20% existing vegetation.
4- The site has 30% existing vegetation.
5- The site has 40% existing vegetation.

 Evaluation (for future expansion plan criteria):

1- The site has no potential for future expansion.
2- Relevant variance are approved to future expansion.
3- Some variance are approved to future expansion.
4- Has enough area for additional amenities for the property development.
5- Has large area for additional amenities for the property development.
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

Legal, institutional and aesthetic factors

 Evaluation (for proper land use and zoning criteria):
1- Land’s present/future zoning does not allow use for skyscraper.
2- Land’s currently zoning does not allow skyscraper but exemption can be appealed.
3- Land’s currently zoning permits skyscraper with provision on the usage.
4- Land is currently within c-3 zoning and but will probably change.
5- Land is within c-3 zoning classification set in the national building code or within a central business
district and present/future zoning permits skyscraper on no zoning restriction exist.

 Evaluation (for ease of ownership criteria):

1- The site is divided with many property owners.
2- The site is divided with a moderate number of property owners.
3- The site is divided with few property owners.
4- The site is relatively undivided.

 Evaluation (for land cost criteria):

1- Site is high-priced.
2- Site is above the reasonable value but is still affordable.
3- Site is at reasonable value .
4- Site is below reasonable value.

 Evaluation (for compatibility with adjacent land use criteria)

1- Incompatible with the adjacent land use and the surrounding context .
2- Consideration difference with the adjacent land used and surroundings context.
3- Certain differences with the adjacent land use and surroundings context.
4- Perfectly relates with the adjacent land use and surrounding context.
5- Relatively fit with the adjacent land use and surrounding context.
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

Socio-Economic and cultural factors

 Evaluation (for site potential criteria):
1- Site is potential for the job opportunities and rationalized plan.
2- Site is potential for local business sectors and agencies, job opportunities and rationalized
residential plan.
3- Site is potential for local and international business sectors and agencies, tourism development,
job opportunities and rationalized residential plan.

 Evaluation (foe accessibility to main road criteria):

1- Site is more than 5km away or 1hour vehicle ride.
2- Site is more than 4km away or 1hour vehicle ride.
3- Site is more than 3km away or 30mins. vehicle ride.
4- Site is more than 2km away or 10mins. vehicle ride.
5- Site is within reasonable walking distance or 1km and less.

 Evaluation (for must be within urban area criteria):

1- Site is not within an urban area .
2- Site is within an urbanized area.
3- Site is a progressive urbanized area.
4- Site is within highly developed urbanized area.

 Evaluation (for accessibility to important existing facilities criteria):

1- Necessary existing establishment are within 5km and above.
2- Necessary existing establishment are within 3-5km from the site.
3- Necessary existing establishment are within 3km from the site.
4- Necessary existing establishment are within 1-2km from the site.
5- Necessary existing establishment are within less than a kilometer from the site.

 Evaluation (for pedestrian access and circulation criteria):

1- No existing pedestrian access are available that can reasonable be constructed.
2- Pedestrian access can be constructed, but pathway work is required and traffic control
system should be provided.
3- Site has existing pedestrian access that is suitable for ½ kilometer travel and has existing
traffic control system.
4- Site has existing pedestrian access that is suitable for 1/4 kilometer travel and has existing
traffic control system.
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

SELECTION ELEMENTS SITES

A B C
NATURAL ENVIROMENTAL, PHYSICAL FACTORS

88 88 88

LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, ADMISTRATIVE, AND

AESTHETIC FACTOR
79 84 83

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL FACTOR

81 82 72

GRAND TOTAL
248 258 243

 Conclusion
The site selection table shows that points added from the three major factors,
summarizes the highest and most suitable site for the proposed project is site B in Baingknaway,
Rosales Pangasinan.
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

PROPOSED SITE B BALINGKANAWAY ROSALES

PANGASINAN

https://www.google.com/maps/@15.8898904,120.654292,3165m/data=!3m1!1e3

Location :
Along the national highway of Rosales-Nueva Ecija
Land area:
Approx. 8.1 ha. Or 81,812.42 m²
Site land cost:
_____________________
land owner:
_______________

 Accessibility
Modes of transportation
Jeepneys, vans, buses
Rail Network
None
Road
Rosales-Nueva Ecija national highway
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

PROPOSED SITE A IN STA. BARBARA PANGASINAN

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Santa+Barbara,+Pangasinan/@15.9816844,120.4473073,842m/data=!
3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x33914186551f974b:0x5efd42f81605fa44!8m2!3d15.9773962!4d120.4242401
Location :
Maticmatic Sta. Barbara
Land area:
Approx. 8.8 HA.
Site land cost:
_____________________
Land owner:
_____________________

 Accessibility
Modes of transportation
Jeepneys, private vehicles, and tricycle
Rail Network
None
Road
Maticmatic-Maronong Road
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

PROPOSED SITE C IN CALASIAO PANGASINAN

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Calasiao,+Pangasinan/@15.9641941,120.3944502,1294m/data=!3m1!
1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x33914324ade1289b:0x1f68e8242f3ffde6!8m2!3d15.9881323!4d120.3550808

Location :
MACABITO CALASIAO, PANGASINAN
Land area:
Approx.5.7 HA.
Site land cost:
_____________________
Land owner:
_____________________

 Accessibility
Modes of transportation
Jeepneys, vans, buses, tricycle
Rail Network
None
Road
Malasiqui – Calasiao road
ACHITECTURAL DESIGN 09: Thesis Research Writing

University of Pangasinan
College Of Engineering and Architecture

Container House: A Housing Program for

the Less Fortunate Citizens in Rosales
Pangasinan.

Soria, Jayson B.
Student:

Ar. Maria Teresa Cuares - Velasco, MA EHP

Thesis Adviser: