2019 AAIF SUGGESTIONS FOR THE REVISION/UPDATING OF THE NBCP 2004 RIRR PROVISIONS ON FAR AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS (DC) IN SEQUENTIAL APPLICATION TO HELP DETERMINE THE TRUE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (TDP) OF A LOT/PROPERTY

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

2019 AAIF SUGGESTIONS FOR THE REVISION/UPDATING OF THE NBCP 2004 RIRR PROVISIONS ON FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS (DC) IN SEQUENTIAL APPLICATION TO HELP DETERMINE THE TRUE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (TDP) OF A RESIDENTIAL (R-1, R-2 Basic & Maximum, R-3 Basic & Maximum, R-4, R-5 & SHZ) OR COMMERCIAL (C-1, C-2 & C-3) LOT/PROPERTY.                                      

The prevention of OVER-BUILDING and over-paving were probably foremost in the minds of the 2002-2005 DPWH Board of Consultants (BoC), which included at least seven (7) State-registered Environmental Planners (EnPs) out of its 37 members (i.e. 19% were EnPs) which crafted the 2004 Revised implementing rules and regulations (RIRR) of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP). The document is freely downloadable at www.dpwh.gov.ph.

                                                                                                                     

After establishing that there were still incidences of OVER-BUILDING present in the interpretation of the floor to lot area ratio (FLAR, the very same as FAR) and related development control (DC) provisions under the 2004 RIRR of the NBCP, the AAIF (after reviewing the use and implementation of the NBCP RIRR DCs), thereafter crafted possible suggestions in early 2019 on how to best meet that key objective of preventing OVER-BUILDING on lots/properties.                                                           

Some of the key 2019 AAIF recommendations include the reduction of the percentage of site occupancy (PSO, i.e. closely related to the allowable maximum building footprint), building height limits (BHL), resultant FAR and resultant Total GFA (TGFA, among others.                                                  

While there may be arguments in favor of maximizing land use efficiency, there are also the other matters of the quality of life, congestion, open spaces (yards and courts) for natural light and ventilation, view and privacy, peace and order, public nuisance, carrying capacity (of lot and RROW/street), RROW and utility systems operating & maintenance (O&M) costs, urban blight, obsolescence, fire integrity, OVER-BUILDING, over-paving and a host of other key considerations to factor in.                                                           

The portions of these 2019 AAIF tables relating to resultant FAR, resultant GFA and resultant TGFA may be used as reference inputs to LGU zoning/special ordinances/ZOs and SOs (to make the same more stringent and consistent with the concerns relating to the carrying capacities of lots and buildings as well as the overall prevention of OVER-BUILDING and over-paving at lots/properties). Thank You.

x x x x x x x x x x x x

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 1:07 PM EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

2019 REVIEWED INTENT OF THE NBCP 2004 RIRR PROVISIONS ON FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) APPLICATION TO HELP DETERMINE THE TRUE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (TDP) OF A RESIDENTIAL (R-1, R-2 Basic & Maximum, R-3 Basic & Maximum), R-4, R-5, SHZ), AND OF A COMMERCIAL (C-1, C-2 & C-3) LOT/PROPERTY.

The official term floor to lot area ratio (FLAR) that appears in the 2004 Revised implementing rules & regulations (RIRR) of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP), refers to exactly the same international term floor area ratio (FAR), and is only one of several national-level development controls (DCs) to be applied sequentially to determine the true development potential (TDP) of a lot/property i.e. what can actually be built on a lot/property without exceeding the carrying capacity of either the lot or the street.

On the other hand, the Resultant FLAR is derived through the sequential application of several national-level DCs prescribed under the NBCP and its stream of regulations (SoR), not limited to its 2004 RIRR. Presently, the SoR of the NBCP totals some 12,000 pages of laws, rules, regulations, standards, guidelines, procedural manuals, international standards, agreements, treaties, private self-regulation and the like.

However, mainly the DCs prescribed under the NBCP 2004 RIRR matter in the determination of the TDP of a lot/property on Philippine soil.

The above (and the 3 attachments) may be used as ready references in the crafting of Zoning Ordinances (ZOs), noting that ZOs (as local-level DCs) can be more stringent than national-level DCs i.e. IF AND ONLY IF the national-level DCs (such as the NBCP) are declared minimum standards that can be made stricter by duly-crafted/approved LGU ordinances (including special ordinances/SOs) or agency issuances. Thank You. Regards to everyone, AAlli

(3 tables attached)

 

x x x x x x x x x

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 12:24 PM EnP. Armando ALLI <planne...@gmail.com> wrote:

New Year Greetings. 

As a ready reference, please find attached the images of five (5) tables showing the Clarified Intent of the P.D. No. 1096 (1977 National Building Code of the PH/NBCP, a national-level development control/DC) 2004 Revised IRR Rule VII Guidelines Table VII.G.1 Reference Table of Floor to Lot Area Ratio (FLAR) Designations/Rights, anent FLAR (i.e. the very same as the Floor Area Ratio/FAR Privileges for Various Zoning Classifications i.e. R-1, R-2 basic & maximum, R-3 basic & maximum, R-4, R-5, SHZ; C-1, C-2, C-3; I-1, I-2, I-3 and UTS; and PUD, at 5 main types), as prepared January 2019 for the Architecture Advocacy International Foundation (AAIF), Inc., the main author of the NCCA-DPWH-AAIF 2016 NBCP:Illustrated Data CD Project (and its 2018 updated edition). Thank You. Regards to everyone. AAlli

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

THE ORIGINALLY INTENDED SEQUENTIAL APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS (DC) Under the 2004 Revised IRR (RIRR) of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP), a Primary National-Level DC (as interpreted for the AAIF in April 2019). For ready reference. Thank You. Regards, AAlli

x x x x x x x x x x

[ely ouano]

Good pm Boie,

 

I suggest we take a complete new analysis regarding the purpose of development controls and how the  restrictions or planning parameters FACILITATE OR ASSIST in attaining the objectives of a high quality of life rather than merely revising those parameters. LET US START WITH A BLANK PIECE OF PAPER.

 

Otherwise we will have all those restriction and planning parameters that will be subjected to violation, or variances  here and there that will be hindrance to the delivery of essential development and  improvement of  the quality of life. Worst, those will be merely reasons for corruption as variance is commonly known as Bayaran.

 

Take the case of FAR---- the value should be based on what is available now , available in the near future or is not expected to be available even in the long term future.  This is the challenge to good environmental planning . A regional or multidisciplinary approach should be taken. Much of our discussion on the reclamation was on compact cities.

 

Very high  density   could be allowed and high quality of life is possible  if there is enough shades for walking around, pedestrian walkways, or even free rides within the compact city. If its mixed use, there should be sufficient recreational, educational, health, cultural facilities parks, infrastructure such as wastes collection and disposal, provision of clean water, electricity  and other amenities.

 

What good is a low FAR if there is no clean water, no proper solid was collection and disposal, no shades, parks, etc. I live in a subdivision with large lot size, wide road, cemented road but practically impossible to take a walk and there is no shade, pedestrian sidewalks, no amenities,

 

With regards to road width we are focused on the American dream of a car for every family and to drive 500 m to the nearest shop to buy a loaf of bread. I think there should be a strong focus on provision and development of pedestrian facilities, public transport for mobility and amenities.

 

Culturally we tend to fence our property—what is the justification for the front easement, side and back easement ?

 

It should be noted that most of the facilities are beyond the capacity even for large developers. Government must take its responsibility to develop the huge public facilities and amenities such as water resources development.

 

At present, the government role has been primarily in regulation and control with the private sector providing the facilities on micro and often temporal level (temporal because the developer leaves it to resident or commercial/industrial establishments’ association to sustain). This has resulted to pockets of gated communities and commercial developments but complete chaos in the interconnections of those islands of development (such as EDSA) and the blight of the informal settlements in between.

 

Ely

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to piepmembers...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2Bhwx8afYemw2c%2BC1PMn7zkai8gvPw1u78uL3p9zP%3DKTvxMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

 

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Thank You very much, Sir Ely for Your valid and very much valued comments/observations. I would tend to agree with nearly all of Your observations as the physical conditions we now have are quite symptomatic of seeming/continuing failure in governance coupled with possible opportunism on the part of certain vested interests (which seems really hard to eradicate). The Government is most certainly trying to do what is best (regulations-wise) but the odds are simply too great, coupled with the uncertainty of punishment for both minor infractions and/or the willful/severe violations of applicable law/regulation i.e. we have been describe too often as a "soft state", where the law is made to appear as a suggestion.                    

In the end, everything rests with the individual, and how we truly envy the Japanese and the Koreans for their willful/voluntary/unwavering self-discipline and love of country. We were like them before WW2, but we changed as a people after that i.e. discipline, respect for the law, love of country and concern for our neighbors were relegated to the background. The 1972 advent of martial rule tried to impose discipline but failed i.e. discipline is innate and cannot be imposed. Nonetheless, we still hope that one day, the Filipino will rise again to become like the Filipinos of yesteryears (1904-1941) i.e. law-abiding, God-fearing and with genuine love of country. Thank You. Regards to everyone. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/PS2P216MB1249D65442DE54BFB4C378C1C3FA9%40PS2P216MB1249.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

SAMPLE CALCULATION SHEET FOR THE SEQUENTIAL APPLICATION OF NBCP 2004 RIRR DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS (DC) TO DETERMINE THE TRUE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (TDP) OF A C-2 (CITY LEVEL) LOT/PROPERTY

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

x x x  we have been described too often as a "soft state" x x x 

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

RIGHT-SIZING THE VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT. The CORRECT SEQUENTIAL APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS (DCs) prescribed under the 2004 Revised IRR (RIRR) of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP, a primary national-level DC) enables the planners and designers (as well as LGU ZO/SO crafters/reviewers/discussants, regulators, developers, constructors, property owners and intended users) of VERTICAL DEVELOPMENTS/buildings to arrive at the building bulk appropriate for any lot/property without violating the prescribed CARRYING CAPACITIES of said lot/property and the road right/s-of-way (RROW/s) that service/s such lots/properties.

The attached 2019 AAIF calculation sheet is a variant of the earlier posted sample calculation sheet, with the difference being the deduction of the floor area arising from the application of the INCREMENTAL SETBACK (IB) at the upper floors/levels of the C-2 building located inside a planned unit development (PUD).

A VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: The INCREMENTAL SETBACK (IB) provision under Rule VIII of the 2004 RIRR of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 NBCP was prescribed to optimize the natural light and ventilation provisions for the building interiors of the upper floors/levels of vertical developments as well as of the areas outside the lot/property, including the RROW and other forms of the public domain (and so that unnecessary building shadows are not cast on these areas). While the IB inevitably results in TGFA reduction, it does NOT represent the construction solution to the design problem as the building designer (chiefly Architects) must thereafter utilize the TGFA (as reduced by IB application) to evolve the correct building plan/design solution set.

This is the last image file I was able to retrieve from 2019. Thank You. Regards to everyone.

x x x x x x x x x x x x

[ely ouano]

Good am Boie,

 

What is the carrying capacity of the lot or property? The carrying capacity determined by the infrastructure and amenities outside the lot and property except for the geotechnical ( also known as soil engineering ) properties to carry or support the building weight.

 

I don’t see any problem of buildings 100 storeys high with ten thousand or more residents , built or occupying the whole lot if there are amenities and infrastructure to support it. It is the infrastructure and amenities outside the lot or property that determines the TRUE DEVELPMENT POTENTIAL  OF THE LOT OR PROPERTY AND THE CARRYING CAPACITES OF THE LOTS OR PROPERTY.

 

TAKE TWO LOTS OF SIMILAR SIZE .

 

In one lot the narrow road could be entirely used for pedestrian and al Fresco dining (almost zero rrow for vehicles ) but there is good parking building, good pedestrian pathways—concreted with trees, cultural activities—movie houses, musical halls, museum, art galleries, educational precinct, businesses, offices, shopping centers, interconnection to the main road, good public transport and parks etc.  The residents could live a vibrant and fulfilling lifestyle even if their flats or condo units are small.

 

The other lot has RROW wider than required by the building code but no amenities and infrastructure. It floods with it rains, there are no sports and recreational facilities so the roads are converted to basketball courts making garbage collection difficult, insufficient water supply, practically no sewer system, no parking facilities, no cultural and entertainment venues, no dining facilities etc. Even if the minimum condo unit size is huge and the buildings are built with easements larger than required by the building code --it is still a prison to the residents. Boredom and imprisonment is sure catalyst to anti-social behaviour.

 

I suggest the PIEP board of Directors takes a stand  that we withdraw from this exercise as our involvement will merely justify the practice of variance here and variance there or Bayaran. Our profession becomes an accessory to present t the “soft state” of our nation as you mentioned your email. With our every increasing population hopefully we will not deteriorate further to a “failed state” and our profession an accessory to this process.

 

The parameters in the building code as it stands have little to do with the DEVELOPMENTAL POTENTIAL AND CARRYING CAPACITIES OF THE LOT OR PROPERTY.

 

As I mentioned I don’t want to participate in this blog but I feel this is an important issue affecting not just the LOT/PROPERTY but the development of our nation.

 

Ely

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: EnP. Armando ALLI
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2023 12:50 PM
To: piepmembers
Cc: BOD SURP PIEP; Digest Recipients

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to piepmembers...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2Bhww2Z0BLV188U2N1ZWFyzqFs4cN%2B5jGM3R7zGfqAsGWt0A%40mail.gmail.com.

 

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Thank You once again for Your comments, Sir Ely. Let me initially address some of Your concerns (as highlighted in yellow below). Thanks again. Warm regards, Boie

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 7:24 AM ely ouano <earo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Good am Boie,

 

What is the carrying capacity of the lot or property?  The carrying capacity determined by the infrastructure and amenities outside the lot and property except for the geotechnical ( also known as soil engineering ) properties to carry or support the building weight.                                                                                                                                                                                     

1) To answer this question, let us begin with the definition of the term "Development Controls" appearing in the Glossary section of the 2004 RIRR of the NBCP (from www.dpwh.gov.ph):  

"DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS (DC) - A set of inter-acting regulations concerning the physical utilization of a lot and likewise governing the planning/design of spaces and/or the use or occupancy of a building/structure to be introduced (or already existing) on a lot; Development Controls help determine in detail the Development Potential and/or the Carrying Capacity of all lots and/or of proposed developments on lots." (emphasis supplied) 

2) The term carrying capacity was defined in Senate Bill No. 2087 (introduced at 238 pages on 13 Nov 2018 to the 17th Congress, and denominated as "The New Building Code of the Philippines") as follows: "Sec. 106. Definition of Terms. 71.) Carrying Capacity - refers to the maximum demand or load that may be placed on a machine, resource or system for extended periods under normal or specified conditions." (emphases supplied, where the term "resource" can be equated with land, water, air or subsurfaces i.e. macro/natural environments, and where the term "system" can be equated with a building and its setting/created micro/built environments)    

3) The Manual on Computing Carrying Capacity of Ecotourism Sites in Protected Areas as published in 2015 by the DENR ERDB (https://erdb.denr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CARCAP_Manual_LAC.pdf) defines carrying capacity as referring “to the ability of a system to support an activity or feature at a given level(, depending) on 3 main factors: 1) the amount of resources available in the ecosystem, 2) the size of the population or the number of users, and 3) the amount of resources each individual consumes(, where) additional factors (i.e., social, psychological, economic, environmental, etc.) also influence carrying capacity and normally limit the level of carrying capacity of a certain area. (Additionally,) carrying capacity is also seen as an equilibrium or balance. (emphases supplied; here while the definition supplied is geared towards potential environmental regulation for a specific type of environment, the highlighted terms can also very well apply to the physical aspects of land and property development, specifically in the areas of regulation i.e. zoning classification and building and grounds planning/design/construction/occupancy/use/operation/administration)

 

The DENR FASPS site (https://fasps.denr.gov.ph/index.php/resources/glossary-of-terms/carrying-capacity) defines carrying capacity as “the amount of use an area can sustain for recreation, wildlife, etc., without deteriorating its quality and sustainability. (emphases supplied; here while the definition addresses a specific type of land use/zoning classification, the same can be similarly applied to other types of land uses)

 

UN SDG-related definitions (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925521001268#:~:text=UNESCO%20and%20FAO%20(1985)%20simply,a%20certain%20standard%20of%20living) included 1985 UNESCO and FAO’s “the maximum population that can be maintained under a certain standard of living”, and where carrying capacity have been gradually developed as a “research field for promoting the successful operation of a sustainable economy, society and environment without damaging the natural environment (Shao et al., 2020). (emphases supplied; here, the supplied UN definitions from 1985 through 2020 readily applies to the built environment as well)

All of the above (and other definitions not cited here) offer related/similar definitions addressing the different facets of the natural and built environments on which vertical developments/buildings are sited. In the case of a lot or property, the carrying capacity (CC) of such and its true development potential (TDP), are indeed determined by the supportive infrastructure and amenities located outside the lot and property (at a radial distance of anywhere from the hot-humid tropical walking threshold of 200.0 meters/m from the frontage of the subject lot/property, if walking is unshaded/unsheltered, up to a potentially maximum distance of 1.0 km from the lot/property if the walking environment is shaded/sheltered. Within the subject lot/property, size/configuration, air rights/aerodrome restrictions, the conditions on the ground (soil bearing capacity, topography/surface drainage/soil cover, historical flooding/inundation conditions, water table/subsurface conditions, geologic hazards and related conditions, i.e. as may be identified in R.A. No. 386, the 1949 Civil Code of the Philippines, as well as considerations of location, access, tenancy/occupancy/land use, ownership, zoning classification, building regulations, the plethora of applicable development controls/DCs, and the like, altogether define the CC and eventually help determine the TDP. 

 

I don’t see any problem of buildings 100 storeys high with ten thousand or more residents , built or occupying the whole lot if there are amenities and infrastructure to support it. It is the infrastructure and amenities outside the lot or property that determines the TRUE DEVELPMENT POTENTIAL  OF THE LOT OR PROPERTY AND THE CARRYING CAPACITES OF THE LOTS OR PROPERTY.

 

Here, I beg to disagree. It is BOTH the lot/property characteristics (as listed above) combined with the available facilities, amenties, utilities, services (FASU) outside the lot/property (i.e. the full appreciation of the entirety of the supportive resources available in the setting i.e. as a macro-system that shall host the proposed vertical development/building i.e. as a micro-system), that help define the CC, with the parallel/correct application of DCs to subsequently determine the TDP of said lot/property. As an aside, i.e. anent the 100-storey (say 300.0 m) tall building i.e. very tall buildings (VTBs) that You cited as an example, the reason for the building height limit (BHL) of 60 storeys as set in the 2004 RIRR of the NBCP is not just related to considerations of ground/geological conditions and wind conditions, it is also a reflection of our limited technical capabilities as designers and builders, and a reflection of our fire-fighting capabilities i.e. including fire safety and evacuation.

 

TAKE TWO LOTS OF SIMILAR SIZE .

 

In one lot the narrow road could be entirely used for pedestrian and al Fresco dining (almost zero rrow for vehicles ) but there is good parking building, good pedestrian pathways—concreted with trees, cultural activities—movie houses, musical halls, museum, art galleries, educational precinct, businesses, offices, shopping centers, interconnection to the main road, good public transport and parks etc.  The residents could live a vibrant and fulfilling lifestyle even if their flats or condo units are small.

 

The other lot has RROW wider than required by the building code but no amenities and infrastructure. It floods with it rains, there are no sports and recreational facilities so the roads are converted to basketball courts making garbage collection difficult, insufficient water supply, practically no sewer system, no parking facilities, no cultural and entertainment venues, no dining facilities etc. Even if the minimum condo unit size is huge and the buildings are built with easements larger than required by the building code --it is still a prison to the residents. Boredom and imprisonment is sure catalyst to anti-social behaviour.

We acknowledge that regulations alone (e.g. compliances with national-local-private/voluntary DCs) and even stakeholder consultations and official program/project monitoring - the "development framework"), may as yet be unable to sufficiently address the concerns for the above comparative examples that You shared, but here is also where the private sector comes in, with their market research/savvy, sound vetting and investment, innovation/creativity, and the like, in order to craft a responsive solution set that also substantially satisfies the "development framework".

 

I suggest the PIEP board of Directors takes a stand  that we withdraw from this exercise as our involvement will merely justify the practice of variance here and variance there or Bayaran. Our profession becomes an accessory to present t the “soft state” of our nation as you mentioned your email. With our every increasing population hopefully we will not deteriorate further to a “failed state” and our profession an accessory to this process.

 

Here, we may need to differ a bit as we (as EnPs in the service of the general public) need to be consistently on the side of the law/regulation to help advance the overarching public interest that is always above our Client's interest (even if our Client is Government itself) and way above our own interest as natural persons/individuals i.e. noting that LGU variances may be interpreted by certain quarters as potentially violative of certain DCs, specifically the NBCP, a valid and subsisting law. Here, the EnPs must continually advocate (and fight, if need be) for the attainment of that desired state of equilibrium/balance inherent in any available definition of CC. We cannot/can never countenance the EP profession as a willing/unwitting tool for sacrificing public interest.

The parameters in the building code as it stands have little to do with the DEVELOPMENTAL POTENTIAL AND CARRYING CAPACITIES OF THE LOT OR PROPERTY.

Here, we may need to again differ as I and many other EnPs are somehow fully convinced that the NBCP and its over 12,000 pages of private, institutional and international references i.e. development control regulations/DCRs evolved over the last half century (as an an entire interfacing/interactive DC system devoted to property development and management) has a whole lot to do with TDP determination based on prior CC appreciation. Moreover, based on official Philippine Government support for P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 NBCP over the last half century (starting with R.A. No. 6541 of 1972) i.e. the NBCP has also become the building standard for housing/dwellings and horizontal development, such as P.D. No. 957, and for LGU zoning/special ordinances (ZSOs) nationwide (also noting here that B.P. 220 standards for socialized housing are much lower than NBCP standards, and is therefore a separate class in itself).

 

As I mentioned I don’t want to participate in this blog but I feel this is an important issue affecting not just the LOT/PROPERTY but the development of our nation.

 

Sir Ely, Your views are highly valued and are most welcome. These are food for continuing thought and shall be of great help in future refinements in the way CC is appreciated as an inout to TDP determination by the government and by the future EnPs and other state-regulated professionals. Thank You. Warm regards, Boie 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/PS2P216MB124951D3390AF3EBC2F992DBC3FB9%40PS2P216MB1249.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Sir Ely, I forgot to add this definition of carrying capacity, relating to land and property development, that I have been using for recent presentations on development controls (DCs) over the last decade, viz:

“carrying capacity refers to the maximum demand or load that may be placed on a resource i.e. land-water-air-sub-surfaces and their components/contents, or system i.e. ecosystem, the natural and built environments, and the like, for extended periods under normal or specified conditions; also defined as the optimized extent of physical development that may be introduced into the lot (or portion of the domain) without causing undue damage, effects or hardship on the end-users of the proposed development or on neighboring occupants, entities, properties, lands, developments or the environment (whether manmade or natural) and with the proposed building/structure capable of being supported by existing utility, transportation and service systems or by proposed expansions/upgrading of such systems within the immediate future.”  

Thanks again. Regards, Boie

x x x x x x x x

[ely ouano]

Good am Boie,

 

The Empire State Building will be celebrating its centenary a few years from now. That means It was built with materials, equipment, and technology that is much inferior than those available today. It is more than a 1000 feet and has more than a 100 floors. Today is not one of the ten tallest building in the world, it is not even one of the 50 tallest buildings—just something on the 54^th. Most of the tallest buildings are on our side of the world from Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.

 

It is even rumoured (I would say rumoured because I could not get the reference) is owned by a Filipino but not located in the Philippines. So why cap at 60 storeys? What is he rationale? Are we Filipinos so backward and lacking challenges? Is it something related to the Tower of Babel that God will punish the people who wants tall buildings and cap it at 60 because going higher will get to 66 with 6 being the devil’s number?

 

Or is the cap   merely to regulate that  is a kneejerk or instinct of the Filipino bureaucracy inherited from our colonial masters?  Colonial masters attitude to colonized land is to shackle the land and its inhabitants with all types of regulations and caps so they could control and ravaged its resources and labor to the maximum. The regulations with all its definitions and legal flourish of words are used to awe, prevent rational thinking but encourages servitude and blind compliance to maintain the population under bondage without ever questioning their rights as human beings.

 

Modern democratic governments are providers of common goods and services to facilitate the quality of life of its citizens rather imposing definitions, regulations and caps for the sake of regulations. After all, the government will fall in the next election if it fails to provide the services and goods needed by its citizens. Gen Farolan in his Philstar column today on the NAIA fiasco or SNAFU as he terms it gives a good discussion of responsibility of officials and delivery of essential goods and services.

 

If I may add my humble observation to Gen Farolan’s itemization of the expertise and training of the CAAP board of directors, CAAP just like any other government agencies of the Philippines is more concerned or controlling and regulating the airline companies and the public using the airports but is a complete failure in its function to provide the services and goods for the airlines and the public. Aside from the recent fiasco, NAIA has always ranked one of the worst airport in the world.

 

Could we start with a blank sheet?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CAEF%2BhwxS_6mU2rr%3DNQrqbBjKgCNxMJRRcgp%3D8gAX3SZg29Nuzw%40mail.gmail.com.

 

[Emmanuel Ikan Astillero]

I agree w/Ely Ouano. It is the amenities and infra OUTSIDE of the lot in question that determines the quantity and quality of life to the development of that property. The measure of our "small towns" and "big towns", cities and metropolises, like Metro Manila, is a measure of amenities and infrastructure present and available in those locations, not the design of the lot in a development area.

Emmanuel Ikan Astillero

On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 7:24 AM ely ouano <earo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/PS2P216MB124951D3390AF3EBC2F992DBC3FB9%40PS2P216MB1249.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Ervin Mundo]

Dear Ka Ely and Ka Nuel:

 

There are lot of buildings in Makati, Ortigas, Mandaluyong and BGC that exceeds the 60-storey limit. Specifically these are the following:

 

1.    The Suites at One Bonifacio High Street - 63 floors at 227-m

2.    Shangri-La Place Tower 1 and 2 – 64 floors at 227-m

3.    The Royalton in Pasig – 65 floors at 230-m

4.    The Imperium – 63 floors at 240-m

5.    Shang Salcedo Place – 76 floors at 250-m

6.    Shangri-La at the Fort – 61 floors at 250-m

7.    Discovery Primea in Makati – 68 floors at 250-m

8.    Gramery Residences  in Mandaluyong – 73 floors at 250-m

9.    Grand Hyatt Motel Manila – 66 floors at 318-m

Of course no owner in Ilo-ilo or that in Cagayan De Oro would try to build a very tall building as land in that part of town is cheaper. However in Cebu, the highest building to date is at 57 floor (Horizon 101) at 178-meter already and  three buildings (on going construction) will soon rise above 60-floors.

Baguio sets the height limitation at 6-storey (with several exemption due to technicalities) primarily due to the geo-technical condition and that the whole city is actually located within the Loakan Airport Aerodrome.

I am involved in the detailed masterplanning of a fully masterplanned 265-hectare CDB in Metro Manila. So far, the only height restriction that really matters in the planning for the determination of FAR and that of building heights are the limitation set forth by CAAP within the existing active NAIA aerodrome. 

No aerodrome limitation are in place to date for the ongoing San Miguel Bulacan Airport and the proposed Sangley Airport - most probably CAAP and DPWH did not put the aeorodrome restriction in place since the runway approach for both airports are coming in from sea (Manila Bay) as of today.

As we go into the details of the masterplanning, the building height limitation are usually a function of profitability and ROI (EIRR and FIRR) based on the owners Feasibility Study and the capacity of the land (geo-technical) to carry the load and not because of the so-called "carrying capacity" as wordily defined by DENR or DPWH mentioned earlier in this thread.

v/r

 

 

ervin

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/piepmembers/CA%2BmkRgmiuqO4-1kQ5s9q97f-q7CgN7R_XGE5tKCznvMGpZv__g%40mail.gmail.com.

[ely ouano]

Good am Erv,

 

I did a google search earlier and the tallest building in the Philippines is listed as Metrobank Plaza with 57 floors but is of similar height as the Empire State Building with 100 floors. The historical background noted Taguig’s mayor call for the construction of the tallest building in the country under his jurisdiction and Federal Land responded with a plan for 66 storeys. The google entry has not been changed for sometime now and I would presume it is valid.

 

Since it was in response to the mayor’s call there should not have been any problem in getting the permits from LGU.

 

This would be a very unusual building that if you divide the 318m architectural height of the building by 57, the height of each floor will be 5.6 m which is almost twice the normal height of one floor.  It seems to be an innovative way of going around the national agencies irrational and copied somewhere definitions and restrictions. Almost each  floor must have a mezzanine floor----still a 57 storey building but equivalent to almost 100 floors.

 

Well variance is always possible and in fact variances are here , there and everywhere. The difficult part is to prepare the rational basis to justify a variance to a condition that is irrational. Justifying it on monetary value also run the risk of higher monetary cost as well although  there are honest officials who understand the requirements are irrational in the first place and would be willing to grant the variance at no cost and contrary to the normal belief that variance should be termed bayaran.

 

One of the topic raised after the online symposium on reclamation was the need to protect and prove strong rationale in converting agricultural land for other types of development. Our population is still increasing rapidly although not as fast as in the past century. Food security is an important component in any decision making process. This would call for efficient utilization of land especially fertile agricultural land.  Caps or restrictions must have strong and valid ground and the reasons should be quantified and not based on “feel” or simple aesthetics.

 

My main concern is our profession and our professional organization being supportive of all this irrational constraints and caps that could  lead to serious governance issue.

 

I would like to switch off. I think I have wasted enough of my time on this issue.

 

Ely

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

[Emmanuel Ikan Astillero]

So, finally, it is not "carrying capacity" as set by FAR, etc. m

no infra/amenities in the vicinity of the building, but aerodrome and soil bearing capacity. To the trash, this conversation.

Emmanuel Ikan Astillero

[EnP. Armando ALLI]

Thank You for all Your comments. The discussion on the varying viewpoints is very, very important to truly see all sides of an equation. Nonetheless, I also see that one's perspective (and technical background or even perhaps, legal appreciation) really has a lot to do with the responses to the discussion on the carrying capacity of lots, streets and the host community. It is really up to the EnPs concerned if he or she decides to dispense with (or be dismissive of) the considerations of carrying capacity as he/she will eventually be held accountable anyway (professionally and potentially, civilly) for the results of their decision/advice to a client, if such turns out to be a negative. 

Now, let us take a closer look at some of the comments over the last 3 days (apologies I am unable to respond earlier as we all indeed have something else to busy ourselves with). My initial comments are highlighted in yellow below.

1) "It was built with materials, equipment, and technology that is much inferior than those available today." - This may not necessarily be true. For instance, the quality of our structural steel may now be lower than those used between 1910 and the mid-1960s. Note that structural steel back then was so strong that it could be twisted and still be used as reinforcement (e.g. twisted square bars). Nowadays, some steel reinforcement bars are so brittle that they break at the first bending. And here, we are not even talking of the undersizing of the reinforcing bar (rebar) sections. The same is true of masonry products e.g. concrete masonry units/CMUs, locally known as concrete hollow blocks/CHBs), which up to the mid-1970s could be thrown from the 2nd floor of a construction site and still retain its shape when it hits the ground. Nowadays, some of these so-called CHBs, especially the backyard variety crumble to dust when picked up from the ground. 

2) "So why cap at 60 storeys?" - This was a building standard set in 2004 by the State-registered engineers who were also members of the DPWH Board of Consultants/BoC (nearly 20 years ago), so perhaps we can leave that to them to respond to.  As the State-registered architects and EnPs of the DPWH BoC back then were not the concerned experts on the matter, they really had no hand/say in the setting of this building height limit (BHL).

3) "It is the amenities and infra OUTSIDE of the lot in question that determines the quantity and quality of life to the development of that property."  - The term amenities, facilities, services and utilities (AFSU) as stated in the 2004 RIRR of the NBCP, along with the considerations of the subject lot/property's carrying capacity, and the attainment of the lot/property's true development potential (TDP i.e. with no over-building and no over-paving) are the triumvirate of what primarily determines the resultant quality of life that can be made available by a developed lot/property. The AFSU and carrying capacity of the RROW/street and the host community are only the secondary contributors to the attainment of the quality of life inside the lot/property.

4) "There are lot of buildings in Makati, Ortigas, Mandaluyong and BGC that exceeds the 60-storey limit." - This may be true as the physical evidence is right there for everyone to see. While there are current engineering interventions, design approaches, construction methodologies, and the like that made such possible, we would also like to know what regulatory/legal instruments made these possible despite the 2004 BHL of 60 storeys, a valid and subsisting national standard i.e. in each of those cases, were there developer/designer representations anent innovative design and construction approaches, LGU variances permitted in the pertinent zoning/special ordinance (ZSO), transfer of development rights (TDR), etc.

5) "the only height restriction that really matters in the planning for the determination of FAR and that of building heights are the limitation set forth by CAAP within the existing active NAIA aerodrome" - The BHL (even at areas with aerodromes for which CAAP sets the BHL) are actually affected by conditions in the ground (as referred to in Article 1723 of R.A. No. 386, the 1949 New Civil Code of the Philippines, and possibly elsewhere in the NCCP and in other general/special laws, and even the speed of the prevailing winds/storm winds in and around the building setting. BHL may also be potentially determined by wind tunnel testing results, by the manner the upper levels of the very tall buildings are plan-configured e.g. reduced floorplates, how the very tall buildings are positioned with respect to one another (as that affects how the wind moves between them and how the wind bounces off them, and how the buildings are eventually able to protect each other from wind damage/effects). As previously mentioned, the conditions in the ground may potentially include considerations of the soil/bedrock bearing capacity, the soil/bedrock type (including imported soil/sand such as those on reclaimed land), seismic conditions, height of the water table, ground subsidence, liquefaction potential, presence of underground caverns/caves and streams/water bodies, landslides/mudslides, etc. and even considerations of flooding/inundation at the host area. In more advanced economies, the reflections from the building envelope (if of glass or similar material) and the shadows cast on adjoining/neighboring properties, and even the interference in telecommunication signals may also be considerations for limiting building height. Again, the engineers are the authorities on these matters.

6) "building height limitation are usually a function of profitability and ROI (EIRR and FIRR) based on the owners Feasibility Study and the capacity of the land (geo-technical) to carry the load and not because of the so-called "carrying capacity" as wordily defined by DENR or DPWH" - As I previously mentioned, the FS and market research by developers do have a role in determining the building bulk, but we all need to remember that property ownership is not an absolute thing i.e. the owner cannot solely determine what to do with the lot/property even if there is a FS/market research. Please consider the following provisions under the NCCP:

"ARTICLE 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law." (emphases supplied)

"ARTICLE 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. (emphases supplied)

Clearly, the owner and his/her designers/builders, as well as the regulators concerned are all mandated to comply (under pain of punitive measures) with the prescriptions of law (national or local, or even private/self-regulation) that limit the development on the lot/property, hence the term "development control". In the development of the lot/property, both the "building envelope" i.e. the building skin or its outermost face of building (OFB) and the "property envelope" i.e. the maximum development limits on the surface of the ground, above the surface of the ground i.e. air rights, and below the surface of the ground i.e. sub-surface rights, are all as prescribed by law or regulation - please refer to attachment to distinguish the 2 envelopes.

Lastly, the definitions quoted from DENR and DPWH may have perhaps originated from international sources and only reflects the PH Government's oneness with genuine worldwide concern/action for both the natural and built environments.

7 "My main concern is our profession and our professional organization being supportive of all this irrational constraints and caps that could  lead to serious governance issue." - The concern is valid but so are the 50 years of offiically evolved/implemented/enforced laws and regulations that intend to help right-size the built environment. As we see all around, it has been failing, but that again may be a question of our discipline, respect for the law, and love of country (as discussed in other threads). We now have to ask ourselves as EnPs, do we lend ourselves to the further official disregard, diminution and liberalization of established development controls (DC), or do we help find ways to help make the public better appreciate the value of DCs and to ultimately help make DCs work?

Perhaps it is also time for EnPs to take a much better look at the DCs that can help determine the health and viability of human settlements. Everything starts with the lot/property. If there is failure there, that failure is compounded and also felt elsewhere. Thanks again. Regards to everyone.

x x x x x x x x

[ely ouano]

Good pm Boie,

 

As I mentioned earlier, I would like to sign off of this discussion. However, your reply especially on the quality of steel and construction materials seems to be from standard reply of RP government projects contractor. Being raised with background on universal engineering practice and the very broad EIA coverage, I had the opportunity of working through the various steel mills modernization projects financed by ADB in China from 1993 to 2004.

 

There are a large number of steel alloys and some have very specialized functions. Guyang Steel specializes in small volume but wide range of steel products. Anhui Steel and Taijin Steel produces more of bulk steel sold in hundreds of thousand tons per year.

 

To give a short background on steel making, carbon is one of the major component in steel. The higher the carbon the stronger the steel but at the sacrifice of brittleness and corrosion rate. Mild steel normally has low carbon but its strength is lower but low brittleness.

 

The quality of steel today is very much better than it was 100 years from now but the number of alloys and specialized steel products have increased dramatically. So it is very  important to specify the steel quality for various applications. It is not sufficient to say, use 4 mm diameter steel  but reference has to be made to the ASTM steel grading and classification. ASTM is American Society of Testing Materials and if the application is in UK and some commonwealth countries reference to specific BS ( British Standard not BullS---).  The same thing could be concluded with cement products. Roman cement is good for certain applications and it has been glamorized those days.

 

Well people have different reactions to authority. I would say an average human being is gifted by  God intellect to analyse and question authority. Sad to note humans could also be so dogmatized by colonial oppression and being a helpless captive (Stockholm Syndrome) as to loss its normal faculties to rationalize and question irrational acts by person in control. As a human being I am not satisfied of going with my professional job enforcing and copying irrational remands and imposition by authorities especially if we are a democratic country.  I would expect that we should lead he charge against irrational caps and requirements such as the 60 storey cap.

 

What right size ????