A4

Topic: Case Study of Student Centre

Adamson University

Topic Abstract: The New Adamson Student Centre was constructed in a tight budget, as

the school doesn’t have any budget to construct new and improve building in Adamson

University. It is designed by a well-known architects and partners that they did not receive

payment for the project construction and his partners said that they design or work for the greater

good of the campus. Receiving zero amount of payment from the client violate the Architect’s

Code of Ethical Conduct. Quite impressive actually, but the issue here was that the overall

design, specification, representations and liability for the building was rendered without fee

Introduction: The Student Centre is more than just a building - it’s the cultural and

social hub of our city campus and is a safe, stimulating environment in which to eat, relax and

socialize with friends, and meet with lecturers. Student Centers are to provide convenient

services that meet the needs of the student population, promote programs and activities that are

responsive to the developmental, physical, social, and educational needs of the student body and

university community, maintain a clean, safe and relaxing environment for all constituents. The

facility is devoted to student recreation and socialization. A student activity center or student

union is the community center of the college, serving students, faculty, staff, alumni, and guests.

A student activity center might offer a variety of programs, activities, services, and facilities. It

may contain lounges, wellness centers, dining facilities or vendors, and entertainment venues.

The student activity center is often the center of student affairs and activities and may house the

offices of the student government or other student groups. It may also act as a small conference

center, with its meeting rooms rented out to student groups and local organizations holding

conferences or competitions. Student these days wants a place where they can study peacefully

and have their activities open to all college students of different school in a different building or

in a pleasant place for visitors and guests from different schools. . As a solution, a Student Center

was made inside the campus of Adamson University headed by the permission of the President

Rev. Fr. Gregg Bañaga, C.M. and the Director of the Office of Student Affairs, Atty. Julius

Babista, who addressed the problem.

Related Literature and Study:

Article 1 (Renovation and Expansion):

“Beimdiek Recreation Center Renovation and Expansion Missouri Southern State

University”

Link: http://www.athleticbusiness.com/galleries/project.aspx?id=407

Project Description: The renovated and expanded Billingsly Student Center at

Missouri Southern now serves multiple masters. It is the new home of the Beimdiek

Recreation Center, the Willcoxon Health Center, the campus bookstore, textbook rental

services, Lion’s Den Food Service and student life offices. Among the university’s

charges was to keep Billingsly’s defined and dominant entrance, integrate a new student

recreation facility fully into the existing student center, achieve a unified new facility that

is seamlessly integrated into the campus’ homogeneous architectural palette, create

internal visual excitement for all users and visitors, and accentuate exterior views

towards the adjacent river valley. The exterior design aesthetic improves on the existing

facade and respects the existing building context, providing large open views out of the

building, while adding to the punched openings prevalent on campus. The result is a

building that is a beacon for campus life, engaging students to actively use the facility.

Inside, a primary objective was the development of a main street causeway that promotes

a social environment through interior openness and views of activity areas, and allows

students to “shop the activities” within. Campus colors are utilized throughout the

building.

Architect of Record: RDG Planning & Design

Programming Consultant: Brailsford & Dunlavey

Construction Cost: $14 million

Square Feet: 126,400

Occupancy: October 2009

Article II (Renovation and Expansion):

“Ferris State pumps $35M into student center renovation”

Link: http://www.grbj.com/articles/75645-ferris-state-pumps-35m-into-student-center-

renovation

Ferris State University is about to begin one of its most significant renovation projects

ever. The university’s board of trustees recently approved spending $35 million toward

renovation of the Rankin Student Center at the Big Rapids campus. About $16 million is already

on hand to finance the project, with the rest of the funding expected to come through tax-exempt

bonds. The work is slated to begin in May and be completed by Aug. 1, 2014. It is certainly a

significant project and one of the most significant renovations for the Big Rapids campus,” said

Jerry Scoby, FSU vice president of administration and finance. “Part of the design is to create a

modern facility that will facilitate the building community, bringing faculty, students and staff

together –– and to do a better job at having a place that commuter students can call home.” The

current facility is outdated, navigationally uncomfortable and not serving the student needs,

Scoby said. The oldest part of the building was constructed in 1957 before later additions came

along in 1960 and 1987.Renovation includes expansion, Scoby said, adding that the re-design

will likely be about 15 percent larger in size than the current 110,000-square-foot center. It also

means the demolition of vacant residence halls Carlisle and Masselink to create more parking

space for guests, staff and students, particularly commuter students, he said. The re-design will

feel very modern, he said, complete with an updated campus bookstore, expanded food court and

more space in which commuter students can relax or study.

Article III (Expansion and Renovation):

“Colorado State University Student Recreation Center Renovation and Expansion”

Link: http://www.athleticbusiness.com/galleries/project.aspx?id=552

The LEED Gold-certified Student Recreation Center at Colorado State University was

expanded and renovated to accommodate an increasing student population. The project

incorporated additions on the east, southwest and north sides of the facility, totaling more than

73,800 square feet of new construction. Also, the interior of the existing 101,500-square-foot

facility was completely renovated. Among the new spaces are two 38-foot-tall bridged climbing

towers, an outdoor bouldering rock, a martial arts space, a multipurpose activity court, special-

needs spaces, consultation rooms for personal trainers and physical therapists, a massage room

and an aquatics center with a four-lane lap pool, a 35-person spa, a lazy river, a climbing wall,

a shallow area for basketball and volleyball, and an on-deck sauna and steam room. CSU's

existing recreation center was a windowless structure, constructed as a simple pile-cast box.

While the building was surrounded by the Rocky Mountains, the only view of them was via large

interior photomurals. As a result, every planning decision in the renovation and addition was

based on capturing external views and the use of natural light. Materials and finishes chosen for

their durability and warmth were incorporated throughout the new and renovated portions of

the facility. The overall effect was to blend the existing sections with the new, unifying the entire

structure.

Architect Of Record: Hastings+Chivetta Architects Inc.

Aquatic Design Engineer: Counsilman-Hunsaker

Construction Cost: $28 million

Square Feet: 175,300

Occupancy: September 2010

Article IV (Violation of Code of Ethics):

“Member Suspended for Violating AIA Code of Ethics”

Link: http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek09/0918/0918n_ethics.cfm

Summary: The National Ethics Council (“Council”) has suspended the membership of Donald

G. Briggs, AIA, for two years for violating Rule 1.101 and Rule 3.201 of the Institute’s Code of

Ethics and Professional Conduct (“Code of Ethics”).

Rule 1.101 states: In practicing architecture, Members shall demonstrate a consistent pattern of

reasonable care and competence, and shall apply the technical knowledge and skill which is

ordinarily applied by architects of good standing practicing in the same locality.

Rule 3.201 states: A Member shall not render professional services if the Member’s professional

judgment could be affected by responsibilities to another project or person, or by the Member’s

own interests, unless all those who rely on the Member’s judgment consent after full disclosure.

The Complainant and his wife retained Mr. Briggs’s firm to design a new home for their

retirement. They informed Mr. Briggs that they wanted a home of approximately 3,500 square

feet, a construction cost of about $500,000 or less, and a completion date within 10 months.

When Mr. Briggs presented an initial schematic design of more than 7,000 square feet, the

Complainant requested reductions. During the following month, Mr. Briggs presented additional

schematic designs, each of which contained more than 6,300 square feet of enclosed living area.

The initial construction cost estimates, which were provided by the project’s general contractor

hired by the Complainant, exceeded $800,000. The Complainant repeated his request that cuts

be made and understood that Mr. Briggs would redesign the house so that it could be built for

the Complainant’s increased budget of $700,000. As design work progressed, Mr. Briggs and

his firm communicated primarily with the Complainant’s wife and not the Complainant.

Construction began based on preliminary plans provided by the firm. Final construction

drawings were completed more than four months later, which was subsequent to the originally

requested completion date for the project. Prior to the completion of the foundations and more

than three months before the drawings were completed, Mr. Briggs had begun a romantic

relationship with the Complainant’s wife. Mr. Briggs continued to work and bill on the project

and never disclosed the affair to the Complainant. The Complainant learned of the affair about

three months after construction had begun. He and his wife separated and subsequently

divorced, he retained ownership of and financial responsibility for the project, and he

terminated Mr. Briggs’s involvement in the project. The home ultimately cost more than $1

million to construct and contains more than 6,000 square feet of living area plus more than

2,000 square feet of porches and a detached garage of more than 1,100 square feet. The

National Ethics Council ruled that Mr. Briggs violated Rule 1.101 of the Code of Ethics by

designing a home far in excess of the written objectives of his clients and by failing to confirm

that the Complainant, as well as his wife, had agreed to revise his objectives for scope, budget,

and schedule. The Council concluded that this conduct constitutes a failure to demonstrate a

consistent pattern of reasonable care and competence in the delivery of services and a failure to

apply the technical knowledge and skill which is ordinarily applied by architects of good

standing doing similar projects. The Council noted that, in light of Mr. Briggs’s personal

relationship with the Complainant’s wife, he cannot justify his decisions on the project as having

been made in response to directions that she alone gave. The Council also ruled that Mr. Briggs

violated Rule 3.201 because, although his personal relationship with the Complainant’s wife

certainly could have affected his professional judgment while rendering professional services, he

did not disclose his conflict or resign from the project. The Council imposed the penalty of a

two-year suspension of membership on Mr. Briggs.

Article V (Violation of Code of Ethics):

“Urban planner sues Angaras over Aurora project”

Link: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/62053/urban-planner-sues-angaras-over-aurora-project

Urban planner Felino Palafox took on the Angaras of Aurora province on Tuesday, filing

a criminal complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman against Senator Edgardo Angara for

pushing for the Aurora Pacific Ecozone and Freeport Authority (Apeco) despite environmental

concerns about the project site. Palafox also claimed that the senator had a conflict of interest in

Apeco as the latter’s family would benefit from the project, which covers 12,400 hectares. Also

named in the complaint for graft and violation of the code of ethics for government officials were

the Apeco board of directors, which include Angara’s sister, Aurora Governor Bellaflor Angara-

Castillo, and his son, Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo Angara. Senator Angara is also

accused of benefiting from the P10-billion Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund,

which has been tainted with irregularities. Palafox said the officials pushed for the development

of the ecozone and ignored his recommendations about the site, which was prone to flooding. He

alleged that Senator Angara violated the antigraft law, which prohibits a member of Congress

from acquiring or receiving any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise

to be directly favored by any law or resolution that he had authored and which was approved or

adopted by Congress during his term. The senator was the author of Republic Act No. 9490

creating the Aurora Special Economic Zone Authority. It was amended in 2010, and a new law

created Apeco.

Constitutional violation: Palafox took to task the father and son for holding positions in

Apeco without forfeiting their seats as lawmakers, which he said violated the Constitution.Under

the law, the Apeco board is composed of six members, two of whom must be the congressional

representative of the district covering the site of the Aurora ecozone, and the governor of Aurora

province. The senator was irked when asked about the graft case filed against him by Palafox.

“Hindi naman importante yang ganyan (It’s not important). Wala naming kabuluhan ’yan (It

has no significance),” he told reporters. Angara said he would first get a copy of the complaint

and issue an official statement in due time. He later issued a statement attacking the architect.

The senator said Palafox and Associates, which was paid P32 million, came out with a master

plan that was declared useless by the Philippine Ports Authority, Civil Aviation Authority of the

Philippines and Office of the Government Corporate Counsel.

Sloppy design: “It was a sloppy piece of design work that proposed a seaport very near

an airport. That shabby piece of architecture would endanger the whole project, according to

the agencies that evaluated the technical and environmental soundness of the Palafox master

plan,” he said. Angara said the self-proclaimed “internationally known architect” called the

ecozone project a “scam” after his master plan was rejected. “He accused us of benefiting from

the project, which belongs to government and where our participation is a requisite of the law

creating the ecozone, a project that has been considerably derailed by the faulty and shabby

design work of Palafox,” Angara said.

Charges vs architect: Apeco administrators accused Palafox of violating the code of

ethics of architects before the Professional Regulations Commission and of violating the code of

ethics of environmental planners before the Environmental Planning Board under the

commission because of his “useless design work with a billing of P32 million,” the senator said.

“The two charges seek to strip him of his license, which, hopefully, would strip him of the moral

perch he has been using as platform for his professional bankruptcy and phoniness.” Angara

said.

Recommendations: In his complaint, Palafox said his recommendations about the proper

development of the ecozone site were ignored. He said he was asked to fast-track all concept

plans even in the absence of a feasibility study, topographic surveys, engineering surveys, titles,

government permits, land conversion clearances, environmental impact assessment and

environmental clearance certificate, among others. He said the senator, with the concurrence of

the Apeco board, sought to fast-track the plans to justify the approval of the budget which the

Senate was deliberating on.

Prone to flooding: But the engineering surveys showed that portions of land for the

project were prone to flooding and soil liquefaction, according to the urban planner. He said he

recommended that the design take into account a 100-year historical pattern of flooding. But

according to him, Senator Angara did not heed his recommendation. Instead, the senator

commented that he would be gone after 25 years, he added. “The act of pushing for the Apeco

development despite his knowledge of the soil liquefaction and flooding is contrary to law,

contrary to public welfare, to public safety and to the environmental laws,” Palafox said. The

board also had a hand in the matter, he alleged. “The Apeco board appears to be in complicity

with this violation, as the board has not ordered any stop to the development of Apeco. This

shows there is evident bad faith by the officers and board of Apeco,” he added. Palafox further

alleged that he had provided a list of 32 signatories required for land development clearances

and permits, and 12 signatories for building permits, and also reminded Apeco about the need

for other clearances and certificates. But he said these were ignored. The senator and the Apeco

board were also liable for violating the code of ethics or government officials, Palafox

contended.The senator’s son said the case was timed to put his father “on the defensive” as the

senator was pushing for Apeco’s budget in the Senate.

Pattern, vengeance: “It has become a pattern. Recall weak complaints being lodged at

the Department of Justice last year. The case was weak but lot of news about it came out in the

media,” the young Angara said, without citing any case. “Unlike architect Palafox who was

paid over P30 million for a master plan,” his father and the Apeco board members “do not get

anything, not a single centavo, from Apeco,” Representative Angara said in a text message to

the Inquirer. The congressman said Palafox’s complaint could have been prompted by

vengeance.“It’s retaliation for earlier cases filed against architect Palafox by Apeco in PRC

(Professional Regulation Commission) and other venues,” he added. With reports from

Christian Esguerra in Manila; and Tonette Orejas, Inquirer Central Luzon

Relevance to the Future Study: To help the readers of this case study understand what does

Code of Ethics for and what life may bring you if you violate one of the codes. In terms of the

finished work and designs, Architect Paredes is the inspiration of many aspiring architecture

students. He shown through his works and actions how future architects should be. He taught us

to always be faithful and be honest. He also taught to love our work for it to love us back. We

need to develop our skill that will assure our client’s needs will be met. He dedicate his work not

to acquire fame but to help the community. His designs inspire many students to dream and

ultimately reach it. Architect Paredes helps the next generation of architects to become what the

community needs.

Report: Based on the article, Arch Ulysses Nolan Paredes was According to the article

arch. Ulysses Nolan C. Paredes was selected by Atty. Babista to design and build Adamson

University’s Student Centre and Arch. Paredes was informed by Atty Babista that the budget for

the Student Centre was tight rather he urged that they do design and build services for free. The

school, rather Atty. Babista agreed to take Arch. Paredes terms because of the school’s tight

budget. After the construction, the student centre was renovated and expanded to the new FRC

extension building. Well, 1.5million just swiped away on the new FRC extension building and a

total waste of design strategies, time, effort and power from the architect himself. Atty. Babista

agreed for the free services because the school doesn’t have money to pay such an expensive

amount of money for a money, they didn’t change any school facilities though we had a tuition

fee increase. What more if they want a new building yet many restrictions because of the budget

itself.

Summary: Reinventing the student center of Adamson University was on a tight budget of

1.5million pesos and they found an architect who might agree and build according to budget

itself. Well, they found not intentionally a well-known architect who is willing to accept the job

for free. They throw the “free way” and demolished what Arch. Paredes gave to the University

for free. But why did the architect gave his professional services for free? Is he trying to solicit

personal publicity, through this charitable project? Though the intention was solely for good, this

violates our professions code of ethics.

Conclusion: Though the intention was solely for good, for giving services for free this violates

our professions code of ethics. Today, there are no more free services or anything. Where th Of

all the architect’s responsibilities, welfare remains a less well defined. Not to be confused with

the system of governmental support for unemployed people, the welfare obligations of architects

does share with those governmental programs the goal of helping people thrive and prosper. The

areas of ethics most closely related to that goal are social contract ethics, which addresses the

agreements that individuals enter into as members of a society, and duty ethics, which argues

that we should treat others as we would want to be treated were we in their situation. An

architectural firm designed a project according to program and budget of an institutional client.

The client, though, had a hard time raising all of the funds needed for the project and so asked

the firm either to redesign the project to reduce its size or help fundraise for the project to reach

the original budget, all without any extra fee to cover the time involved.

Professionals have a duty to serve their clients and to help them achieve their goals

within the quantitative, qualitative, and financial constraints of a project. And with that duty

comes another one letting clients know that they must often choose between two of those three

constraints. Unless a client has the rare gift of modesty with ample means, most projects have to

sacrifice the quantity of some things, reduce the quality of some features, or increase the amount

of money in the budget. In design, as in life, we can rarely have it all, and the sooner that

conversation takes place in a project, the better it goes.

If it doesn’t occur or if the client doesn’t listen when it does, situations like the one here can

happen. Architects can design a building according to the quantitative and qualitative

requirements and the financial capacity of the client, but if the funding for a project doesn’t come

in as expected, something must give. Either the project gets redesigned to reduce costs or the

participants in the project must raise the money needed to complete it as initially conceived.

Of course, at this point, the fees to do this extra work often don’t exist, given the deficit

the client already faces. So professionals have to make a decision: put the project on hold until

the client can raise more money to build it as designed or help the client either do that

fundraising or reduce the expense of the building to fit within the money available. That decision

demands weighing two types of duty: to others and to ourselves. Professionals have a duty to

their clients, but they also have a responsibility to their colleagues, co-workers, and ultimately to

their businesses. It does no good for a practitioner to go out of business donating too much time

to help other’s business. The firm in this example might decide to keep working on the project

without pay if the client seems likely to raise more money in the future and recompense the

office for its extra work, or if the effort seems likely to lead to future work from that client or

others. Some projects become “loss leaders,” generating new projects that can more than

compensate for the earlier loss. And some clients have connections and reputations that can

make their recommendations to future clients especially valuable.

The dutiful decision also may turn on the nature of the client’s business. If a business has

plenty of financial capacity and yet asks a firm to do work for free, the donation of time can

quickly become a form of exploitation by the client, and the professional must say no. We all

have a duty to stop exploitation, whether of ourselves or of others. But if, as in this case, the

client is a non-profit without the money to move forward, the donation of services and the

offering of help to raise money for the project become ways of giving back to a community and

of paying forward the help others have given us. We all have a duty as citizens, and donating

time and money in such cases always pays personal dividends.

References:

1) Atelier, ULYSSES NOLAN C. PAREDES, ARCHITECT /

http://atelier-ph.com/portfolio/adamson-university-student-center/

2) The Adamson Chronicle, “Reinventing the Student Center” by Michael Jerome N.

Velasquez and Rodelon M. Ramos.

3) UAP DOC 200, Code of Ethical Conduct