Search Results for 'sections'

[MLCC]

Great tips, thanks everybody for your input.

Tanya,
It funny you mention the Townhouse vignette. I actually practiced on that one the past 2 days. I couldn’t finish one of the two in ONE HOUR the first day. !!! The second day I got it done 20 minutes faster. Still too slow, though. And I thought it would be a breeze! ugh.

Scott,
I took Ray Freeman’s online course. It was somewhat helpful. The session you mentioned sounds awesome. But, I bet it costs several hundred damn dollars, too.

Jordan,
You just made me realize, to my horror.. that NOT every jurisdiction/ state has the 5 year rolling clock…???? Holy crap. In Texas, we do. If you pass any section, then you have to pass the remaining sections within 5 years, or you have to start all over. This is a HUGE disadvantage. Does any other state have that? I need to get off of here, I’m about to pop a vein.

[Tanya Olson]

I’m right there with you. I’m pretty sure no who has taken the exams can pass on any specific information at all about the test or format.

I’m having trouble getting practice vignette C-2 done in time too – I did cut my time by about 25 minutes today by drawing the townhouses as a block rather than the individual units, getting my layout done, then drawing the wall delineations in the ink stage. Still 10 minutes over time. Its the hardest one for me and there are TWO measured plans required in ONE hour!!!

I’m concerned (perhaps overly so?) that we’ll get docked for the slightest mismeasurement, turn radii and all…. As for parking lots – I’ve kind of picked one type of parking lot design (which, like you, I rarely do) and go with it. I missed the review session on Land8 because I had a project deadline….so, yes, any advice is appreciated.

Andrew G – I have been specifically following your instructions to FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS and DO WHAT THE REFERENCE MANUAL SAYS. If you can meet all of the requirements on the sheet and meet all of the reference manual requirements will you pass? I’m pretty precise but the ‘passing’ sections that uploaded with the practice vignettes, though not exactly sloppy, are definately not hardlined. Any comments or advice?

[MLCC]

HI Everybody,

First of all it is very comforting to to see everyone expressing the same anxieties and frustrations about the LARE and CLARB that I have long felt. Someone said we are their “piggy bank”. Hahaa so true. I could on and on about that, but….

Anyway I have several points of discussion, respond to any or all that you like:

A– I am taking Section C in 2 weeks. Can anyone relay what the format of the 4 vignettes is, ie.. are there 2 site design vignettes, (the smaller scale, more detailed ones), and 2 planning vignettes (the 100 scale, larger ones), or 1 and 3,, etc..?

B– I am preparing hard, but still find it so difficult to synthesize a correct design and get it on paper within the time frame. Specifically parking & vehic design, which I don’t ever do at work, much less by hand!  So I’m just so sloooow at it, (ever heard of analysis paralysis?)  Does anyone have any tips for speeding up my process?

C– I passed the 3 multiple choice sections 2 years ago. I studied hard, but was stil shocked that I passed all 3 on the first try! . So, that’s good, but also now the clock is ticking  – the 5 year window – so I have huge pressure to pass C and E, not the least reasons of which is financially. (Could these tests get any more expensive?? grrrrrr) 
Has anybody ever not been able to pass them all within 5 years? Did you start over? I can’t imagine starting over, I would never pass the multiple choices ones that easily again. And the cost.. ugh! Did anybody just decide to cut their losses and give up? I just ask b/c if I don’t pass section C coming up, I really don’t know what I should do.

Thanks everyone

[MLCC]

Hi Mros,

Great question. I’ll give you my feedback based on my own experience.

I took all 3 multiple choice sections at once, two years ago, (and I was quite surprised to find that I passed all 3). In the interest of finances.. i.e.. not having to pay for CLARB fees and exam fees again, I over-studied so as to pass as many sections as I could.

I studied for about 5-6 weeks ahead of time, prob several nights a week, and weekends. If you are highly motivated to pass the first time around, I would say it’s not unreasonable to study even earlier.

I think taking 2 sections at a time is a good idea. Taking all 3 can be a bit much. It’s a lot of information to process. I’m actually surprised that Section D has the lowest passing rate of the 3 multiple choice sections, because in my opinion, it is the most straightforward; it is all about actual materials, construction detailing, etc… The other 2 sections seemed much more vague to me, and did not relate to anything that I do on a daily basis in my job.

So that brings me to my next point: People always want to know what to study. Studying for this test is a bit like studying for the SAT. It’s difficult to study the material itself, and it’s a good idea to learn HOW take the test. Does that make sense? It’s hard to describe. I would definitely get your hands on as many practice tests as possible and you’ll see what I mean. You have to learn how to answer the questions, because that is sometimes as helpful as learning the actual material.

So, ultimately, start way earlier than you think you need to, so there’s no rushing or stressing, and that way you become totally familiar and comfortable with the material as well as the styles of the questions. And take the sections you feel most confident in, so you’ll pass the first time and get your confidence up.

That is what I did, and now I am faced with taking Section C in two weeks.. and I’m so scared I won’t pass! But I’m doing my best. oye.

I hope this help you.. let me know if you have any other questions, and good luck!

[mark foster]

This reminds me of a local home builder/architect. When it comes to details, he skips the digital and the paper, and sketches on the installed drywall in his houses–what each room will look like, trim details, sections etc. It’s a perfectly elegant and precise solution: they never get lost and are easily accessible–at least until the painters arrive!

There is a right tool for the right time and the right task. You may learn production (ie digital) side of LA in college and spend some working years in that world, but there is another Terra Incognita in this profession known as relating to the client. Part of this involves having the problem-solving illustrative skills which are used in a face to face meeting. It would take some pretty fantastic technology to replace the elegance and speed of hand drawing a unique idea in these situations.

Technology can be counter-productive. Having worked with younger designers, I must say that I absolutely detest staring at someone’s forehead while they spend 5 minutes looking for something on their iphone to illustrate a point. It puts the one waiting in a totally passive mode. When I hand draw in front of a client, I am conversing and interacting with them. When someone is trying to find something on an LED screen, they are making others wait while they “look through some files”. A very different interaction.

[mros]

Hi everybody,

I am looking into taking one of the multiple choice sections of the LARE in March. I haven’t taken any yet so I am wondering what is a reasonable amount of time to prepare?

Also is one section at a time recommended, or is it doable to sign up for two within March? I was thinking of starting with A or B based on the passing rates. Any advice from your experience would be helpful!

[Robin Welter]

I have to agree with Jason that in a few years, or when you get out of school into the reality of design, you’ll find it much more complicated. Rough grading and fine grading are two different animals, add in ADA issues and existing conditions that you have to tie into and it’s a complex web at times. Ask your prof to get into vertical curves because I’ve found those on a test. I feel grading is one of the most important things you are going to learn because you’ll be using it 80% of the time in your work and an L.A. that can grade is priceless for civil engineers. You’ll save your client time and yourself money on your projects.

Tackle the test in sections from easiest to hardest, and I found that if you do quick sections that it helps give you an overall plan for your final design. Read the instructions for the requirements like Jason said, there are little tricks they add in especially having enough cover over a pipe.

[Zach Watson]

Got ya, that makes sense, it’s just one of those things that I find interesting only because I only hear about section D and not any of the other sections of the LARE.

[Thomas J. Johnson]

OK, your question brought out the geek in me. Plus, being unemployed I need to keep my skills sharp… Here’s what I came up with…

150′ x 1′ x 3″ = 37.5 cubic feet of water to fill the runnel 3 inches deep.

1 cubic foot = 7.4805 gallons

37.5 x 7.4805 = 280.5 gallons to fill the runnel 3 inches deep.

This is where it gets a little funky… According to the Manning Equation (With a 2% slope [3’/150′] and a roughness coefficient of .013 ‘concrete’), you would need to move 4.5 CFS or approx. 2,000 GPM or 120,000GPH! That’s a big pump! It looks like just the pump would cost about $8,000.

The Manning Equation

The Manning Equation for U.S. units is: Q = (1.49/n)A(R2/3)(S1/2), Where

Q = volumetric water flow rate passing through the stretch of channel, ft3/sec,

A = cross-sectional area of flow perpendicular to the flow direction, ft2,

S = bottom slope of channel, ft/ft (dimensionless),

n = Manning rougness coefficient (empirical constant), dimensionless,

R = hydraulic radius = A/P, where

A = cross-sectional area of flow as defined above,

P = wetted perimeter of cross-sectional flow area, ft.

The Manning Equation can be expressed in terms of flow velocity instead of flow rate. Using the equation, V = Q/A as a definition for average flow velocity, the Manning Equation becomes:

V = (1.49/n)(R2/3)(S1/2), with average flow velocity in ft/sec.

Note that the Manning Equation is an empirical, dimensional equation. With the constant equal to 1.49, all of the parameters must have the units given above.
The Manning Roughness Coefficient

The Manning roughness coefficient, n, is an experimentally determined constant. Its value depends upon the nature of the channel and its surface. Tables giving values of n for different man-made and natural channel types and surfaces are available in many textbooks, handbooks and on-line. Here are a few typical values for n:

Brick – n = 0.015, new cast-iron – n = 0.012, concrete – n – 0.011 to 0.015, corrugated metal – n = 0.022

Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/civil/articles/52905.aspx#ixzz…

So that’s my quick stab at it…assuming a smooth consistent surface. Of course as you add texture that slows things down… You could make it 1-1.5% and have small drops into pools that would slow it down even more and add the sound / interest you’re looking for… If you only have 1.5″ of water that would make it a lot less expensive also (less water to move) If you can slow it down to .25CFS / 112GPM / 8,000GPH you can get a good pump for under $1,000. Otherwise, that could end up being one expensive runnel!

One other concern you might run into is the decorative grate. If you have a number of sections of grate, depending on color / contrast, you may have tripping hazard with people accidentally walking off of the grate into the runnel. You may want to consider carrying the paving material across the runnel in spots so that crossings are clear/distinctive. You could have the drops happen on the downhill side of the “bridge” causing people to pause on the bridge and look down into the pool… could be a neat effect.

[Daniel C. Miller]

Hello all,

I’m currently working on a park project in which one of the features will be a 150′ plus linear channel through which a set volume discharge of water will run through periodically. The runnel will be approximately one foot wide and 4-6″ deep at its upstream end. The runnel will be covered by decorative grate in some sections and exposed (open) in other sections. The concept is that park visitors will be able to follow (visually and audibly) this discharge as it travels down the runnel. 

My knowledge of fluid dynamics is limited, so I am trying to gather some information to help me accomplish the concept. I would like to determine the quantity of water and the rate of flow (how much water to release for how long) in order to achieve a recognizable volume throughout the length of the runnel. As part of the channel will be covered with a grate I would like to provide some audible turbulence within those sections. I assume that the volume and inclusion of “obstacles” within the channel would help achieve this.

I would welcome any information (direct experience or reference material suggestions) that anyone could provide to aide me in developing the design.

I look forward to and thank you for any information you may have.

Thank you,

Dan Miller

[Wyatt Thompson, PLA]

Hey Jeffrey. I’m sorry that this section has been so frustrating for you. Hopefully you can find some strategies here that will help. I did find the topics covered and the way questions were worded to be pretty bizarre. Thankfully I passed, but if I had to take it again, I would download the test description from CLARB and go point-by-point through that list and make sure I had studied everything on those topics from the new book list, as well as the older, longer book list. I recall several questions that were not covered at all by the books on the short list, but were mentioned on the test description and discussed in books on the old list.

I’m sure you read the 4 books on CLARB’s latest recommended reading list. I read them cover to cover and made notecards over anything I thought might remotely be important. I’m pretty certain that the test takes questions verbatim from the texts, asking you to recall lists of characteristics or items. I also read various sections from other books: Site Planning by Lynch and Hack and Time Saver Standards were ones I remember being most useful. There are study materials available at the LARE Exam Google Group, although much of section B material is old and includes questions about things you won’t be tested over.

I also purchased CLARB’s practice test. I’ve heard various opinions about the practice exams, but I found it helpful. This was my first time taking an MC exam and I thought the practice helped familiarize me with the types of questions I’d see as well as identified some blindspot topics that I’d missed studying. I don’t remember if any of those subjects were on the actual test, but I felt more confident after reviewing them.

During the test I made mental notes to myself about difficult questions or topics that seemed less familiar, on the chance I would need to retake. Maybe you did something similar and can emphasize those topics in your studying. Maybe if there is a specific category of information you’re messing up on, you could post some specific questions here, on the LARE Anthing Goes group, or at Google Groups. I’m not sure what strategies you used to study for Sections A and D, but maybe there was something you did then that you’re not doing now.

I hope others will share their insights as well, and you can get this section behind you on the next go-round. Good luck!
Wyatt

[Eric Gilbey]

LARE Candidates, Be sure to check out ASLA’s LARE Prep Site for resources in preparing for this coming December’s Graphic Sections C and E. Besides the ones I am conducting for the Ohio Chapter this weekend, Nov 6th and the Maryland Chapter November 13th, there are more to check out that may be close to you. If you cannot make it to a review session, be sure to use the ask the LARE Prep Committee questions you may have at LAREPrep@asla.org

The ASLA LARE Prep Committee wishes the best for you all as you work towards passing the LARE exam.

[Tanya Olson]

So…Function and adaptability to add to the list.

I had to chime in on this one, having traveled through some hilarious landscapes over the weekend (I wish I would have stopped to take some pics to show you all).
Seems like there is design all along the scale of goodness > badness, from sublime > what the @%#*$? Do you know it when you see it? Are there really any quantifiable ‘rules’? More important – how do people who aren’t landscape architects respond to it?

I saw a ‘what the @#$*&?’ landscape over the weekend – a new retail strip mall parking lot planting where they threw everything including the kitchen sink at it (clearly the result of a new landscape ordinance).
They had tons of grasses stuffed in with shrubs of all kinds, trees, more grasses and more shrubs – all about the same height (@4′)and not really having any relationship with each other at all. It literally looked like someone was throwing plants off the back of a truck and then planting them. Here’s what it didn’t do – it didn’t make space or mark spatial relationships in any way, it didn’t have a sense of scale, rythym, proportion, hierarchy. It didn’t have ANY relationship to the surrounding landscape, which is mostly prairie / farmland / cottonwood river bottoms. (Though as Andrew said, probably wasn’t in the criteria) The colors were all wily nily. It was the Liberace of landscapes.

Here’s what it DID do. It made me look. Maybe it was the reality tv show of landscapes -so over-the -top you can’t help but look. Maybe thats the correct function for a strip mall….As for maintenance – most of those plants will die from overcompetition in the next few years. Disposable landscapes? I certainly would take it any day over a strip mall parking lot that is paved from the edge of the building to the edge of the roadway., but it was pretty bad on the badness scale.

Then I kept driving down the road and saw some planting along a community bike path – just to mark intersections, mind you, a simple planting of rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus) and Rocky Mountain Sumac. Not a huge design in the scheme of things, but was absolutely beautiful, fitting, and elegant. It reminded me of the stone cairns you run across hiking above the tree line – a sudden human interaction with the landscape that creates order (or harmony) out of chaos…then slides gently over time back into chaos.

[Denise Y. O’Meara, ASLA, LEED AP]

Hello Jordan,

Yes, I have reviewed the LEED ND certification requirements and system. It is certainly more context oriented than LEED versions for new and existing buildings. These have improved, site-wise, with the 2009 building versions, nearly doubling the available points for sustainable site elements. The ND version sections on conservation are more advanced than anything in the building versions, and I think that these, as well as the far more developed community connectivity points could and should be incorporated in LEED for new and existing buildings. Our firm does mostly institutional buildings (education, etc.) and not community development, thus my personal focus on LEED BC+D. I think if the new LA is looking in the community development/planning/housing arena, the ND version would be much more useful to them.

I would really like to see the full sustainable sites initiative incorporated into LEED as a stand alone version, and hope that happens soon.

We have also been discussing the value of obtaining CPESC (Certified professional in erosion and sediment control) certification. The engineers have been discussing the need to be certified as such since they already do that type of design (as do LA’s), and I don’t know what the upshot of that discussion has been. The way I look at is, if it makes the municipalities more comfortable with our qualifications to do that work, it might certainly be of benefit to LA’s, and the training seems to be more readily available now. Of course, there are the associated costs of training, the exam and yearly renewal fees, as well as a rather extensive requirement for professional development CEU’s (60 units over 3 years) which, when added to LA and LEED AP plus CEU requirements and whatever else you are accredited or certified for, would be rather daunting to fulfill!

[Thomas J. Johnson]

“The CPD has been planning a second development-stage of the park’s nearly 11 undeveloped acres north of 18th Street. The plan calls for the development of the area’s shoreline and access points, as well as the construction of a cultural arts and recreational facility and a boathouse. The project is estimated to cost $38 million. In September 2009, a $10 million budget was approved to start development on the 6-acre (24,000 m2) area along the Chicago River.”

“…These funds will be used to build a retaining wall, fish habitats and sections of natural shoreline along the area’s 875 ft (267 m) of shoreline along the Chicago River. Open lawn and landscaped areas will be developed along with a fishing station and various pathways.”

It sounds like you have some program elements to work with (cultural arts – recreation center, fishing station, fish habitat, naturalized shoreline, retaining wall and a boathouse). There is a lot to play with right there… There is also the Chicago Dragon Boat Race, an annual event held at the park (you could have a lot of fun incorporating those themes into the design)

One of the challenges you face is how to connect the two sites, separated by 18th St. It looks like you could connect the two via paths under the bridge. How do you make that feel safe and welcoming? You could also go over the bridge and create a gateway to Chinatown… or maybe you don’t have to go over the road to make a gateway…

What is the forest like on the North side of 18th St? Is it worth preserving some of those trees? It looks like people have worn paths through that forest. Why have they chosen those paths? Are they significant? Are they worth incorporating into your design?

There are so many cool design elements around that site! Boat yards, railroad tracks, bridges, river, stone, concrete, steel…Chinese culture/design. If you guys can’t come up with ideas for that site or if some of you “had other priorities” when you visited the site, you should choose another career. Seriously. There is no shame in that… Personally, I’m all fired up about your project. How cool to get to design a portion of the Chicago River in China Town!

Get a few of your friends from class who are serious about the program, go back to the site with your cameras and sketchbooks and hang out all day. Go explore the neighborhood, check out the industrial areas, have lunch at one of the local restaurants, talk to locals about what they’d like to see happen… go get out there!