Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Site Selection Criteria

37,910 views

Published on

Site Selection Criteria - Skyscraper

Published in: Design, Technology, Business
  • Can I know where the site selection criteria come from? Any source?
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Thank you for this, where did you get that formulation of the criteria?
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • This is very helpful. I am using this as my basis in making my criteria for site selection in our school project. Thank you very much!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • This is very impressive. Nice teamwork
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Site Selection Criteria

  1. 1. Arnuco, Daron Ruscer Caasi, Jonica Valerie Loon, Dabie Lee Sumang, Razzel Kristine
  2. 2. Natural, Environmental, Physical Factors CRITERIA % SITES A Makati B Ortigas C Taguig Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Land Area/Lot Size 20 Accessibility (Modes of Transportation) 10 Soil Characteristic & Condition 10 Accessibility of Utility and Service Needs (Electricity, Water, Communication Service, Waste Management) 10 Vulnerabilities to Natural Hazards (Flooding, Site Erosion, Seismologic Activity) 10 Site Drainage 5 Topography 10 Climate 10 Orientation 5 Existing Vegetation 5 Future Expansion Plan 5 TOTAL 100
  3. 3. Socio-Economic and Cultural Factor CRITERIA % SITES A Makati B Ortigas C Taguig Criteria Ranking Ave. per Criteria Ranking x % Criteria Ranking Ave. per Criteria Ranking x % Criteria Ranking Ave. per Criteria Ranking x % Site Potential 20 Accessibility to major roads 30 Must be within urban area 20 Accessibility to important existing facilities 15 Pedestrian Access and Circulation 15 TOTAL 100 Legal, Institutional, Administrative, and Aesthetic Factor CRITERIA % SITES A Makati B Ortigas C Taguig Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Proper Land Use & Zoning 20 Ease of Ownership 25 Land Cost 35 Compatibility with Adjacent Land Use 20 TOTAL 100
  4. 4.  Evaluation (for Land area Criteria): 1 – Lot size is inadequate to meet the suggested minimum lot size requirement set in the national building code 2 – Lot size is adequate to meet the suggested minimum lot size requirement set in the national building code 3 – Lot size exceeds 50% of the suggested minimum lot size requirement set in the national building code and provides area for another expansion or provision of another adjacent amenities and activities 4 – Lot size exceeds 75% of the suggested minimum lot size requirement set in the national building code and provides area for another expansion or provision of another adjacent amenities and activities 5 – Lot size exceeds more than 100% of the suggested minimum lot size requirement set in the national building code and provides area for another expansion or provision of another adjacent amenities and activities  Evaluation (for Accessibility Network Criteria): 1 – Accessed by taxis and private vehicles 2 – Accessed by PUVs, taxis and private vehicles 3 – Accessed by jeepney, PUVs, taxis, and private vehicles 4 – Accessed by public bus, jeepney, PUVs, taxis, and private vehicles 5 – Near an airport terminal and accessible through public, buses, jeepneys, PUVs, and private vehicles  Evaluation (for Soil Characteristic and Condition Criteria): 1 – Soil is unstable all over and soil is mostly consists of made ground or fill 2 – Soil is unstable for most parts of site and is mostly consists of peat and organic soil 3 – Some remote area of the site have unstable soils and is mostly consists of cohesive soils (hard, firm and soft clays) 4 – Most areas of the site have stable soils and is mostly consists of non-cohesive soils (hard clays, gravel and sand) 5 – Soils are stable and mostly consists of rocks (igneous, gneissic, limestone, sandstone, schist, slate, mustone)  Ratings for Natural, Environmental and Physical Factors
  5. 5.  Evaluation (for Accessibility to Utility and Services Criteria): 1 – No existing utilities and services and has known difficulties of access on site 2 – No existing utilities and services but is far from the site 3 – No existing utilities and services but is accessible near the site 4 – Existing utilities and services are available adjacent to or near the site 5 – Existing utilities and services are available within the site  Evaluation (for Vulnerabilities to Natural Hazard Criteria): 1 – Site in proximity to hazards 2 – Site is in proximity to three or more hazards 3 – Site is in proximity to two hazards 4 – Site is in proximity to one hazard 5 – Site free of any potential damage/injury from natural hazards  Evaluation (for Site Drainage Criteria): 1 – Site is mostly low and the neighboring areas drain into it 2 – Drainage accumulates in some portion of the site 3 – Drainage accumulates in the neighborhood near the site 4 – Site has definite drainage with water coming from adjacent properties but can merely be contained 5 – Site has definite drainage with no unnecessary water coming from adjacent properties  Evaluation (for Topography Criteria): 1 – Site contains major topographic irregularity and cannot hold possible uses 2 – Site is not even, and can only hold certain possible use 3 – Site is not even, but can still hold all possible uses 4 – Site is chiefly even and can hold all possible uses 5 – Site is relatively flat and can hold all possible use  Ratings for Natural, Environmental and Physical Factors
  6. 6.  Evaluation (for Climate Criteria): 1 – The site has irregular dry and wet season 2 – Site experiences greater wet season than dry season 3 – Site experiences greater dry season than wet season 4 – Site has fair climate and weather condition 5 – Site has good climate and weather condition  Evaluation (for Orientation Criteria): 1 – The site does not have good sun and wind orientation 2 – The site has satisfactory sun and wind orientation 3 – The site has good sun orientation but satisfactory wind orientation 4 – The site has both good sun and wind orientation 5 – The site has both excellent sun and wind orientation  Evaluation (for Existing Vegetation Criteria): 1 – The site has no existing vegetation 2 – The site has 10% existing vegetation 3 – The site has 20% existing vegetation 4 – The site has 30% existing vegetation 5 – The site has 40% existing vegetation  Evaluation (for Future Expansion Plan Criteria): 1 – The site has no potential for future expansion 2 – Relevant variances are approved to future expansion 3 – Some variances are approved to future expansion 4 – Has enough area for additional amenities for the property development 5 – Has larger area for additional amenities for the property development  Ratings for Natural, Environmental and Physical Factors
  7. 7.  Evaluation (for Proper Land Use and Zoning Criteria): 1 – Land’s present/future zoning does not allow use for a skyscraper 2 – Land’s current zoning does not allow skyscraper but exemption can be appealed 3 – Land’s current zoning permits skyscraper with provision on the usage 4 – Land is currently within a C-3 zone and but will probably change 5 – Land is within a C-3 zoning classification set in the National Building Code or within a Central Business District and present/future zoning permits skyscraper or no zoning restrictions exist  Evaluation (for Ease of Ownership Criteria): 1 – The site is divided with many property owners. 2 – The site is divided with a moderate number of property owners. 3 – The site is divided with few property owners. 4 – The site is relatively undivided.  Evaluation (for Land Cost Criteria): 1 – Site is high-priced 2 – Site is above the reasonable value but is still affordable 3 – Site is at reasonable value 4 – Site is below the reasonable value  Evaluation (for Compatibility with Adjacent Land Use Criteria): 1 – Incompatible with the adjacent land use and the surrounding context 2 – Considerable differences with the adjacent land use and surrounding context 3 – Certain differences with the adjacent land use and surrounding context 4 – Relatively fit with the adjacent land use and surrounding context 5 – Perfectly relates with the adjacent land use and surrounding context  Legal, Institutional and Aesthetic Factors
  8. 8.  Evaluation (for Site Potential Criteria): 1 – Site is potential for job opportunities and rationalized residential plan 2 – Site is potential for local business sectors and agencies, job opportunities and rationalized residential plan 3 – Site is potential for local and international business sectors and agencies, tourism development, job opportunities and rationalized residential planning  Evaluation (for Accessibility to main road Criteria): 1 – Site is more than 5km away or 1 hour vehicle ride 2 – Site is within 4 km away or 1 hour vehicle ride 3 – Site is within 3km away or 30 minutes vehicle ride 4 – Site is within 2km away or 10 minutes vehicle ride 5 – Site is within reasonable walking distance or 1km and less  Evaluation (for Must be within urban area Criteria): 1 – Site is not within an urban area 2 – Site is within an urbanizing area 3 – Site is within an urbanized area 4 – Site is a progressive urbanized area 5 – Site is within highly developed urbanized area  Evaluation (for Accessibility to Important Existing Facilities Criteria): 1 – Necessary existing establishments are within 5km and above 2 – Necessary existing establishments are within 3-5km from the site 3 – Necessary existing establishments are within 3km from the site 4 – Necessary existing establishments are within 1-2km from the site 5 – Necessary existing establishments are within less than a kilometer from the site  Evaluation (for Pedestrian Access and Circulation Criteria): 1 – No existing pedestrian access are available that can reasonably be constructed 2 – Pedestrian access can be constructed, but pathway work is required and traffic control system should be provided 3 – Pedestrian access can be constructed without major road work 4 – Site has existing pedestrian access that is suitable for 1/2 kilometer travel and has existing traffic control system 5 – Site has existing pedestrian access that is suitable for 1/4 kilometer travel and has existing traffic control system  Socio-Economic and Cultural Factors
  9. 9. SELECTION ELEMENTS SITES Natural, Environmental, Physical Factors Legal, Institutional, Administrative, and Aesthetic Factor Socio-Economic and Cultural Factor GRAND TOTAL
  10. 10.  Proposed Site A : Makati SITE PROFILE Location: Along Antonio Arnaiz Ave. , Makati City Land Area: Approx. 1.7 Ha. Site Land Cost: P200,000-250,000/ sq.m. Land Owner: Ayala Land Corporation
  11. 11.  Accessibility Modes of Transportation Ayala Buses, Jeepneys, Tamaraw FXs/ vans & Taxi Cubs Rail Network The Philippine National Railways (PNR) (MRT3) Guadalupe, Ayala and Magallanes (LRT1) Sen. Gil Puyat Other Transport Facilities Makati City is easily accessible from the domestic and international airport of Metro Manila. It is 8 kilometers away from the city via South Expressway and 6 kilometers through the EDSA-Tramo route. Helicopter service from most of the city's hotels is also available Road EDSA, Antonio Arnaiz Avenue
  12. 12.  Vicinity Map
  13. 13.  Zoning Map
  14. 14.  Proximity to existing Facilities School MAPUA Institute of Technology – Makati Don Bosco Technical School Information and Communication Technology Academy Hospital Makati Medical Center Church Greenbelt Church Don Bosco Parish Mall Glorietta SM Makati Rustan’s Landmark Landmarks Glorietta Dusit Thani
  15. 15.  Proposed Site C : Ortigas SITE PROFILE Location: Exchange Road, Cor. Jade Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Land Area: Approx. 1.8 Ha. Land Cost: P200,000/ sq.m. Land Owner: -Amberland Corporation -Johnson & Johnson - Ayala Land, Inc.
  16. 16.  Accessibility Possible Access to the Site From EDSA: - By taking the bus – both northbound and southbound buses stop in front of Robinson’s Galleria, or the Metro Rail Transit that stops at the Ortigas Station from which Robinson’s Galleria is. - From Manila: The Filipino ride known as the “jeepney” goes the Pasig-Quiapo (and vice versa) route, which travels from the western side of Shaw Boulevard. Modes of Transport -Taxi -Bus -MRT -FX -Jeepney Ortigas is also accessible from the domestic and international airport of Metro Manila. Roads Jade Drive from Doña Julia Vargas Avenue, Exchange Road from ADB Ave. and Meralco Avenue
  17. 17.  Vicinity Map
  18. 18.  Proximity to existing Facilities School University of Asia and the Pacific (approx. 400m) Lourdes School of Mandaluyong (approx.600m) St. Paul College-Pasig (approx. 1km) STI College-Shaw (approx. 1km) Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health (approx. 1.5 km) Hospital The MedicalCity (approx. 1.4 km) Mary Immaculate Hospital (approx. 2.3km) Church St. Francis of Assisi Church (approx. 700 m) St. Paul Church (approx. 900m) Word Community Church (approx. 1.4km) Mall SM Megamall (approx. 500m) Edsa Central Mall (approx. 1.1km) Starmall Edsa-Shaw (approx. 1.3km) Landmarks SM Megamall (approx. 500m) MRT Ortigas (approx. 1.1km) MRT Shaw Boulevard (approx. 1.1km)
  19. 19.  Proposed Site C: Taguig City Location: Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City, Metro Manila Land Area: Approx. 2.5 Has. Land Cost: P200,000/ sq.m. Land Owner: Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation
  20. 20.  Vicinity Map
  21. 21.  Proximity School Philippine Public Safety College British School Manila Manila Japanese School Trace College Hospital St.Lukes Medical center Church St. Michael Archangel Church Mall Market Market Piazza Serendra Bonifacio High Street The Fort Strip Landmarks Serendra Bonifacio High Street Market Market
  22. 22.  Accessibility Possible Access to the Site Modes of Transport -Taxi -Bus -MRT -FX -Jeepney Taguig is also accessible from the domestic and international airport of Metro Manila. Roads 32nd St., 9th Avenue
  23. 23. Natural, Environmental, Physical Factors CRITERIA % SITES A Makati B Ortigas C Taguig Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Land Area/Lot Size 20 4 16 4.5 18 5 20 Accessibility (Modes of Transportation) 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Soil Characteristic & Condition 10 5 10 4 8 5 10 Accessibility of Utility and Service Needs (Electricity, Water, Communication Service, Waste Management) 10 4 8 4 8 5 10 Vulnerabilities to Natural Hazards (Flooding, Site Erosion, Seismologic Activity) 10 4 8 4 8 4 8 Site Drainage 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Topography 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Climate 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Orientation 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 Existing Vegetation 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 Future Expansion Plan 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 TOTAL 100 87 88 94
  24. 24. Socio-Economic and Cultural Factor CRITERIA % SITES A Makati B Ortigas C Taguig Criteria Ranking Ave. per Criteria Ranking x % Criteria Ranking Ave. per Criteria Ranking x % Criteria Ranking Ave. per Criteria Ranking x % Site Potential 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 Accessibility to major roads 30 5 30 4 21 4 24 Must be within urban area 20 5 20 5 20 4 16 Accessibility to important existing facilities 15 4 12 5 1 5 4 12 Pedestrian Access and Circulation 15 4 12 4 12 5 15 TOTAL 100 94 88 87 Legal, Institutional, Administrative, and Aesthetic Factor CRITERIA % SITES A Makati B Ortigas C Taguig Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Criteria Ranking Equivalent Percentage Proper Land Use & Zoning 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 Ease of Ownership 25 4 25 3 18.75 4 25 Land Cost 35 2 17.5 3 21 3 21 Compatibility with Adjacent Land Use 20 4 16 5 20 4 16 TOTAL 100 78.5 79.75 82
  25. 25. SELECTION ELEMENTS SITES Natural, Environmental, Physical Factors 87 88 94 Legal, Institutional, Administrative, and Aesthetic Factor 78.5 79.75 82 Socio-Economic and Cultural Factor 94 88 87 GRAND TOTAL 259.5 255.75 263
  26. 26.  Conclusion The site selection table shows that points added from the three major factors, summarizes the highest and most suitable site for the proposed project is Site C in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.

×