Lester Wertheimer

The greatest compliment I can grant this book is that even I could get through it in three or four hours. Part of the text appears to be a modified canned version of the same stuff I read for Site Planning - I mean how many Kaplaner's use that damn Woody Allen quote?!? As to the sample vignettes they sort-of, kind-of directly relate to the actual examination...which is surprising if you’ve read some of their other best sellers. They’re still a bit more convoluted that what you can expect show more to see on the ARE, but a lot closer than the Site Planning examples and the equations-that-only-a-rocket-scientist-gets-off-on that their General Structures book foists upon you. Also, I warn you, pay no attention to the specific code criteria they give in the examples (24” handrail extensions at bottom of stair, 18” offsets from pull side of a door). Here they occasionally correlate with real codes you’ll deal with in real life – but alas, these are the ARE’s which in no way are supposed to correlate with real-world issues. If only they would give the exam in the rarified language of Vulcan, then their mission would be complete!

Nonetheless, spend three hours with this and then promptly toss it aside (or, if needing to actually purchase a copy, forget about it and buy a small kitchen appliance instead). show less

To begin with, the cover image is the perfect representation of the type of architecture that Ncarb intends to breed. Some uber-banal, 1987-ish Dallas interstate architecture (not even a photo - someone rendered this crap!!) is further enhanced by a dozen newly planted miniscule scrub trees hemmed in by the extensive concrete and asphalt required by Dallas parking requirements. All of which obviously makes for the perfect book about Site Planning. Not one to read a book by its flashy, mirror show more glass/white paneled cover, but I was enthralled by a Woody Allen paraphrase as well as such keen observations as “Every site is as unique as an individual person, and even as identical twins have distinct personalities, so too, adjacent parcels of land possess distinguishable characteristics.” Wow, is that my old chum Confucius??? I thought I recognized the fortune cookie rhetoric. This statement not only occurs on page 20, but is repeated on page 55! Obviously Mr. Wertheimer hasn’t visited Houston lately.

I will say that some of the exercises - of increasing complexity - are probably useful for getting the feel of the types of things that the ARE wants. Basically you figure out 1) there's nothing remotely related to "design" and 2) there are certain "fatal flaws" like placing the handicap parking spaces within the reflecting pond instead of within the mandated 100' radius of the post office entrance.

That being said - I'm almost positive I failed the exam because of an ambiguous reading about what enables a "view of the lake." So, as usual, I'm likely the last person that should be giving you a damn book review. I will say this though - if you have gratis access to this book, skim through it. Otherwise, don't sweat it. Look to the ARE Forum with it's many offerings of victim input and examples of offensive-yet-correct "solutions" and, most importantly, "learn" Ncarb’s software… you can rest assure, it still rides the short bus. show less

Much like the previously “reviewed” Building Technology addition to this dismal series, I can only direct my greatest compliment towards its brevity. In fact, if Kaplan would just eliminate the worthless, obviously not proof-read CD test bank, then I might be alright with borrowing and quickly reading this book (really, no one has ever actually paid for this crap have they?). While the book advises that “it is important for candidates to realize that solutions to vignettes are not show more expected to be ingenious or brilliant works of art,’ they are being somewhat disingenuous by not also emphasizing that expected solutions are not even logical or functional. However this factoid becomes immediately apparent with their first example of an Interior Layout Vignette. After an excruciating series of study diagrams that the candidate will have absolutely no time for, they show a typical ham-fisted solution that would certainly fail (half the required door jamb offsets are completely ignored). The author throws out some joke about purchasing a Lotto ticket if you happen to concoct a “correct” solution immediately. I hardly think any solution to this mindless exam should be considered correct, but I guess we should leave that up to the infallible, Alberti-esque NCARB computer grading system. show less