ARE 5.0: PA common mistakes
ARE 5.0: PA · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Applying the stated front/side/rear yard numbers directly to the property line and drawing the buildable envelope, without first checking how the prompt or code measures yards (from the property line, from the street centerline, from the curb line, or from a platted building line).
Candidates memorize 'setback = distance from property line' and carry that habit straight into vignette-style problems where the scenario defines a different reference line, so the envelope is offset by the wrong amount and every downstream area calculation shifts.
What to do instead
Before drawing anything, write a one-line note stating the measurement reference for each yard, then sketch one dimension string per side showing reference line to buildable edge. Check the resulting dimensions sum correctly across the lot width and depth.
Taking the program's listed square footages as the size of the building, rather than converting net assignable area to gross building area using an efficiency factor and then testing the result against floor area ratio, lot coverage, and height limits.
Program tables read like a building size, and efficiency/circulation losses are invisible on the page, so candidates produce a building 20-30 percent too small and then fight the plan when corridors and core will not fit.
What to do instead
Always run the chain explicitly: net program area divided by a defensible efficiency (state the assumption) equals gross area; gross area divided by FAR-allowable floor plate equals stories; then verify lot coverage and height. Show the arithmetic in the scratch note.
Starting to place buildings, parking, or program blocks on the site in the first minutes, before writing down the given constraints (floodplain limits, wetlands, easements, steep slopes, tree save areas, setbacks, buffers).
The exam is timed, diagrams look like progress, and candidates are used to designing from a parti. Constraints revealed later then invalidate the layout and there is no time to redo it.
What to do instead
Spend the first pass making a constraint map: list every given limit as a number, draw the non-buildable zones as a hatched layer, and only then locate program. Test the chosen location against each listed constraint and note the clearance to each.
Orienting the building, glazing, or outdoor program (plaza, courtyard, playground, outdoor dining) with no reference to sun path, prevailing wind, or noise sources, using only the geometry of the lot to drive the layout.
Site plans on the exam are drawn with north up but the geometry feels like the dominant driver, and candidates treat orientation as an aesthetic finish rather than an input the problem is testing.
What to do instead
Draw a north arrow and mark summer/winter sun angles, prevailing winter wind, and the noise source before massing. Then state one sentence of intent: which facades get afternoon sun, which outdoor program is shaded, which side is buffered.
Sizing the building footprint and paving to the program without computing impervious coverage against the allowed maximum, or without accounting for where stormwater from the new impervious area goes.
Coverage limits read like a zoning trivia item, and candidates assume that if parking and building fit geometrically they are compliant. The percentage is rarely checked until it fails.
What to do instead
Compute total impervious area (building footprint plus paving plus any hardscape) as a percentage of lot area and compare to the stated maximum. If it exceeds, reduce paving, use a structured or shared parking count, or shift to pervious surface - and write the revised percentage down.
Determining the number of exits, exit width, or dead-end and travel distances from intuition or the size of the plan instead of from occupant load computed from the given use and area.
Egress arithmetic is perceived as tedious, and the drawing looks obviously egress-adequate, so the occupant load table and travel distance limits are skipped.
What to do instead
Compute occupant load first (area divided by the load factor, with concentrated assemblies counted separately), then derive exits required, egress width, and maximum travel distance. Mark the single worst-case travel path on the plan and measure it against the limit.
Counting accessible parking stalls or drawing the accessible route at the required total without checking the van-accessible subset, the access aisle, route slope and cross-slope, or the accessible route's connection to the building entrance.
Candidates remember 'one accessible space per 25' and stop there; the van-space ratio, aisle width, and route slope are separate requirements that are easy to skip under time pressure.
What to do instead
Build a small accessibility checklist that must be ticked for any site plan: total accessible count, van-accessible count, aisle width and signage, route slope and cross-slope limits, level landing at the entrance, and vertical clearance at the drop-off.
Mixing square feet, acres, feet, and inches within one calculation - for example dividing a program area in square feet by a lot area in acres - or silently converting inches to feet incorrectly for wheel stops, aisles, or setbacks.
The exam gives lot size in acres and building areas in square feet, and mental arithmetic across units is where single-digit errors become wrong answers that look reasonable.
What to do instead
Convert everything to feet and square feet in a written line before computing (one acre equals 43,560 sf), and annotate every number in the scratch work with its unit. Re-check any result whose magnitude is surprising by a factor of about 43,000.
Allocating all program square footage to primary spaces, leaving no area for corridors, stairs, elevators, restrooms, mechanical, and structure, so the resulting plan cannot actually contain the program once drawn.
The program list is the visible content of the question, and service and circulation space has no line item, so it is treated as free. The error surfaces only when the plan is drawn and blocks will not fit.
What to do instead
Set aside a core and circulation allowance explicitly (as a percentage of gross area and as a physical zone on the plan) before allocating program, and place the core early - adjacent to the entry and stacking vertically if multi-story.
Satisfying an adjacency or relationship diagram literally by placing every required pair side-by-side, without checking the resulting areas against the program and the available floor plate.
Adjacency diagrams look like the answer key, so candidates treat all lines as hard requirements rather than a prioritized set, and the resulting plan sprawls beyond the allowable envelope.
What to do instead
Rank relationships as primary (must be adjacent), secondary (near but not touching), and to-be-separated, then solve primary pairs first, place blocks at their actual programmed size, and confirm the total block area plus circulation still fits the allowable gross area.