EGEL Plus Arquitectura common mistakes
EGEL Plus Arquitectura · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Choosing an aesthetically striking design solution before verifying that the proposed footprint, height and use comply with the site's zoning and density rules.
Candidates trained in studio culture prioritize formal and spatial quality and treat regulation as a bureaucratic afterthought, so they never run the numbers against the site's permitted coefficients.
What to do instead
Before committing to a parti, compute the buildable envelope: permitted land-use, floor-area ratio, footprint coefficient, height limit and required open space, then test the scheme against those figures and adjust the massing first.
Designing circulation, accessibility and egress routes only at the schematic level and never checking widths, turning radii, ramp slopes or travel distances against the applicable code.
Accessibility and egress requirements are learned as isolated data points rather than as a checklist applied at every design iteration, so they get dropped when the plan evolves.
What to do instead
Build a one-page compliance checklist (clear widths, ramp gradient and landings, door clearances, number and separation of exits, maximum travel distance) and run it at every plan revision rather than once at the end.
Attributing buildings, movements or periods to the wrong era or author, or treating stylistic labels as interchangeable descriptions of form.
Study relies on memorizing images and labels without a chronological scaffold, so similar-looking works from different decades or regions collapse into one another.
What to do instead
Construct a dated timeline with each key work placed by year, place and author, and for each entry write one sentence on what problem it was responding to; test yourself by dating and attributing unlabeled descriptions.
Describing a historical or theoretical position only by its visual traits ("it has glass and steel") without naming its underlying principles, manifestos or debates.
Candidates conflate style with doctrine and never read primary positions, so they cannot distinguish, for example, functionalist arguments from later critiques of them.
What to do instead
For each movement, summarize its core theoretical claim, its key texts or manifestos, and the criticism it drew; practice explaining the difference between two superficially similar movements in two sentences each.
Sizing structural members by rule of thumb or by copying a previous project without checking span, load path or the governing failure mode.
Candidates rely on familiar proportions and skip the free-body reasoning that determines whether bending, shear, deflection or buckling controls.
What to do instead
For every element, sketch the load path from slab to foundation, identify the governing check for that span and support condition, and verify with a preliminary calculation before drawing the member.
Mixing construction systems and their detailing, specifying a solution whose tolerances, sequence or material compatibility contradict the chosen structural system.
Systems are studied as separate chapters, so the interfaces (connections, joints, waterproofing, thermal bridges) get ignored until they conflict on paper.
What to do instead
Detail the critical junctions, not just the typical section: draw the connection between structure and enclosure, list the construction sequence, and check material compatibility and movement joints at each interface.
Proposing mechanical, electrical or plumbing systems without calculating demand, and placing equipment or shafts where no space, access or ventilation exists.
Installations are treated as a layer added after the plan is fixed, so loads, pipe slopes, duct sizes and maintenance clearances are never fed back into the spatial layout.
What to do instead
Estimate demand early (occupancy-based water and drainage, lighting and power loads, airflow), reserve vertical shafts and equipment rooms with access and clearance dimensions, and check gravity drainage slopes and duct routing on the plan.
Ignoring energy, thermal and environmental performance, or applying a sustainability label without checking that the design actually meets the stated criteria.
Sustainability is reduced to a checklist or a certificate rather than a set of quantitative design targets, so orientation, envelope and ventilation decisions are made without performance data.
What to do instead
Set measurable targets at the start (envelope insulation, glazing ratios by orientation, natural ventilation, water reuse), test the design against them, and document which criteria each measure actually satisfies.
Analyzing an urban site only at the lot scale, ignoring the surrounding fabric, mobility networks, infrastructure capacity and the applicable urban plan.
Candidates transfer building-scale habits to urban problems and never zoom out to the district or city level, so proposals contradict the plan or overload infrastructure.
What to do instead
Start every urban answer with a site reading at three scales (lot, neighborhood, city): land uses, density, transport and pedestrian networks, infrastructure capacity, and the zoning or urban development plan that governs the area.
Treating environmental impact and regulatory compliance as an appendix rather than as constraints that shape the proposal, and confusing which authority or instrument applies.
Normative frameworks are memorized as lists of agency names without mapping each requirement to the stage of the project where it must be satisfied.
What to do instead
Map each applicable requirement to its authority, instrument and project stage (land use permit, environmental assessment, construction permit), and show in the answer how the design responds to each constraint rather than citing it at the end.
Presenting a schedule or budget without linking activities, durations, dependencies and costs to the actual scope and quantities of the project.
Planning is done as a formality with generic activity lists, so the critical path, resource loading and cost breakdown do not reflect the design or the site conditions.
What to do instead
Derive the work breakdown from the project's real scope, quantify each activity, assign durations and dependencies, identify the critical path, and reconcile the budget against measured quantities and unit prices.
Answering management questions by naming a contract type or delivery method without explaining risk allocation, change control or how the choice fits the project's uncertainty.
Procurement and contract models are memorized as definitions, so candidates cannot reason about which party bears which risk or how changes and delays are handled.
What to do instead
For each delivery and contract option, state who bears design, cost and schedule risk, how changes and claims are managed, and match the choice to the project's size, complexity and uncertainty; justify with those criteria.