In this episode, David and Eric focus on the ARE PDD (Project Development & Documentation) exam, framing it as the construction documents phase in contrast to PPD’s schematic design and PA’s programming. They emphasize that PDD is less about memorizing content and more about using judgment, coordination, and decision-making at a detailed scale, and while it’s often seen as the most technically demanding division, they argue it’s best understood as an exam about “details and decision making.”

Listen to the Audio

Show Notes

Key Concept: Scale & Phase Differences

PA: Programming phase – big-picture, site plan / 1⁄16″ scale.
PPD: Project planning & design – floor plan scale (1⁄8″, 1⁄4″), schematic design.
PDD: Project development & documentation – detail scale (1⁄2″, 1″, 3″), full detail level.
Same topics (structure, ADA, waterproofing, cost, etc.) appear across PA/PPD/PDD, but:
- The phase and scale determine the right decision, not the topic itself.

Tip 1: PDD Is a Coordination Exam Before a Detailing Exam

Architects act as coordinators (“master conductors”) among disciplines:
- Making sure sprinklers, beams, and ducts don’t clash, and that it all looks good.
On PDD, the emphasis is:
- Integration of building materials & systems (~1/3 of exam).
- Construction documentation (~1/3 of exam).
These domains show that PDD is fundamentally about coordination, not just isolated details.
Context is critical:
- Example: vapor barrier placement can’t be memorized as “always on the warm side” – climate, building type, and other conditions change the correct answer.
- The test is a judgment test, not a pure memorization or math test.

Tip 2: Know What Level of Detail Is Appropriate

Distinguish what is under the architect’s responsible control vs. contractor’s:
- Architects do not dictate means and methods.
- Architects review shop drawings only for design/esthetic intent, not for buildability.
- Shop drawings and submittals:
  - Shop drawings = detailed drawings (e.g., custom cabinets) by subs.
  - Submittals = cut sheets, product data, samples, mockups, etc., provided by contractor.
  - Architect reviews/approves for design intent, but doesn’t create them.
Avoid over‑detailing or chasing hyper‑specific local practices:
- The exam assumes a general North American standard of care, not one office’s or one region’s quirks.
Use rules of thumb, but always understand the why:
- Foundations below frost line → top of footing must be at or below frost depth (to avoid freeze–thaw heave).
- Expansive clay → generally go deeper or adjust foundation type.
- Understanding the reason behind rules allows you to adapt in different scenarios.

Tip 3: Systems Questions Are About Selection & Sizing, Not Heavy Calculations

Modern ARE format:
- No calculus or full engineering design.
- Possible light calculations: CFM, board feet, simple area comparisons, etc.
Focus on:
1. Selecting appropriate systems for building type and use.
  - Example: Big-volume church used weekly → CAV system is reasonable.
  - Elementary school with many small zones → CAV would be inefficient.
2. Relative sizing, not exact engineering numbers.
  - Example: Duct sizing based on approximate areas:
    - If 12″×12″ (144 in²) doesn’t fit, 10″×15″ (150 in²) is “good enough.”
- Use common sense and elimination, not perfectionism.
Strategy:
- Know a handful of basic formulas as backup.
- Understand how to apply them and what the quantities represent.
- Adopt a “reasonable and works in practice” mindset rather than “exact to three decimals.”

Tip 4: Construction Documents Communicate, They Don’t Explain

CDs are meant to:
- Be bid, permitted, and built from.
- Communicate design intent, not act as step‑by‑step instructions.
Good CDs:
- Use coordinated plans, sections, details, schedules, and keys to convey information clearly and consistently.
- Avoid long explanatory paragraphs; if a detail needs a paragraph to explain it, it’s probably a bad or overly complex detail.
Varying levels of completeness:
- Permit sets: Only enough for code review and approval; minimal extras.
- Bid sets: More detail on scope and quantities so contractors can price.
- Construction sets: May go further for clarity, but still aren’t “assembly manuals.”
CD standard: Clarity over cleverness; communicate efficiently and consistently.

Tip 5: Codes and Costs Are Filters at the Detail Level

Architects are not cost estimators:
- Costs fluctuate daily; the exam expects conceptual understanding, not dollar-accurate pricing.
- Example: Galvanized < Stainless < Copper in relative cost; exact numbers not needed.
Code and ADA at the detail level:
- Aim for detailed‑level compliance (meeting intent within real‑world tolerances).
- Buildings are not built to 1/32″; materials move, contractors shim and adjust.
In AIA B101:
- Architect provides an “estimate of the Cost of the Work” at the end of each phase (SD, DD, etc.), often by:
  - SF costs, historical data, similar projects.
- This is not a guaranteed construction cost.
Core idea:
- If a detail violates code or blows the budget, it’s wrong, no matter how elegant.
- On exams, think: “Does this choice reasonably satisfy code intent and cost constraints at the detail level?”

How PDD Mindset Differs from PPD

PPD:
- Schematic design, larger scale.
- Broader systems and layout questions.
PDD:
- Project architect mindset, reviewing and redlining a CD set.
- Calm, methodical, systems-aware coordination across drawings and disciplines.
- Emphasis on:
  - Coordination over isolated details.
  - Judgment over perfection.
  - Using the clues in the question (climate, use, code, cost) to choose the most reasonable option.
You will not know everything on test day:
- That’s expected.
- Success comes from handling uncertainty well, using rules of thumb, understanding the “why,” and demonstrating standard of care.

Please Subscribe

Receive automatic updates when you subscribe below!

Please rate us on iTunes!

If you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a review. It would really help us spread the word about the ARE Podcast. Thanks!