Architecture and Engineering

[cjd97]

Question: I am currently searching for employment as a structural engineer. It seems to me that most positions available are with firms either specializing in Architecture or Structural Engineering with Architects on the staff. Are we seeing a trend at which the two are merging? As an Engineer, I have seen it's tough to make money working with Architects. Is this the solution to the problem? If you can't beat'em, join'em?

Any comments?

 

[Senselessticker]

Without architects (I like to call them “Technical Artists”), many engineers would not have jobs. In the A/E world, there is a reason why the “A” comes before the “E”. I would HATE to see what a building looks like without an architect having a design for a building of x many sq. ft. Without the architect…..who would specify walls, doors, windows, furniture, room sizes, carpet, tile, fire stopping materials, egress paths, etc… not to mention all the bells and whistles on the exterior of the building to make it look “cool”. I-beams, pipe, concrete, and conduit are very boring to look at.

An engineer’s job is often to design and build around an architect’s design. That is unless….we all want to live and work in a world constructed entirely of steel, concrete, and pipe. Sounds a little boring don’t ya think?

There are jobs out there for structural engineers where you do not have to “deal” with architects (probably some kind of finite element analysis, etc…) , but if you want to do design for buildings...your going to meet and do business with lots of architects.

I personally love architects. They are generally more fun to talk to than engineers!

Sense

 

[ergodesk]

Hi cjd97,

With the influx of "New Products" Engineers need to keep the Architects informed as to what the new materials can perform like in the long and short term. A new term that confuses many is STRUCTURAL AIR, FERROFOAM SCIPS etc. How do you wrap your mind around terms like these? I started a Bog with many new companies with pages on the net. They really can open your eyes to whats coming down the pike especially for the up and coming engineer.

 

[atlas06]

senselessticker,

In France, Architects are defined as "someone who is not macho enough to be an Engineer and not faggot enough to be a hairdresser".

Most Architects do not have a clue about engineering, I personnaly try to educate them on what it takes to bring a building together, that other trades such as MEP and maintenance folks interact with the project.
I can't tell you the number of architects that I had to fight to locate Mechanical equipment on the floor and not in the ceiling space. a nightmare of maintenance.
When they design something, it is their vision at all costs, the owner gets hosed.
The number of lousy buildings I've seen is way beyond any other trade's design.

Architects, especially the PM kind, that think they can judge MEP work. They are the back stabber kind, the fee hiding kind, the snicky kind, etc..

Unfortunately, they hold the dough. But all in all, I have come to (for lack of a better word, actually there is a better word but not suitable for printing) be highly suspicious of architects.

 

[cousink]

"As an Engineer, I have seen it's tough to make money working with Architects."

When you say this, I am reminded of how difficult and unreliable architects were when it came to paying the subconsultant, my former employer, who engineered the HVAC, plumbing and power for their buildings. Indeed, architects are responsible for much of the work engineers perform, especially in the fight for the due reward of assisting them.

atlas06's comment was funny, but what I hear from well-educated friends in the world of structural engineering is that many architects know as much, if not more, about the performance of structures than structural engineers. Their comments would apply to high rise and museum quality buildings, of course.

 

[Dinosaur]

If you want a job as a structural engineer and don't want to deal with architects, become a bridge engineer. In buildings, architects are the PMs.

My experience with architects does not reflect well on their professionalism, when "cost effective" is the measure. I could make a building look reasonably well, provide allowance for MEP with due regard to maintenance, and provide the owner with a real value. The architects I have dealt with only care about appearances and will perscribe expensive measures to that end. The result, from my point of view, is a structure that is more expensive than it needs to be, that will cost a fortune to maintain, but will be something he will proudly announce to his friends when he drives by indicating the building projects he was a part of.

Regarding the comment to cover up out concrete and steel, I don't know of an engineer that would not wish to have walls and fascia over his structure. I don't know of an engineer that would want his structure to be uncomfortable to live in or expensive to maintain. I do know architects that won't compromise a penny on their vision. But it isn't their money, so why not.

 

[rbulsara]

What a sorry mindset!. No professional is nor should be at mercy of others. This attitude only reflects lack of confidence in your own abilities.

Days of architects dominance are long gone. Today's buildings are much more technical and need serious engineering inputs from engineers. There more than adquate independent engineering firms that do only Engineering and they may work with Architects, they are not at mercy of the architects.

Just try to excell in whatever you do, there are enough buyers of quality. I have changed jobs, just because I did not want to deal with Architects as prime professionals.

There are good and bad kind of every trade, just find the good ones and try to become one.

 

[cjd97]

My intent was not to question the importance of one profession to the next. I understand that Engineers needs Architects and vise versa. I am used to working with Architects who hire us to provide them with whatever Engineering they need. I just thought it was strange that I have been noticing many structural jobs are being offered by the Architects themselves. Maybe it's easier that way, no arguing over fees. I'm just having problems seeing myself actually working for an Architect. I think I would feel like a sellout.

 

[rbulsara]

I presume you are in the USA. I am not sure how much experience you have in consulting business. Any professional can bid/offer any services as a prime professional as long as he/she has arrangement with other trades as subconsultants or in-house staff.

In general, in the USA you will do well working for an indepedent Engineering firm than for an A/E firm. If you are relatively new, don't worry too much about this now and just get some experience so you can start dictating your own terms when the time is right.

 

[EddyC]

You must also bear in mind that many states legally require architects to be the lead design professional on most building projects. I've met architects who are very practical and a joy to learn from and interact with. I also met others that are absolutely weird & useless. And then there are the ones (the so-called leaders of modern architecture) who have a twisted idea that buildings should be works of art rather than functional entities.

 

[Senselessticker]

I suppose I've been spoiled by the architects I've worked with the past few years. They always include the engineers to determine the general layout of the building (locations and size of electrical/com rooms, mechanical rooms, etc...) I suppose its important to note that although we are an A/E firm, the A's only made up about 10% of the technical staff, the rest were engineers/designers, etc..

However, the PM's for new building design were ALWAYS architects. And I think that is the way it should be. 20 years later when the building undergoes renovation the PM will likely be an engineer.

I'm still not sure I understand why so many engineers have a problem with architects. We need them as much as much as they need us. Its no different than the way different engineers rely on each other in order to have a functional facility.

 

[rbulsara]

The problem architects are those who have not kept up with time and technology, and they are just too many of them. As I said not all are like that, but many are.

I do not have problem with all architects, only those who have no regard for other professionals.

 

[atlas06]

The other day, we did a feasibility study, in which we recommended an "All air system" using VAV with AHU's at each floor and get rid of the old Ceiling mounted Fan coil units.
Mr. architect PM went to the client and presented the opposite, saying that we recommend the fan coil units with air-cooled chiller, because he could not come up with 2 mechanical rooms to house the AHU's, too much work for him.

Mr Architect then came back to the engineers and said that the client wants the FCU's.

He is the only point of contact, so no one can argue you with him.

Architects are Criminals.

 

[0707]

I agree with Senselessticker

“Without architects (I like to call them “Technical Artists”), many engineers would not have jobs.”

When both collaborates we have things like this

 

[cousink]

Then let the engineers be promptly paid for their contribution to the world of art...

 

[HgTX]

From a public safety standpoint, it is incomprehensible to me that an architect would rank higher than an engineer.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[atlas06]

cousink,
Try Calder, a Mechanical engineer. And since you are a Civil Engineer, try

http://www.viaducdemillau.com

and you wil see what engineers can do. By the way, in Europe, they call bridges "ouvrages d'art" (works of art).

0707
try this instead, a spanish structural engineer/architect.

http://www.calatrava.info/buildings/Turning_Torso.asp

What you show there is nothing but a windowless structure. Always thought that your famous architect ought to include some daylight. Then again, designing with windows is a little difficult and not good for critics.

5-years olds with play dough can come up with windowless structures in my opinion, your architect needs to try some real buildings. He is only famous for museums that do not need windows (Bilbao and LA).

All over the world, architects must be top of the class to get to architectural school, in the US, only those that cannot make it into engineering schools go for architecture.

 

[Senselessticker]

Geesh...folks. Do people feel the same way about accountants, HR, payrole, admin folks, etc...? It's true that I believe engineers to be more tehcnically minded and in some regards "smarter" than architects.

However I feel its the attitude of "everyone else is stupid" that inhibits the engineering profession as a whole from being worth more $$$. I suggest some folks drop the chip off the shoulder... Such an attitude reminds me of the electrician who carries a grudge against electrical engineers because he thinks he "knows" more than the engineer. The truth is...it is an entirely different profession, but he fails to realize it. I'm seeing some of the same attitude towards architects. And its certainly the reason why there are so many Architect PM's.

Please stop giving engineers a bad name. It's costing me $$$ because of social perception.

 

[cjd97]

I apologize for asking the question. My intent was not to start a rant, but apparently many of these people have ill feelings toward architects. I was just commenting on the fact that many structural jobs available now are with firms who are more Arch than Eng. I was wondering if that was the current trend.

Life is good people. Calm down

 

[HgTX]

"in the US, only those that cannot make it into engineering schools go for architecture."

Nah, that's architectural engineering. (Actually I'm surrounded by people with AE degrees who would kill me for saying that.)

I don't know any architects who tried and failed at engineering. I do know several civil/structural engineers who are thwarted architects.

But...I went to a university that had one of the top-ranked architecture programs in the U.S. Very tough five-ear program, but it was all about aesthetic design. All that "other" stuff (like how to make sure all the real-life stuff that makes the building function will fit in, and how to make the building stand up) is mostly handled through on-the-job training. I just went and looked at their curriculum, and they have a whopping four structural courses required.

I figured with that, the architect comes up with the artistic vision and the engineer figures out what goes inside to make the thing stand up. I was shocked to find out that there are projects on which the engineer is optional.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376