Structurals Vs. Architects

[pavlik]

Dear forum,

Could a structural engineer hwith enough creativity and drawing skills, also act as an architect?
If that is so, then why are architects still being hired and paid if their role is typically nothing more than spacial arrangement, material selection and budget compliance?

Forgive me if I offended any architects visiting this forum-I would especially appreciate their point of view.

Thank you

 

[JAE]

Each is specialized in their own "field" in that engineers use their technical knowledge to develop designs of materials to provide the spaces and aesthetic concept that the architect devises.

There is certainly some cross-over in that an architect could typically design a small building with minimal structural/civil input and perhaps use electricians and mech subs to do the rest. Some states have limits in terms of square feet where a seal is not required of either eng or arch.

Some states allow some minimal cross-over where an engineer could do all or and architect could do all. There obviously has been some squabbling between the two disciplines in recent years over this and probably there will always be to some extent.

But the key is: each engineer or architect should be professional enough to recognize when their knowledge is inadequate for a particular project. Without ethics both engineering and architecture will self-destruct in our communities.

 

[Binary]

Related to this is "What is the role of Architectural Engineers?"

My university had an Architectural Engineering major, along with Architecture and Strutural Engineering. I always wondered what was the relationship between the three.

 

[JAE]

Architectural Engineering is simply Mechanical, Electrical or Structural Engineering without the broad-based course of study in things not related to buildings.

For example, in Structural Engineering the first degree in the U.S. is typically Civil Engineering and that course of study includes hydrology, transportation, wastewater treatment, and water treatment.

Typical Arch E programs allow the student to take a couple of years of general engineering (and some basic Architecture classes). Then, they are asked to specialize in either Elect, Mech, or Struct. for the final 3 years (typically a 5 year program).

 

[FSS]

In many states the regulations are written so that a professional engineer can perform architectural services when it is "incidental" to the engineering. The architects also have similar provision in their rules.

 

[PLB]

In my experience the difference between an Architect and an Engineer is usually quite significant. As far as job duties go, the engineer will be responsible for calculating all the necessary loads, requirements, etc. for their particular discipline while the Architect will be responsible for creating the general "feel", "asthetics", and process flow of the building. Also, the Architect is responsible for the overall management (yes, I know the engineers are cringing) of the project including design budget. I have also seen WAY too many cases where the Architect is responsible for maintaining the budget AND is the reason why the budget gets overrun ALL IN ONE. I think the other folks who have responded are also correct here. Creative Architects and Engineers may be able to cross crafts if owners, building inspectors, and codes allow. Some projects require the AIA certification.

On a second note, I have also seen the difference in Engineers and Architects in the way that they design. An Architect tends to thinks in a circular direction (picture a screw thread) where their design revolves and evolves in an ever decreasing spiral until they narrow it down to the final design. An Engineer is more finite. They calculate a load, crunch some numbers, and viola, there is your answer. An Engineer thinks in a straight line. Point A to Point B. I also joking making the statement (sorry for any offense in advance) that the Engineer can prove their design while the Architect can't. You can prove how much load a beam can carry mathmatically while you can't prove that a room painted green is better than a room painted blue.

Just my thoughts,
Paul

 

[Theophilus]

Paul,

That's a very eloquent way of putting things between engineers and architects in your second paragraph.

As an industrial designer, I have to switch which side of the brain I'm using when going from industrial design mode (subjective) to engineering mode (objective). Engineering mode comes more natural to me, since it's rational. Subjective design of curvy stuff, however, is a lot of fun--but requires restraint in merely thinking from Point A to Point B--to considering ridiculous ideas that look great. There's still a science to subjective success.

Let's face it--if engineers designed bodies for cars, they wouldn't have much appeal to Homer Simpson. Sure, they would be aerodynamically efficient, effective designs that likely wouldn't rust. They might even be painted red (pushing it). But they would never be found on a Ferrari.




Jeff Mowry
Industrial Designhaus, LLC

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

 

[plasgears]

Reminds me of the controversy between engineers and architects during an earlier time. Architects considered engineers less than professional, and they failed to give them credit for design responsibility. The Empire State Bldg did not show any engineers on the dedication plaque.

Bridge engineers have been proud to produce designs with architectural appeal flowing from functional purity without using architectural embellishments.

 

[PSE]

Theophilus,

Personally, I like the result of aerodynamically efficient body designs.

http://www3.us.porsche.com/english/usa/carreragt/default.htm

It sure beats the "designer" done

http://www.pontiac.com/aztek/index.jsp?source=old

I think that given the opportunity, engineers will tend to produce an aesthetically pleasing design if only to put their own personal touch to it.

Regards,

 

[pavlik]

PLB,
Thank you and all others for your points of view. I especially appreciate the fact that it's come from a Structural Eng.

I do agree with the notion of objective vs. subjective thought process. However, I think that you could teach someone to solve equations, but it's hard to teach anyone to be originally creative- it's either you got it or you don't.

I see a lot of architecture that is either unoriginal, fake or completely impractical. I know I could do better than most practicing architects today. Hell, some of the best architects today are not even architects by training (Rem Koolhas, Santiago Calatrava, Rick Joy).

I am looking for ways to be able to design and build without being an AIA. If anyone has that experience, or knows people with that experience- I'd love to hear your stories.

Thank you
Dmitriy Morozov, EIT

http://www.altieriseborwieber.com

 

[PLB]

pavlik,

I think that you are absolutely right! A person either has the creativity mindset or they don't. There does seem to be a lot of "reworking" of previous designs. The fashion industry proves this everyday.

I believe that the best Architect/Engineer rolled into one would be the person who can think creatively without being anchored by the boundaries of engineering calculations while creating a product that can still meet the requirements of reality in order to be built and last a lifetime. I have heard people give acclaim to Frank Lloyd Wright for his design of a home that was actually built around a waterfall. This would seem to be an incredible home to live in while the simple facts of the matter (excess moisture) are now forcing this Architectural Masterpiece to require a rebuild because of the rotting timbers. To me, this raises the question: Is this a truly wonderful design, OR did he let his creative side run too freely away from the engineering reality of moisture control and decay? You could easily debate both sides.

If you can mix the 2 trains of thought into one, I think that you will be able to pick any projects that you want to work on without the fear of ever running out of work.

Good Luck,
Paul

 

[GregLocock]

PSE, it is obviously impossible to tell for sure, but I would guess the Cd of the Aztec is lower than that of the Porsche.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[TFL]

cd?

 

[GregLocock]

Cd = drag coefficient, in automotive use the non-dimensional ratio of the drag of the car to the drag of a disc with same frontal area.

Drag=1/2*density of air*Cd*area*velocity^2

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

Greg,

Would you feel comfortable going 200+ MPH in an AZTEK? Yes there are obviously different design goals between the two machines in terms of optimizing aerodynamic performance yet the engineers at Porche still in my opinion came up with a greatly pleasing esthetic design compared to the ID designed Pontiac. Creativity and sense of style is not limited to non-engineers.

Regards,

 

[GregLocock]

No, you implied that the Porsche was more aerodynamic as well as more stylish than the Aztek. I was merely pointing out that by what most automotive engineers would consider as 'aerodynamically efficient', the Cd, the Aztec was probably a superior design.

And I have a horrible feeling that you don't know how cars are styled. Seriously. I remember when a well known sports car manufacturer put a big wing on the back of the car for styling reasons. It took two weeks of high speed development work to minimise the damage it caused to the car's lift and drag characteristics.


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

Greg,

To continue in this vein would seriously deviate this thread from it's original course. I will state that automobiles are a hobby for me in that I have restored and/or raced them over the years. I therefore tend to look at things from a different perspective than the "daily driver". Cd is but one factor in the overall package to me unless the vehicle relies on mechanical grip alone.

We all have a unique sense of what appeals to us. An architect might have a greater appreciation of the emotional response to a design while the engineer would have a greater appreciation for its limits.

Regards,