Engineering -Vs- Architecture

breadmonkey · 08-02-2005 12:42AM #1

How do architects design buildings when they don't have the necessary maths and physics to know if they'll stay up or not???(Correct me if I'm wrong on this)

sinjin_smythe · 08-02-2005 12:43AM

Yeah engineers rule
!!

homerhop · 08-02-2005 10:13PM

They dont. They go to a client and say ths is what your building is going to look like with all these lovely features. Then it is up to the engineer to actually design the building to suit the architects idea.
As for engineers rule try dealing with them like I do every day and you will get a completely different oppinion

breadmonkey · 09-02-2005 11:03AM

What do you mean?

CerebralCortex · 09-02-2005 09:13PM

ross*k wrote:

What do you mean?

He probably means they're aholes.

daveirl · 09-02-2005 09:21PM

This post has been deleted.

nl · 13-02-2005 08:54PM

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Good one

Without us engineers(Mechanical) everyone is ####ed.

homerhop · 14-02-2005 10:35PM

nl wrote:

Without us engineers(Mechanical) everyone is ####ed.

Can name quiet a few who wouldnt be able to stick a pencil in a pound of butter, never mind keep a building standing.
A year on site both in the manufacturing and erecting stage should be made
part of the engineering course

21-02-2005 06:04PM

Architects do know quite a bit about how buildings stay up. They learn an incredible amount about materials and about construction during college.

As said, they also work with engineers to get everything sorted too though, but don't make the mistake in thinking they don't understand the principles of what they're designing for.

theCzar · 22-02-2005 05:58PM

of course Architects get some sort of practical training, otherwise it's just some of art and design degree.

(I'd imagine) they need to know lots about mechanical buildings systems, e.g. water/AC/electrical they'ed need to know at least some rough materials science, you can't design a building to be made entirely of glass, 2 miles high 5 foot wide and then hand it to a mech to "finish off the maths"

Besides, as somebody mentioned earlier, i know plenty of mechs that couldn't play with lego without seriously injuring somebody...

breadmonkey · 22-02-2005 08:07PM

I tought this would be civil's department rather than mech; or is it a combination of both?

theCzar · 23-02-2005 12:36PM

ross*k wrote:

I tought this would be civil's department rather than mech; or is it a combination of both?

bah, mech, civil... whatever!

kadman · 25-02-2005 12:28AM

I have worked with architects that couldn,t, even dimension their drawings correctly. You try and design a stair case to fit in some of the stairwells that architects draw, you would be pulling your hair out.

I think architects throw a concept on paper and then hand it of to the rest of the cad techs, engineers, strucad techs, and timberframers, to sort their mistakes out. Some of the architects I have worked with I would n't give them a packet of crayons.

kadman

Borzoi · 25-02-2005 01:24PM

kadman wrote:

I have worked with architects that couldn,t, even dimension their drawings correctly. You try and design a stair case to fit in some of the stairwells that architects draw, you would be pulling your hair out.

Not to mention the clasic
Architect: Here is my 20,000sq ft of office, anf here is your 10sq ft plant room for all the services.
Engineer: What am I, Paul f**king Daniels?

kadman · 25-02-2005 03:09PM

Ah yes but as Obi Whan Kenobi said
" Use the force Luke"

kadman

Dave · 01-03-2005 11:26AM

Anything to do with buildings etc would come under civil engineering, we don't do anything of that type of thing in mechanical.

el tel · 07-03-2005 04:24PM

the old chestnut:
Engineers build weapons, Architects build targets.

Firewalkwithme · 15-03-2005 05:34PM

Architects tend to like radical structural concepts such as SKYHOOKS while engineers tend to actually understand the concept of gravity.

homerhop · 15-03-2005 11:23PM

was given a contract lately where the engineers drawings were not ready, The main contractor told me to work off the architects drawings........I'm still laughing at him!!

NeoSlicerZ · 18-03-2005 05:02PM

That made me burst my hole laughing. gud 'un

Tar.Aldarion · 18-03-2005 05:29PM

its funny that architecture requires much more points.it really is.

breadmonkey · 19-03-2005 11:24AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

its funny that architecture requires much more points.it really is.

Not really. It's a common misconception that the points requirement for a course denotes how good it is. It's merely a reflection of the number of places available vs the demand for said places.

theCzar · 19-03-2005 04:20PM

breadmonkey wrote:

Not really. It's a common misconception that the points requirement for a course denotes how good it is. It's merely a reflection of the number of places available vs the demand for said places.

Sure electronic engineering is about 300 points or something, since demand fell through the floor, there were 4 times as many people in 4th year last year as 2nd year.

if somebody only managed 300 points in their leaving, they'd be screwed if they tried elec eng...

Capt'n Midnight · 20-03-2005 11:33PM

breadmonkey wrote:

How do architects design buildings when they don't have the necessary maths and physics to know if they'll stay up or not???

It's simple, Architects continue to believe in the existance of skyhooks despite every attempt by engineers to convince them they don't exist.

breadmonkey · 21-03-2005 12:20PM

Anyone tell me what a "skyhook" is?

(Is it like trying to hang a building off a frame or something? I saw something like that on discovery once)

Firewalkwithme · 21-03-2005 12:26PM

breadmonkey wrote:

Anyone tell me what a "skyhook" is?

(Is it like trying to hang a building off a frame or something? I saw something like that on discovery once)

You should be an architect :P

A skyhook is when you hang something from nothing i.e. the sky. Architects love them.

theCzar · 21-03-2005 12:49PM

i thought it was like a kite or something

breadmonkey · 21-03-2005 02:11PM

Despatch wrote:

You should be an architect :P

A skyhook is when you hang something from nothing i.e. the sky. Architects love them.

*looks embarrassed*

reduct101 · 09-01-2007 01:06AM

Some words of wisdom on the subject posted on www.designcommunity.com

Posted by Manuel Oliveros on May 15, 2001 at 13:28:15:

In Reply to: ARCHITECTURE vs ENGINEERING posted by Rafael Vieira on May 14, 2001 at 14:27:35:

Respect the subject, well, differentiation is mostly a thing brought about (origin) in industrial revolution, from from the engine word comes the word. So it is mostly as many times a thing of division of the work. Really till the end of the XIX century most bridges quoted in one recension of those worth in Spain is seen the bredges have been undersigned by architects. Even today, I think it is extang and vigent one code of the 1930's that exacts the participation of one architect in the undersigning and safety warranting team when the bridge is in a village, town or city. So others may come it now through the environmental or heritage concerns, but we have had it all along, at least nominally all this time.
In Spain, to all practical purposes, and for maybe for over 90% of the non-industrial work, the structural calculations and many others, and even a (receding) part of the mechanical (HVAC), electricity, plumbing and so on designs are made and warranted by the architect sign under their guild seal. We are trained to calculate (those specialist in construction) and so we are to all effects the structural engineer in more than being the architect. Calatrava is in more than this a civil engineer by the swiss law, and surely has convalidated here properly, since undersigned bridges. Whilst the work is warranted properly, I am not inimical to flexible division of the work loads, but the thing is that flexibility is many times used to establish irresponsible practices. Culturally, the fields are close enough to show some interpenetration, and from the spanish practice, sincerely, I can't accept any design be but exceptionally good if it has been conceived without enough knowledge of the relevant structural and mechanical system issues.

OK... so that's that sorted then

I'm guessing Manuel's an Architect.

godtabh · 09-01-2007 12:26PM

reduct101 wrote:

Some words of wisdom on the subject posted on www.designcommunity.com

OK... so that's that sorted then
I'm guessing Manuel's an Architect.

engineers cant spell either

poobum · 12-01-2007 02:51AM

theCzar wrote:

Sure electronic engineering is about 300 points or something, since demand fell through the floor, there were 4 times as many people in 4th year last year as 2nd year.

if somebody only managed 300 points in their leaving, they'd be screwed if they tried elec eng...

in ucd electronic engineering went up 120 points this year! from 360 to 480!

but sure you could get like 300 points and be perfect for engineering! say if you took irish english and french or something and wer just crap at languages! but was very good at maths physics and applied maths or chemistry or someting! would be very easy to get like 350 points and be perfectly suited for electronic engineering! but it could go the other way! you could be amazing at languages, scrape the maths requirement with luck and only science you done was biology-this person could be horribly unsuited to engineering yet have had like 500 points!

Engineering -Vs- Architecture

Comments