Engineering -Vs- Architecture

So correct me if I am wrong here. I have no interest in having a house designed. I just want one which can be built and stay upright. Would I not be better to get an engineer to design it?

What about drawimg up plans and location maps. Is that not an architects job?

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.

Is that supposed to be English? =P

There are many ways that a building is brought to fruition;

One way would be that the client (the person wanting to have the building built) would hire a management consultant.

The management consultant could be of many types. For example he could be a specialist and have in house engineers/architects or be a construction specialist. Lets just assume that he's purely management - the management contractor is directly responsible to the client.

The management contractor then hires an architect - architects will design the building from a social aspect. Taking into account the visual appeal of the building, the overall scheme, i.e. where the entrances/exits are, how the area is split up into different uses e.g. stairwells, offices, kitchens, all the various types of use required. The architect is usually a jack of all trades, but master of none. He has knowledge of fire requirements, construction practices, and the capabilities of building materials, i.e. he knows that he can get a beam to span 10 metres, he's just not sure exactly what beam would be needed.

The architect then passes this plan back to the management company. The management company then hires various engineers. Strutural engineers to design the structural elements, columns, beams, floor slabs etc. Building services engineers for the electrical/heating utilities, fire specialist engineers are a growing niche aswell. Mechanical engineers would generally have very little to do with the design of a building unless it had some form of moving mechanism, perhaps a swinging bridge.

All these engineers receive the architects drawings and then do what they have to do, passing their information back through the management company, who co-ordinates everything ensuring that everyones elements will work together. I.E. The building services engineers may need to run a ventialtion duct right through where there is a beam, so there will have to be a compromise made such as a web opening in the beam which has to be designed by the structural engineer.

Once the building is designed, the management company will then hire a contruction contractor who will handle all the construction. The construction contractor will also usually hire loads of contractors itself, such as steel contractors, roofing contractors, foundation specialists, electricians, all the usual stuff. Construction contractors also employ engineers of their own who work on-site ensuring that the building is being constructed as specified in the design and to address any changes which may have to be made in consultation with the engineers involved in the design.

As you can see - bringing a building into the world requires the teamwork of many people and is a collaborative effort. Yes the public generally see the architect as the person who has overall responsibility but this is almost never the case except for the situtations where the architect is acting and the managment consultant.

Architects generally recieve kudos for creating socially innovaive buildings, getting maximum effect from natural light and efficiency of space and hippy rubbish like that. Engineers usually receive their jollies from innovative construction techinques which save time/money but are of less interest to the general public...

For example, how excited would you get about a 200mm composite slab spanning 15 metres? Mmm I thought so...

I prefer to just know that without engineers everything else would fall to ****. .

Don't get me started!!!!

well since I got to deal with both Arch and Engin, allot of them should be brought to site and used to fill a hole somewhere.

Latest prime examples
Arch....ran down pipes down the web of a col despite the fact floor steel was in there.
soffit sheet with 19mm corrugations had to be replaced because...wait for it "Birds might nest in the corrugations"

As for engineers...this is what I got to deal with on a daily basis....basic 1st year stuff in metalwork or mechanical drawing....how to measure something!!!

Eng...support PFC 260 deep had to have 100mm bearing, 50mm to start of wall for fixing and 100mm into hole centres for fixing. which gives you a grand total of 250mm from the edge of the PFC to the hole centres for fixing.

agreed,

I think at the end of the day one thing we have in common is that we can all bitch about the clients.

seriously do we have to bicker and quarrel, can't we all get together for a group hug!!!

homerhop wrote:

Don't get me started!!!!


Eng...support PFC 260 deep had to have 100mm bearing, 50mm to start of wall for fixing and 100mm into hole centres for fixing. which gives you a grand total of 250mm from the edge of the PFC to the hole centres for fixing.

Not sure I follow the PFC story... is it hanging off the wall??

Out of a matter of interest what do you do?

Anyway back on topic, the architects I've worked with have ranged from anal, dimensioning everything down to the last 0.5 mm (I mean a 203UC may be 205mm but who cares, the guy on site has more than likely set the damn holding down bolts 20mm off anyway) to the utterly incompetent and not dimensioning anything at all.

A good architect will predict the structural requirements at an early stage - not an easy thing to do mind you.

A good structural engineer will predict the inevitable changes the Architect will come back with after the design is complete - and allow a bit extra in the initial design so it can cope

Usuelly by the time the engineers are on board the basic layout is settled and agreed, which more often than not was based on the use of many skyhooks. Someone needs to tell them that there's no such thing