Integrated Buildings & Structures

The Man Who Saved the Skyscraper (mentalfloss.com) 

"One day, Khan was sitting in the Hancock's open-air plaza when two women began admiring the building. As his daughter writes, Khan couldn't help but eavesdrop. " 'The diagonals,' one woman explained, 'were placed on the facade with artistic intent by the architect.' " Khan was flattered: His design was so elegant, it could only be explained as an artistic addition."

A great excerpt from the today's Mental Floss article!  We often see architects and engineers at odds over aesthetics vs. safety.  Why do the two concepts need to be mutually exclusive?  Do you have any examples to share where the design intent aligned perfectly with the performance requirements?  How is this best achieved in an age where the disciplines are so specialized?

------------------------------
Chad Morrison P.E., F.ASCE
Professional Engineer
Greenville RI
------------------------------

Chad, great thoughts. There is a whole study of "structural art", creating aesthetics within the disciplines of efficiency and economy. A great place to start is David Billington's "The Tower and the Bridge: The New Art of Structural Engineering". You will find many examples there. The Eiffel Tower is a great one, with the parabolic splaying legs designed to carry wind load efficiently. Bridges from Telford, Eiffel, Robert Maillart, Othmar Ammann, shells of Heinz Isler, Nervi, and Candela, up to the towers of Bill Baker are all great examples. Khan is discussed in detail.

Billington argues, successfully I think, that aesthetics can be combined with safety, that structural requirements can inform (though not dictate) form. The conflict arises from the separation of architects from engineers. In the US, most architects do not get enough training in structural principles, and there is the sense in some programs that this is not important. Most engineers do not get enough training in aesthetics. Interestingly, in Spain, architects get more structural training, and a number of structural artists come from that tradition. But the key is to get both sides some basic training and appreciation of what the other is trying to accomplish.

Craig Foster

University of Illinois Chicago

------------------------------
Craig Foster A.M.ASCE
PROFESSOR
Chicago IL
------------------------------

This has always been a challenge,  The question is what is aesthetically pleasing. Engineering students do not often get taught what looks beautiful and how to achieve it.  Also the economics of consulting discourages the extra time needed to properly detail the work.  Some of the most beautiful structures are bridges, however for the project managers the cost is seen as the over riding consideration and a good looking bridge is seen as extravagant.  I once designed a bridge that was good looking that was publicly criticized as having to be outrageously expensive and inappropriate, the truth of the matter was the bridge came in 20 % underbudget.  We never did any more work for that municipality because the administration did not want to defend projects coming that much under budget and looking aesthetical pleasing.  Who knows.   

------------------------------
David Thompson P.E., M.ASCE
Principal
KTA Structural Engineers Ltd.
Calgary AB
------------------------------

There's a saying in Architecture "Form follows function" IT may be the three F's . For every element there must have been a function, then ornamentation can be avoided sure and certain for the hospital. We want beauty of our home then it's the function of ornamentation. Cantilevers can be avoided since it's expensive and it may develop fear in the minds of common people. 

Alex Thomas BSc AMIE civ FIE MASCE CEng REng 

000011940940

------------------------------
Alex Thomas R.Eng, C.Eng, M.ASCE
Senior Site Engineer
Geo Structurals Pvt Ltd
CochinAlexThomasR.Eng, C.Eng, M.ASCEIndia
------------------------------

Thanks for the post Chad, and to each who responded.

Re: "We often see architects and engineers at odds over aesthetics vs. safety.  "

Perhaps I missed it but where are the reflections about the above posted comment.

Now to be clear, my recent research into safety in our professions addresses "Construction Site Safety."

And for design safety I refer to the ASCE Manual 73, 3rd ed.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-29-2024 02:11 AM
From: Alex Thomas
Subject: How does engineering best complement architecture?

There's a saying in Architecture "Form follows function" IT may be the three F's . For every element there must have been a function, then ornamentation can be avoided sure and certain for the hospital. We want beauty of our home then it's the function of ornamentation. Cantilevers can be avoided since it's expensive and it may develop fear in the minds of common people. 

Alex Thomas BSc AMIE civ FIE MASCE CEng REng 

000011940940

------------------------------
Alex Thomas R.Eng, C.Eng, M.ASCE
Senior Site Engineer
Geo Structurals Pvt Ltd
CochinAlexThomasR.Eng, C.Eng, M.ASCEIndia
------------------------------

Hmmm. where to start?

How about this: There is an engineering program available at a number of ABET colleges in the US known as Architectural Engineering. The core program teaches the basics of engineering (as you would expect) but also basics of architecture from an aesthetics perspective. the program is geared toward building systems so the core engineering classes are focused on that. electrical systems, mechanical systems, plunmbing systems and structural systems. Now, have taken 3 years of architectural drafting in HS, back when we used boards, and getting an AE degree and spending the last 20 or so years after college doing primarily structural design, the major problems I see are: Architects can take aesthetics to an extreme, often times their pretty pictures is fully developed including room placement and egress requirements and other under the realm of architect stuff, and cost.

An example of extreme aesthetics is an architect considering the aesthetics of the underside of an entry canopy to an economy grocery store. aesthetics was his over riding explanation for why he wanted a system that was twice as expensive as it needed to be. as a percentage of the overall building cost, its probably negligible. that is not the point here. the point is: he never considered that aside from architects and the occasional engineer, nobody looks UP at the bottom of a canopy when they're walking into the grocery store.

the last 2 points tend to go together. an architect can create an impressive building facade. Most structural engineering CAN get it to work. However, they don't typically budget in the extra incurred costs of those design details and often time the added cost of making (design, materials, and INSTALLATION) one-off support systems can be significant.

Yes, the world of building design is cut throat. Its sad because that cost, or some might argue the greed driving the cost, makes us end up with a bunch of redundant and boring looking buildings.

oh! proof reading my post i would also add a 4th reason for the disconnect. to the point of the original post, most structural engineers come from a civil background and so have zero exposure to architecture or other building systems for that matter.

------------------------------
Nathan Smith P.E., M.ASCE
Engineer
Greensboro NC
------------------------------

Architecture means that shape and geometry and sizing of space for living aesthetic come second according the definition known to me. It may be a different opinion. 

Alex Thomas PEng FIE MASCE 

Professional Engineer India 

------------------------------
Alex Thomas R.Eng, C.Eng, M.ASCE
Senior Site Engineer
Geo Structurals Pvt Ltd
CochinAlexThomasR.Eng, C.Eng, M.ASCEIndia
------------------------------