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
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-22-2024 08:04 AM
From: Chad Morrison
Subject: How does engineering best complement architecture?
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
------------------------------