Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Architects and Human Occupancy[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org'" <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: Architects and Human Occupancy
- From: "Dennis S. Wish PE" <wish(--nospam--at)cyberg8t.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:40:50 -0700
-----Original Message----- From: dennismc [SMTP:dennismc(--nospam--at)dennismc.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 6:21 AM To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: Re: Architects and Human Occupancy "The architect is in charge of the overall project and deal with aestetics and function. Once they have determined what they want, they give it to the engineers who figure out how to make it work. The architect then comes in, puts on the door knobs and paint then gets all the money and glory." This is a very good explanation and one which I used yesterday. I have been involved in volunteering my engineering skills in the design of low income homes which are built by High School Students. Yes, this is correct. The program is called the Building Horizons program and it started about two years ago. This is my first time involved and I love it. Yesterday, I was guest lecture at two high schools. The instructors are High School and College Teachers who are either Architects or Contractors. As I entered, I was introduced a the "Structural Engineer". Before starting my lecture, I had to give a side lecture to the students (many of whom are ESL or English Second Language students) to clear up this matter about Structural Engineers. Following that, I explained how engineers are architects (or building designers) work together. I believe that the Architects are trying to narrow the definition not to eliminate the engineer from designing the structural elements of a building, but from designing the aesthetics, space and function features. Designing a building to an engineer may mean structure, but to an architect it means the physical appearance and coordination of space within. After reading the many posts by the architectural groups and the responses by the engineering organization, it appears that the problem is the same one we have been discussing for the last week. One of semantics: How does the term "Design" allow architects and engineers to overlap responsibilities? Our "heated" debates have led to understanding that there is a discontinuity within our own profession as well as between architects and engineers. In some ways it is a squabble between siblings that seems petty, but there is a far greater problem when dealing with the public's perception and understanding of titles. There is also fear on both sides that each will loose business to the other who crosses this undefined border. Ernie Navidad suggested we start a committee to address this problems and I agree with him. In one sense, we have already started a committee based upon all of the posts issued from this list. I would like to hear from others interested in helping. I will be happy to write it up for presentation SEAOSC. I don't feel that this issue will be resolved anytime soon, but will generate a lot of controversy. It will be necessary to address the issues on both sides so that we can create a fair measure that addresses the important issues related to the public. We already have enough ideas and suggestions that can be formulated into a reasonable proposal that maybe even Dennis McCroskey will approve of (just kidding Dennis). You can email me directly if you wish.
- Prev by Subject: Architects and Human Occupancy
- Next by Subject: Re: Architects and Human Occupancy
- Previous by thread: Architects and Human Occupancy
- Next by thread: Re: Architects and Human Occupancy