Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Architects and Human Occupancy

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

-----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.