<p>I allways here that structural engineers have to modify the architechts drawings alot, to even make it able to stay up.
Why not just let the structural engineer do the designing from scratch aswell?, I don’t see why we need architechts.</p>
<p>If structural engineers designed all the buildings, then everything would be a concrete box. People don’t want to live or work in buildings like those. Architects take the human factor into consideration, while engineers don’t typically do so.</p>
<p>Structural engineers don’t care about access, space, circulation, comfort, or aesthetics. If structural engineers “designed” everything, it would be built the simplest way possible, and navigated in the least simple way possible.</p>
<p>Not really, larationalist. I’ve seen a sturctural engineer who’s obsessed with the most challenging forms in the world, he just love to spend his time on calculating and creating the structural wonders. To be honest with you guys, he has a better sense of aesthetics than most of architecture folks I have encountered, which doesn’t make any sense to me. Haha.
The best case scenario is to be a man like Calatrava, he can play both roles of architect and structural engineer.</p>
<p>On top of that, every single building will look the same which will take away from the identity of a certain region and culture.</p>
<p>EDIT: About Calatrava, Obviously Calatrava is not a one man show. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had other consultants when it came to the structural engineering aspects of his buildings</p>
<p>Fallinwater, but that’s the exception rather than the rule. I’m sure you can also find some architects out there who have a great sense of physics and knows what can be built more easily and efficiently. </p>
<p>And don’t forget, architects also design the interiors of buildings, which structural engineers don’t even touch.</p>
<p>Even those who want to create structural wonders tend not to care about how steep access ramps are, what material the countertops are made of, whether a room has enough area for the client to be happy with it, and sure as heck don’t want to coordinate the other consultants on the job. Structural engineering is just one (admittedly important) piece of the puzzle.</p>
<p>i think if people want financial stability in the future but would like to stick with architecture</p>
<p>be a structural engineer first and then masters of architecture. I want to do that</p>
<p>if architecture was reduced to simply an engineer’s job, architecture would consist of primarily efficiency, and optimizing structural stability…</p>
<p>i don’t think the issue of whether an architect is needed is an aesthetic reason (a lot of architects in the past have produced concrete boxes btw…)…but architects cater to people’s needs far greater than simply a building’s structural capacity. architect’s are needed because they give into consideration the client’s needs, as well issues in the cultural, political, economical, and environmental realm. effective architecture is one in which deals with all these issues and an architect is needed more than simply an engineer who makes sure that the building stands. </p>
<p>i would disagree with vyan and say that there is quite a lot of financial stability in architecture if you’re decently talented. it’s a competitive field but the field is definitely growing and with most firms globalizing, you’re never short on projects. currently a lot of grads are getting a lot of jobs at my school while all the business majors are getting screwed because of the recession.</p>
<p>I disagree with the idea that structural engineers don’t want to be the coordinator on the project. If given the opportunity, I’m sure many firms will want that responsibility since they can get a higher fee for their services. The reason this doesn’t happen lies with the client and not the engineer. They choose to have the architect coordinate the work because I imagine architects have a better idea of how to bring everything together into one package. </p>
<p>By necessity, they’re on the job for the entire project, from the initial concepts to the final coat of paint, so it just makes more sense to make them responsible for coordination. Even if the structural engineer was put in charge of coordination, their minds would already be on the next project once the building has topped out. The architect has work from the beginning to the end regardless of their role as a coordinator.</p>
<p>PBS has a great series called [Design</a> e2](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/e2/]Design”>http://www.pbs.org/e2/). It delves into architectural issues like energy and sustainability. It will give prospective architects some good insights into challenges in the future.</p>
<p>The series is in its second season. The DVD for the first season may be available from your local library.</p>
<p>Also, look at the architecture themed presentations at [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/architecture-major/483453-thought-provoking-architecutre-themed-presentations-ted.html]TED[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/architecture-major/483453-thought-provoking-architecutre-themed-presentations-ted.html]TED[/url</a>].</p>
<p>Architects are needed by Society. For they are the ones who relate to all and sympathize with most. Architects have to say: yes we do need to make this room functional and people need to be able to sit down, but they also have to understand that it is not the fact that there is a chair in the room which ultimately gives the room its power. They have to know the history of a place, the culture of people, the nature of physics and how a structure must stand; and most importantly, they must know how to take an area and turn it into a space. At one point in time, structural engineering and architecture were basically the same field- and now they are split. Neither one can really exist without the other- if there were no structural engineers, architects would have to fill that role, and buildings would have to question themselves for a second and not be built with huge cantilevers. But if there were no architects, structural engineers would have to stop for a second and say wait- do I really want people to feel crowded in my building- do I really want them to never know how truly wonderful a space can be? Architecture is innately in us and I do not think we can let it dissipate.</p>
<p>There is nothing that says that one person cannot design and engineer a building. Many people have the talent to do both. When Brunelleschi designed the Duomo in Florence he was not only the architect, but also the engineer and builder. He won the competition because he was the only one who could figure out how to make a dome that large stand up. The same was true with the Gothic cathedrals where the lead architect was also the engineer and builder. The modern age has been one of increasing specialization, and we have chosen to separate the tasks. We have even made it illegal through the state registration boards (though the engineers are trying hard to change it in many states).</p>
<p>Do engineers have more job security? I don’t know, but they are definitely lower in the food chain in the building industry. If security is your highest concern, don’t enter the building industry at all. It will always be cyclical. Get a job as a civil servant, perhaps in a post office somewhere. A job for life ;-)</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thing is structural engineers are not limited to working on buildings, which architects are. There are highways, tunnels, bridges, any other public works project, etc. If security is your highest concern, then work for a department of buildings somewhere. They can always use more manpower. If money is your highest concern, then work for a contractor or construction manager. We tend to pay the best, and there are people with architecture backgrounds and people with engineering backgrounds too. On the other hand, it is very very different from working for an A/E.</p>
<p>I suppose if you are a very well-trained structural engineer who’s specialized in the SOM type of skyscrapers, your job security is basically guaranteed. Like my structural engineer friend had said, " Engineering makes thing happen, not architecture!" ( Architects always give him a hard time and vice versa.) I don’t think that was an overstatement.</p>
<p>Ken, we are a pretty good sized architecture practice and a top 20 national contractor, and the architects make just as much as the contractors. I have not seen a significant difference in salary and i think we are pretty comparable to other architecture firms in the area. The contractors start higher, but the architects get responsibility faster, and by the time they get to about 5 years they have leveled out.</p>
<p>This was not always the case, but we have seen architecture salaries go up substantially in the last five years.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>Sorry, I did mean to say starting salaries. I can’t say I know enough about salaries after a few years of experience.</p>
<p>Am I right in guessing that after about 5 years that’s when architects usually get licensed?</p>
<p>Yes, five years is about what it takes for most young architects to get registered. That is also about the point that most are beginning to run projects and take on serious responsibility.</p>
<p>rick</p>