i worked with some consultants once from ftl. they are probably the only structural engineers in the universe who really care about design. most of them are dual degrees, or else industrial designers.

www.ftl.com

duh

duh

I'm actually thinking of doing my Masters in Environmental Engineering. Does anyone out there think that could be useful if combined with architecture?...

actually, all i think about when i see this thread topic is, "mmmmmm, tasty tasty engineering... may i have some more please?"

y is X>X I thought X=X

i made the jump, but i jumped the other way round. it's an inverse polarity in terms of work culture and education. whatever architects hate, engineers like, simply put.

arup engineering will be fun to work for.

http://www.arup.com/

fakeid is full o crap... engineers do not like what architects hate and vice versa...

this is just another comment that makes me think that there is a real lack of structural and building technology classes in architecture schools these days

unfortunately, at some point during the design process some responsible individual has to make the funky crap that architects design with reckless abandonment stand up...and this is the engineer.

however, if architects knew anything about structures and building then there wouldnt be a conflict of interest in design, like fakeid suggests, but a merging of two disciplines to create an elegant structural solution to a similiarly elegant architectural design...

the fact of the matter is that architects think that they can just show up with some fucked up, crumpled paper, bullshit design, and pass it off to the engineer and not have their "design" compromised in any way...

sure...

regarding the difference between engineering and architecture-- my experience has been that engineers tend to be more detail/mechanically orientated and architects more creatively inclined. There is of course overlap, as it takes technical talent in most cases to effectively communicate creative work, and the pure act of a mechanical movement requires creativity if optimising for efficiency and such, which is what engineers do. But there is a "general" difference i think--- Computer engineers, for example, are having a difficult time as everyone knows due to outsourcing, but it is not design work that is being outsourced, it is coding, the architecture equivalent of CDs, which is what programmers and engineers typically like. Based on the discussions I've read regarding CDs, I doubt most architects would miss having to do that work if it were to go away. Anyway, just my 2cents for whatever it's worth...

I studied structural engineering for 2 years, and now I'm planning on getting a degree in arch. Engineering lacks a lot of fun drawing and planning that you get to do when you study design in arch. But then again, arch lacks knowleage of tech, material properties, and ways to make a structure stand up and hold up.

full of crap? you're aware of the perennial tension btw architects and engineers too and just reiterated the idea i attempted to convey in five words. and you just described the general perception engineers have on architects "architects think that they can just show up with some fucked up, crumpled paper, bullshit design, and pass it off to the engineer and not have their "design" compromised in any way..."

These guys (no pun....) are cool.

Guy Nordenson Associates

rak1os, you sound like an impressionable intern in a firm full of bitter old engineers.

.....well on your way to perpetuating outdated construction stereotypes.

i agree with rak1os...If archtiects were a bit more responsible and aware of building systems in their design process, then there would be no tension between disciplines.

How about "If engineers were a bit more responsible and aware of the programmatic requirements of the project in their design process then there would be no tension between disciplines."

In 20 years of experience in this field I have never once heard an architect say to a structural engineer “Here's the design, make it stand up.” Every firm I have been in saw the engineers as team members, working together toward a common goal of a functional building that meets the client's needs. Many of the buildings I have worked on had exposed structure as part of the aesthetic of the interior and you damn well better believe the structural engineer was responsible for successful aesthetics as much as the architect was.

This attitude that the architect is some kind of artiste with no regard for function is so outdated and serves only to compartmentalize the field and make working together that much harder. Please stop with the nasty overgeneralizations and if you think the relationship between architects and engineers needs to be improved then make some rational suggestions how to do so.

here is how to improve the relationship: make all archtiecture education programs 9 years in duration, 4 of civil/structural training and 5 of architectural design.
It is my thought that we should revert to the pre-modern notion of a master builder, where there is no seperation between disciplines..

...and about the programatic requirements of a building, more times than not, architects do act as some sort of artiste and start to compormise their OWN programatic requirements for some superflous formal or aesthetic gestures that are extremely difficlut to engineer, if possible at all...

what i am saying is that both programatic, structural and even formal requirements can be met and exceeded, if both disciplines take the time to learn a bit more about each other...

it is about time that architects start to realize and understand that there are very strict constraints on what engineers can and can not design due to rigorous code requirements.

waste -

You should be sure in speak to someone regarding whether a Masters in Civil/Structural Eng. will qualify you to take the PE.

I know in FLorida, ie University of Florida, someone who has completed a masters in architecture and a bachelor of design from UF would need to earn the credit hours for a Bachelor of Civil/Structural Engineering since their former undergraduate degree was not from an accredited Engineering school or college.

That has been my situation. be sure and seek out the correct degree.

waste -

also do some reading into what entails a structural engineer from a basic PE. TO become a licensed SE(sturctural eng.) requires much more education. Your goal is most likely to become a registered PE and that is it. This can be obtained from A bachelor of civil/structural and 5 years of internship within an office.

as far as i know, illinois is the sole state that offers se licenses and it doesn't require more education. for most states, if not all, in the east coast, you take the pe exam with focus on your discpline. 4-5 years of working experience UNDER a pe is usually the case. you have to work for someone that is a pe, and that only qualifies you to take the exam, doesn't guarantee you passing. however, in california, you can take the pe exam in as little as 2 years since there's another seismic exam to take later.

for some reason i think ny and il have se's; my experience is that run-of-the-mill engineers in general are more liability concerned than architects, probably b/c abet requires law as part of the accredited degree curriculum. culturally engineers tend to be more ordered, organized and rational (I'm sure your pre-reqs for the coursework has pounded that into you by now), hence the relatively few offices that like to work on "out-of-the-box" projects (for big offices Arup and Happold are hard to beat States-side, Nordenson has a nice midsized practice in NYC).  If I were to go back into SE, I think I'd like to try to get into Arup or Happold (both of which have very high standards for applicants) or a firm who's leads came out of those 2.