I know several architect-structural engineers here who double-majored and are licensed architects and PEs. Interestingly, they all are more "engineer" than architect, and their titles and job histories reflect that PE bias. One does major high-rise buildings for a mega-firm, the other does bridges for a large EA firm. The degree combination seems to guarantee employment demand, but seems to limit you to a large firm that does these kind a large projects that demand a high degree of structural engineering innovation and expertise.

Note that Frank Gehry relied on SOM's structural engineering dept to design and detail his "fish" structures. Some of those engineers I think even moved to Gehry's office.

I got a B.S. in engineering before my M. Arch. I'm glad I did it that way, and I continue to find my engineering background invaluable as an architect. The distinction between the fields of architecture and engineering is actually pretty recent historically, and I think it's kind of artificial and has done a lot of damage to the quality of the built environment.

However, I don't know that there's any point in getting a PhD in engineering if you're going to practice architecture (most practicing engineers don't even have PhDs), and an M. Arch. certainly won't qualify you for a PhD program in Engineering. You would need a B.S. and Masters degree in engineering first.

PVB, what kind of engineering? Civil? I planing on minoring in Structural Engineering. I may want to get a masters in engineering but I am worried that I will be treated more like an engineer than an architect?

yeah.. I know of several people who went from Arch, with a BT emphasis, to engineering schools for subsequent PhDs. It seems to be a pretty common route for BT people, since PhD programs in Building Tech aren't that common within arch departments. It may make more sense for them to become engineers instead.