An older colleague -who shall remain nameless but likes being provocative more then being a good architect- made a statement to that effect. His argument was the best brightest & ambitious engineering student choose to specialize in more glamorous & lucrative engineering fields like aerospace or nuclear engineering over calculating plumbing, wires, and ducts.
this got me wondering, since I have the greatest regard for those folks that thread stacks and ducts through our impenetrable walls and floors:
*Has MEPing now become sexy as key players in creating sustainable building?
*what is the social hierarchy of engineering disciplines (ie, where do the smartest kids go?) between structural, computers, mining, industrial, transportation, aerospace, et cetera....
*what are some of the best MEP firms?
*are there any genius MEP engineers out there? (is there an unknown cecil balmond soon to emerge from the MEP disciplines?)
* any anecdotes supporting or refuting the premise about the intelligence of MEPs?
(and I'm not talking about cad monkeys/drafters that create most of the files we xref)
Most of them are pretty lazy and only do it once, the way they are comfortable with and then whine about their fees every time they are asked to move something.
we had an MEP engineer as a proffesor for building systems 2. He lectured once, and since he actually liked architecture, he showed examples of how the MEP could actually think creatively to work WITH the architects vision, instead of hendering it.
EX. He showed a slide of a round conference room, and instead of using standard air vents, they went with nicely spaced dryer-vent covers to pump in the a/c. Looked good, and worked.
So, yeah, some of the MEPs could be 'sexy.' Though, I may think that most probably chose the career cause it was easier. I guess I could ask......
I spent a few years in engineering college before transfering to architecture during undergrad. I majored in electrical engineering but it was nothing like the "electrical" engineers that we work with as architects. Here's a sampling of the classes that I took:
EECS 332 Electromagnetics II
EECS 332 Electromagnetics I
EECS 317 Solid State Devices & Digital Electronics
EECS 316 Signals & Systems
Mech Eng 240 Intro to Dynamics
Mat Sci 250 Principles of Engineering Materials
EECS 216 Circuit Analysis
EECS 270 Logic Design
Eng 103 Fortran
It had nothing to do with the Electrical drawings that I now see produced by our "engineers." Many of my classmates have gone onto careers with companies like Intel, Motorola, Raytheon, etc. where they work on computer chips and radar technology. By comparison, I have a difficult time considering the guys churning out riser diagrams, choosing lighting layouts or specifying air conditioners as real engineers. Those types of tasks would seem to be easily completed by someone with an associates degree from a community college.
Admittedly, larger projects such as airports/stadiums/skyscrapers would require more expertise and I also feel that structural engineering is rather respectable. But based on my experiences, I would tend to agree that most MEPs in the building industry are at the bottom of their professional ranks.
my dad was an 'electrical engineer' who did computer systems engineering. that's not what I was talking 'bout.
not sure what MEPs major in - building engineering? mechanical engineering? or what schools they go to.
i've also worked with lots of theatrical technicians/electricians. Those guys (and few gals) are crazy and take risks that OSHA would freak about if they knew. but they just draw lamp locations, not figure out where the switching gear goes or how far to space the sprinkler heads.
I've always said that civil engineers are the bottom of the barrel in engineering intelligence, though I personally know several brilliant exceptions to that statement.
sarah,
who is this incredible MEP guy? i still have yet to work with some that i have been impressed by.
that said...the role of the MEP engineer is very different than our own. they tend to work on a slew of projects at once, and every time something is changed it can cause quite a bit of re-calculation on their part....but yeah, generally pretty lackluster....even the offices that are promoted as being the best have issues.....although buro happold has some pretty sharp people.
I used to think so, but more generally the guys I've worked with that have taken the initiative to learn green systems have been intelligent, and even occasionally responsive!
Altogether I wonder if the building trade is largely a collection of second rate engineers if you look at what BrianBuchalski said,
"Many of my classmates have gone onto careers with companies like Intel, Motorola, Raytheon, etc. where they work on computer chips and radar technology."
Building engineering, by that comparison, is for the lesser end of the talent pool. Are architects held to the same comparison? What I have on my desk requires a walnut sized brain compared to what my friend working at Intel has on his desk.
Then again, if you are asking if all building engineers are dummies I think you could find some exception to this in a firm like Ove-Arup. Often when you see an internationally acclaimed big project Ove-Arup is listed in the credits.
MEP will whine if you make changes. It is a profit motivated whine. Now I try to hand them the changes at the last possible moment so they make one change. Architects are motivated by going the extra mile to make a better project and that results in changes. I don't see the MEP sharing that motivation when it cuts into profit. MEP is not a friend that likes your buildings. MEP is a business with an adversarial stance towards changes.
love engineering and physics, personally. MEP is not so much about either of those fields, though it can be.
its been awhile since we needed a MEP person, but on the last project the firm we hired was so inept i ended up doing the work for them. which was stupid but they couldn't be fired for political reasons and hell if i was going to let them fuck up a perfectly lovely building cuz they couldn't be bothered to think.
Arup has good engineers. when working on sophisticated projects they can bring a lot to the table...but the average joseph is maybe not the best in this particular field.
i think engineers tend to be a different breed to begin with, no? and school doesn't seem to help.
hrm... I have many un-positive things to say about MEP engineers, but I will keep them to myself. I find it easier to work with structural engineers because their work is inherently more architectural.
I recently heard of a European firm (not Arup) that does integrated engineering and building design.
This post seems a little pointless, and also a little insulting. Any random professional, weather they are an architect, MEP engineer, civil engineer, electrical engineer, structural engineer, etc can possess a tremendous variety of personality traits. Some will have great communication and inter professional skills, others won't. Some will be very talented and experienced, others will be young and careless. Some will be old and bitter, some idealist and easily discouraged.
I think one thing to keep in mind is that we all have different concerns when it comes to our specialties. Sometimes an architect will hand me what he/she believes to be a minor change, but in actuality will require a total redesign of my structure. At the same time there have also been cases of what are perceived to be very large changes, that in actuality required very little additional work on behalf. The point is, perhaps we are not all the best at understanding one another's professions. A little inter professional respect would be appropriate here. Contrary to popular belief, architects do not have a monopoly on passion and caring for their work.
Synergy, of course you are completely right - this is water-cooler recreational bitching, nothing more. Please don't take offense for all engineers!
I think all of us here are smart and professional enough to know that there are good professionals and bad, and to spend time finding the ones that fit well with our work.
I see what you mean. My tone was a little too harsh in my first entry. I think everyone goes through feeling this way sometimes, including me. It is important to remember that this is very individual and unique to each person you work with.
I used to work with a another SE who would routinely expound, quite verbosely, on the idioacy of ALL architects and contractors. It become very irritating and obviously not very productive. In the end, he left my office and I wound up picking up a lot of his projects, and low and behold, he had made mistakes, and many left things uncomplete, and proved that he wasn't exactly a perfectly engineered instrument of building design and construction either.
Maybe this will work. If you have to, just try to be mad at the guy you are working with, not the whole profession, otherwise you'll just become one of those bitter guys that no one likes to deal with and end up feeding the very same problem you are rallying against.
calling them the "dumbest" is a little dumb. i would say though that they are the most graphically challenged. perhaps it is the complexity of circuiting, ductwork, and pipe layouts, but jeez, what a mess of squiggles, all with the same lineweights, casework and toilets shown on rcps, reference files missing - good lord - at least all mep engineers draw making the same graphical mistakes; toilets on ceilings have become a standard mep drawing convention when reading their drawings.
futureboy, the MEP I had as a prof. didn't leave enough of an impression for me to remember his name, but...
He is in Philadelphia, blonde, between 30 and 45, wore work boots, and loved football - we'd get out of class early for the games! I know he was a working engineer, but he was also very good at putting all those concepts into forms that architecture students could easily relate to.
Jafidler, you make a good point, I think it's easy to see that by the time you (architects) graduate from school, you may have 4+ good years of drafting and graphic standards training, while many engineers have little or no training in this area. Not to mention inherent nature abilities, which is likely part of the reason we are drawn to our various professions.
In my engineering program I had a lone drafting and cad class taught by a geriatric professor. The class focused on drawing simple lines, circles, text etc. I suspect we would have killed the professor by trying to delve into xrefs, border files, sheet layouts, scaling of drawings etc. etc.
I think the different engineering disciplines are too varied to establish a pecking order. Each requires it's own special skills and training. Also, structural engineer is a sub discipline of the general category of civil engineering, but in practice civil engineers and structural engineers do very different work.
by far, the worst luck we've had in town is finding a really good, creative civil engineer. m.e.p. and structural seem like a breeze compared to those dirt pushers....
given that most things we take for granted now start in the Aerospace industry, i think the Aerospace Engineers are far and above the best out there. i mean think about it, they design for the harshest environment known to our existence.
when I was in engineering school, civil engineers are the lowest on the totem pole.
An Electrical Engineer, a Structural Engineer, a Civil Engineer, and a Mechanical Engineer were sitting at a bar discussing the wonders of the human body.
The Mechanical Engineer said, "God must be a Mechanical Engineer. Look at the way all of the joints and muscles work together to create such an efficient machine."
"I disagree," said the Electrical Engineer. "With the complexity of the nervous system, it's blatantly obvious that God is an Electrical Engineer."
"Naw," said the Structural Engineer, "God has to be a Structural Engineer. The skeletal system of the human body is a veritable masterpiece of structural engineering."
"Indubitably," said the Civil Engineer. "Although, I know for a fact that God is a Civil Engineer."
"How's that?" all of the others ask.
"Because only a Civil Engineer would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area."
I have high respect for structural engineers. I can't even balance a truss, let alone do all the other calcs they do. I have had to ask them to find a less efficient, but more aethetic way of carrying a load to the ground, though. They do seem to be more about efficiency.
i used to work in a civil firm with someone who would drone on and on about what idiots architects are, right in front of us. so i can symphathize a bit with synergy's point. i've also worked with engineers that love and respect architecture. by and large, i respect all engineers and what they do. they are intelligent people, although some have asbergers. and also, aren't mep people mechanical engineers anyway? it may not be the same thing as say, designing the drive train for an open wheel race car, but i think you have to be certifiably intelligent to at least be allowed draw the little vent pipe that goes from the sit-n-shit to the roof. i doubt if everyone here on archinect could've made it through even a semester of mechanical engineering school.
Son, we live in a world that has CHILLERS, BOILERS AND SWITCHGEAR.
And those PIECES OF EQUIPMENT have to be LOCATED IN ROOMS.
Who’s gonna DESIGN THEM? You? You, MR. ARCHITECT?
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.
You weep for LOST PARKING SPACES and you curse the SIZE OF MY GENERATOR. You have that luxury.
You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that THOSE MEP SYSTEMS, while tragic, probably saved lives.
And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…
You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties. You WANT me on that DESIGN TEAM. You NEED me on that DESIGN TEAM.
We use words like DESIGN, CODE, ANALYSIS… We use these words as the backbone to a life spent PROVIDING OWNER COMFORT AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
You use ‘em as a punchline at a party.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain my DESIGN to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very ENVIRONMENT that I provide,
then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a DUCTULATOR and DESIGN a BUILDING SYSTEM.
Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!
Architect : Did you OVERSIZE THE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ROOMS?
Engineer : (quietly) I did the job you HIRED me to do.
Architect : Did you OVERSIZE THE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ROOMS?!!
When I was studying engineering, the intellectual pecking order was decided by the amount of nerds in each program and on the recreational liquids and grasses imbibed by those students, before, during and after classes. A program was higher on the list based on how many nerds it had and on how heavily it's students smoked or drank.
1) Aerospace- 50% nerds and 50% stoners (our class validictorian was in this program and he was the biggest stoner I've ever met)
2) Electrical and Computer- all nerds, I'm not sure if they drank or smoked though, we never saw them outside of the computer labs.
3) Chemical - 50% nerds and 50% drinkers, an inordinarily high percentage or women in this program
4) Mechanical - mostly jocks and we all drank and smoked heavily....HEAVILY (smoked cigarettes primarily)
5) Industrial - it contained all the people too lazy or stupid to be in the 4 programs above, I knew one guy to made it through without handing in an assignment or actually doing any sort of studying
6) Civil and Mining - This program took in anyone, anyone at all, as long as you applied to the uni you would get into 'civil and mining'. It's students tended to be heavy drinkers and smokers but that's probably b/c they made big bucks during their summer internships and had the cash to blow come fall. Almost all the students who graudated from this program have gotten jobs that pay double what I make (especially in mining), and to think I had the opportunitiy to go there.....dammit.
Now for the other pecking order ie. which group partied to most and had the best time:
1) Civil and Mining - they had the money for it
2) Mechanical - we were dead broke but we just beat up on the aerospace and electrical nerds and took their lunch money, also we had a Russian guy who managed to find illegal east European smokes for us for cheap, so we saved a fortune on those.
3) Chemical - those chem girls sure knew how to party...sigh
4) Industrial - it's not like they had anything to study for anyway
5) Aerospace -the stoners came out alot, but they just crashed all night
6) Electrical and Computer - they must have had their own parties (although I doubt it) b/c we never saw them around
Another curious occurence.
During my first year a prof once told us that:
A students would go on to grad school, get a PhD and become profs BUT they would be dead broke,
B students would graduate and worked somewhere and live middle class lives, and
C students would graduate, form their own businesses and have the B students work for them.
This seems to have happened to a degree, at least among my friends from uni.
C students would graduate, form their own businesses and have the B students work for them.
That's is the god's truth, especially from what I see in the engineering fields. All my father's professional issues through his whole career as a mining engineer can be summed up by that one statement.
Another thing about engineers I forgot to mention and might be one of the reasons why architects have a tough time getting along with them.
Most field engineers are NOT detail oriented...granted some are, but as a whole we do the math and then oversize it, just in case.
The only detail oriented ones are the aforementioned A students and anybody still stuck in academia.
The reason is that there are so many variables and things can change so often, that it's just better to make one design for the worst possible scenario and then to make it even bigger/stronger/lighter etc etc JUST IN CASE (and mostly to cover our arses in case we screwed up a number somewhere or forgot something)
Architects as a whole tend to be very detail oriented, even obsesively fixated on tiny things, in some cases. And they expect the same from us, which is just something that most engineers are uncomfortable doing, lest they be held to their precise number.
Experienced engineers will usually be more precise, but the lazy and inexperienced among us are not (I fall in the latter category, but that's also b/c I consider myself to be an efficient person, and I refuse to spend 50% of my time to only reap a 10% design improvement).
All that said I still think that a big problem is that most engineers and architects do not work nor think holistically. They focus on their specialty and don't bother updating the other side until crunch time or a mjaor change is required. By then the other person is already so invested in their design that they are reluctant to change.
your engineering fees are miniscule compared the project costs, that 10% design savings could very easily be a much greater savings than your 50% design fee. Of course we standardized elements, for example, it certainly doesn't make sense to have 50 different joist or beam types for a simple roof structure, but excessive over sizing isn't good practice either. Striking the right balance between economical, efficient, asthetic and safe design is what our job is all about.
"that 10% design savings could very easily be a much greater savings than your 50% design fee"
good point Synergy, I meant it makes no sense to invest 50% of your time to improve the design from 80% good to 90% good. Obviously when the savings are there why not do it, although I get the impression that architects need everything to be absolutely perfect, sometimes perfection is not necessarily the best, nor is it the most economical nor efficient.
are MEPs the dumbest engineers out there?
An older colleague -who shall remain nameless but likes being provocative more then being a good architect- made a statement to that effect. His argument was the best brightest & ambitious engineering student choose to specialize in more glamorous & lucrative engineering fields like aerospace or nuclear engineering over calculating plumbing, wires, and ducts.
this got me wondering, since I have the greatest regard for those folks that thread stacks and ducts through our impenetrable walls and floors:
*Has MEPing now become sexy as key players in creating sustainable building?
*what is the social hierarchy of engineering disciplines (ie, where do the smartest kids go?) between structural, computers, mining, industrial, transportation, aerospace, et cetera....
*what are some of the best MEP firms?
*are there any genius MEP engineers out there? (is there an unknown cecil balmond soon to emerge from the MEP disciplines?)
* any anecdotes supporting or refuting the premise about the intelligence of MEPs?
(and I'm not talking about cad monkeys/drafters that create most of the files we xref)
Most of them are pretty lazy and only do it once, the way they are comfortable with and then whine about their fees every time they are asked to move something.
So no - not sexy.
we had an MEP engineer as a proffesor for building systems 2. He lectured once, and since he actually liked architecture, he showed examples of how the MEP could actually think creatively to work WITH the architects vision, instead of hendering it.
EX. He showed a slide of a round conference room, and instead of using standard air vents, they went with nicely spaced dryer-vent covers to pump in the a/c. Looked good, and worked.
So, yeah, some of the MEPs could be 'sexy.' Though, I may think that most probably chose the career cause it was easier. I guess I could ask......
i've worked with ones that were just as dumb as a bag of wrenches,, and about as inflexible too.
but they are all russian, so that's cool, 'cuz you know i love me some communism.*
but on the other hand, i've worked with some that are creative, flexible, smart and even sassy!
* - is that inappropriate to say?
I spent a few years in engineering college before transfering to architecture during undergrad. I majored in electrical engineering but it was nothing like the "electrical" engineers that we work with as architects. Here's a sampling of the classes that I took:
EECS 332 Electromagnetics II
EECS 332 Electromagnetics I
EECS 317 Solid State Devices & Digital Electronics
EECS 316 Signals & Systems
Mech Eng 240 Intro to Dynamics
Mat Sci 250 Principles of Engineering Materials
EECS 216 Circuit Analysis
EECS 270 Logic Design
Eng 103 Fortran
It had nothing to do with the Electrical drawings that I now see produced by our "engineers." Many of my classmates have gone onto careers with companies like Intel, Motorola, Raytheon, etc. where they work on computer chips and radar technology. By comparison, I have a difficult time considering the guys churning out riser diagrams, choosing lighting layouts or specifying air conditioners as real engineers. Those types of tasks would seem to be easily completed by someone with an associates degree from a community college.
Admittedly, larger projects such as airports/stadiums/skyscrapers would require more expertise and I also feel that structural engineering is rather respectable. But based on my experiences, I would tend to agree that most MEPs in the building industry are at the bottom of their professional ranks.
Somewhere on www.Enginect.com, a discussion thread is growing on the subject "Idiot Architects."
And some of the posts are correct. There are morons in every profession, even ours.
my dad was an 'electrical engineer' who did computer systems engineering. that's not what I was talking 'bout.
not sure what MEPs major in - building engineering? mechanical engineering? or what schools they go to.
i've also worked with lots of theatrical technicians/electricians. Those guys (and few gals) are crazy and take risks that OSHA would freak about if they knew. but they just draw lamp locations, not figure out where the switching gear goes or how far to space the sprinkler heads.
Enginect.com, I'll have to check that out!
I've always said that civil engineers are the bottom of the barrel in engineering intelligence, though I personally know several brilliant exceptions to that statement.
sarah,
who is this incredible MEP guy? i still have yet to work with some that i have been impressed by.
that said...the role of the MEP engineer is very different than our own. they tend to work on a slew of projects at once, and every time something is changed it can cause quite a bit of re-calculation on their part....but yeah, generally pretty lackluster....even the offices that are promoted as being the best have issues.....although buro happold has some pretty sharp people.
TK, they'd major in architectural engineering maybe?
I used to think so, but more generally the guys I've worked with that have taken the initiative to learn green systems have been intelligent, and even occasionally responsive!
Altogether I wonder if the building trade is largely a collection of second rate engineers if you look at what BrianBuchalski said,
"Many of my classmates have gone onto careers with companies like Intel, Motorola, Raytheon, etc. where they work on computer chips and radar technology."
Building engineering, by that comparison, is for the lesser end of the talent pool. Are architects held to the same comparison? What I have on my desk requires a walnut sized brain compared to what my friend working at Intel has on his desk.
Then again, if you are asking if all building engineers are dummies I think you could find some exception to this in a firm like Ove-Arup. Often when you see an internationally acclaimed big project Ove-Arup is listed in the credits.
MEP will whine if you make changes. It is a profit motivated whine. Now I try to hand them the changes at the last possible moment so they make one change. Architects are motivated by going the extra mile to make a better project and that results in changes. I don't see the MEP sharing that motivation when it cuts into profit. MEP is not a friend that likes your buildings. MEP is a business with an adversarial stance towards changes.
love engineering and physics, personally. MEP is not so much about either of those fields, though it can be.
its been awhile since we needed a MEP person, but on the last project the firm we hired was so inept i ended up doing the work for them. which was stupid but they couldn't be fired for political reasons and hell if i was going to let them fuck up a perfectly lovely building cuz they couldn't be bothered to think.
Arup has good engineers. when working on sophisticated projects they can bring a lot to the table...but the average joseph is maybe not the best in this particular field.
i think engineers tend to be a different breed to begin with, no? and school doesn't seem to help.
yes
enginect so does not exist. :P
hrm... I have many un-positive things to say about MEP engineers, but I will keep them to myself. I find it easier to work with structural engineers because their work is inherently more architectural.
I recently heard of a European firm (not Arup) that does integrated engineering and building design.
the worst consultant I ever worked with was a parking consultant...
Structural Engineers perspective...
This post seems a little pointless, and also a little insulting. Any random professional, weather they are an architect, MEP engineer, civil engineer, electrical engineer, structural engineer, etc can possess a tremendous variety of personality traits. Some will have great communication and inter professional skills, others won't. Some will be very talented and experienced, others will be young and careless. Some will be old and bitter, some idealist and easily discouraged.
I think one thing to keep in mind is that we all have different concerns when it comes to our specialties. Sometimes an architect will hand me what he/she believes to be a minor change, but in actuality will require a total redesign of my structure. At the same time there have also been cases of what are perceived to be very large changes, that in actuality required very little additional work on behalf. The point is, perhaps we are not all the best at understanding one another's professions. A little inter professional respect would be appropriate here. Contrary to popular belief, architects do not have a monopoly on passion and caring for their work.
..nor are Architects immune form being mindless, autocratic dingbats
Synergy, of course you are completely right - this is water-cooler recreational bitching, nothing more. Please don't take offense for all engineers!
I think all of us here are smart and professional enough to know that there are good professionals and bad, and to spend time finding the ones that fit well with our work.
I can't believe I'm the first one to say this, but those guys (& girls) that engineer the toilets: they're shit engineers.
Liberty Bell,
I see what you mean. My tone was a little too harsh in my first entry. I think everyone goes through feeling this way sometimes, including me. It is important to remember that this is very individual and unique to each person you work with.
I used to work with a another SE who would routinely expound, quite verbosely, on the idioacy of ALL architects and contractors. It become very irritating and obviously not very productive. In the end, he left my office and I wound up picking up a lot of his projects, and low and behold, he had made mistakes, and many left things uncomplete, and proved that he wasn't exactly a perfectly engineered instrument of building design and construction either.
Maybe this will work. If you have to, just try to be mad at the guy you are working with, not the whole profession, otherwise you'll just become one of those bitter guys that no one likes to deal with and end up feeding the very same problem you are rallying against.
calling them the "dumbest" is a little dumb. i would say though that they are the most graphically challenged. perhaps it is the complexity of circuiting, ductwork, and pipe layouts, but jeez, what a mess of squiggles, all with the same lineweights, casework and toilets shown on rcps, reference files missing - good lord - at least all mep engineers draw making the same graphical mistakes; toilets on ceilings have become a standard mep drawing convention when reading their drawings.
futureboy, the MEP I had as a prof. didn't leave enough of an impression for me to remember his name, but...
He is in Philadelphia, blonde, between 30 and 45, wore work boots, and loved football - we'd get out of class early for the games! I know he was a working engineer, but he was also very good at putting all those concepts into forms that architecture students could easily relate to.
Jafidler, you make a good point, I think it's easy to see that by the time you (architects) graduate from school, you may have 4+ good years of drafting and graphic standards training, while many engineers have little or no training in this area. Not to mention inherent nature abilities, which is likely part of the reason we are drawn to our various professions.
In my engineering program I had a lone drafting and cad class taught by a geriatric professor. The class focused on drawing simple lines, circles, text etc. I suspect we would have killed the professor by trying to delve into xrefs, border files, sheet layouts, scaling of drawings etc. etc.
[img]http://popsci.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/27/frink.gif
[/img]
"mm,glavin"
MEP guys may be easy to pick on, but in a way, building "performance" is actually very sexy.
"mm,glavin"
MEP guys may be easy to pick on, but in a way, building "performance" is actually very sexy.
I think the engineer pecking order maybe something like this:
1. Electrical Engineer
2. Aerospace Engineer
3. Chemical Engineer
3. Mechanical Engineer
4. Structural Engineer
5. Mining Engineer
6. MEP Engineer
You can bunch Civil in there with Structural BTW.
I think the different engineering disciplines are too varied to establish a pecking order. Each requires it's own special skills and training. Also, structural engineer is a sub discipline of the general category of civil engineering, but in practice civil engineers and structural engineers do very different work.
wait, apu, how can "electrical engineer" be first and "m(electrical)p engineer" be last? what am i missing?
by far, the worst luck we've had in town is finding a really good, creative civil engineer. m.e.p. and structural seem like a breeze compared to those dirt pushers....
an electrical engineer is a person who designs computer/electrical components, an MEP designs electrical building systems.
On second thought, maybe aerospace is first and electrical second
given that most things we take for granted now start in the Aerospace industry, i think the Aerospace Engineers are far and above the best out there. i mean think about it, they design for the harshest environment known to our existence.
when I was in engineering school, civil engineers are the lowest on the totem pole.
An Electrical Engineer, a Structural Engineer, a Civil Engineer, and a Mechanical Engineer were sitting at a bar discussing the wonders of the human body.
The Mechanical Engineer said, "God must be a Mechanical Engineer. Look at the way all of the joints and muscles work together to create such an efficient machine."
"I disagree," said the Electrical Engineer. "With the complexity of the nervous system, it's blatantly obvious that God is an Electrical Engineer."
"Naw," said the Structural Engineer, "God has to be a Structural Engineer. The skeletal system of the human body is a veritable masterpiece of structural engineering."
"Indubitably," said the Civil Engineer. "Although, I know for a fact that God is a Civil Engineer."
"How's that?" all of the others ask.
"Because only a Civil Engineer would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area."
I am rolling on the floor laughing at that joke.
good one toaster!
I have high respect for structural engineers. I can't even balance a truss, let alone do all the other calcs they do. I have had to ask them to find a less efficient, but more aethetic way of carrying a load to the ground, though. They do seem to be more about efficiency.
toaster- ROFLOL!!!!
toaster :-)
Here's the firm that I mentioned above. Their website isn't impressive, but their list of architects is. They must be doing something right.
Battle McCarthy
i used to work in a civil firm with someone who would drone on and on about what idiots architects are, right in front of us. so i can symphathize a bit with synergy's point. i've also worked with engineers that love and respect architecture. by and large, i respect all engineers and what they do. they are intelligent people, although some have asbergers. and also, aren't mep people mechanical engineers anyway? it may not be the same thing as say, designing the drive train for an open wheel race car, but i think you have to be certifiably intelligent to at least be allowed draw the little vent pipe that goes from the sit-n-shit to the roof. i doubt if everyone here on archinect could've made it through even a semester of mechanical engineering school.
ok, MEP gripes aside, my real arch-enemies are Reators!
whos with me?
Even Aerospace Engineers need the help of an architect, beta!
A Few Good Architects
Engineer: You want answers?
Architect: I think I’m entitled to them.
Engineer: You want answers?!
Architect: I want the truth!
Engineer: You can’t HANDLE the truth!!
Son, we live in a world that has CHILLERS, BOILERS AND SWITCHGEAR.
And those PIECES OF EQUIPMENT have to be LOCATED IN ROOMS.
Who’s gonna DESIGN THEM? You? You, MR. ARCHITECT?
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.
You weep for LOST PARKING SPACES and you curse the SIZE OF MY GENERATOR. You have that luxury.
You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that THOSE MEP SYSTEMS, while tragic, probably saved lives.
And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…
You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties. You WANT me on that DESIGN TEAM. You NEED me on that DESIGN TEAM.
We use words like DESIGN, CODE, ANALYSIS… We use these words as the backbone to a life spent PROVIDING OWNER COMFORT AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
You use ‘em as a punchline at a party.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain my DESIGN to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very ENVIRONMENT that I provide,
then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a DUCTULATOR and DESIGN a BUILDING SYSTEM.
Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!
Architect : Did you OVERSIZE THE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ROOMS?
Engineer : (quietly) I did the job you HIRED me to do.
Architect : Did you OVERSIZE THE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ROOMS?!!
Engineer : You’re damn right I did!!!
since when does the mep design the mechanical and electrical rooms?
When I was studying engineering, the intellectual pecking order was decided by the amount of nerds in each program and on the recreational liquids and grasses imbibed by those students, before, during and after classes. A program was higher on the list based on how many nerds it had and on how heavily it's students smoked or drank.
1) Aerospace- 50% nerds and 50% stoners (our class validictorian was in this program and he was the biggest stoner I've ever met)
2) Electrical and Computer- all nerds, I'm not sure if they drank or smoked though, we never saw them outside of the computer labs.
3) Chemical - 50% nerds and 50% drinkers, an inordinarily high percentage or women in this program
4) Mechanical - mostly jocks and we all drank and smoked heavily....HEAVILY (smoked cigarettes primarily)
5) Industrial - it contained all the people too lazy or stupid to be in the 4 programs above, I knew one guy to made it through without handing in an assignment or actually doing any sort of studying
6) Civil and Mining - This program took in anyone, anyone at all, as long as you applied to the uni you would get into 'civil and mining'. It's students tended to be heavy drinkers and smokers but that's probably b/c they made big bucks during their summer internships and had the cash to blow come fall. Almost all the students who graudated from this program have gotten jobs that pay double what I make (especially in mining), and to think I had the opportunitiy to go there.....dammit.
Now for the other pecking order ie. which group partied to most and had the best time:
1) Civil and Mining - they had the money for it
2) Mechanical - we were dead broke but we just beat up on the aerospace and electrical nerds and took their lunch money, also we had a Russian guy who managed to find illegal east European smokes for us for cheap, so we saved a fortune on those.
3) Chemical - those chem girls sure knew how to party...sigh
4) Industrial - it's not like they had anything to study for anyway
5) Aerospace -the stoners came out alot, but they just crashed all night
6) Electrical and Computer - they must have had their own parties (although I doubt it) b/c we never saw them around
Another curious occurence.
During my first year a prof once told us that:
A students would go on to grad school, get a PhD and become profs BUT they would be dead broke,
B students would graduate and worked somewhere and live middle class lives, and
C students would graduate, form their own businesses and have the B students work for them.
This seems to have happened to a degree, at least among my friends from uni.
That's is the god's truth, especially from what I see in the engineering fields. All my father's professional issues through his whole career as a mining engineer can be summed up by that one statement.
Another thing about engineers I forgot to mention and might be one of the reasons why architects have a tough time getting along with them.
Most field engineers are NOT detail oriented...granted some are, but as a whole we do the math and then oversize it, just in case.
The only detail oriented ones are the aforementioned A students and anybody still stuck in academia.
The reason is that there are so many variables and things can change so often, that it's just better to make one design for the worst possible scenario and then to make it even bigger/stronger/lighter etc etc JUST IN CASE (and mostly to cover our arses in case we screwed up a number somewhere or forgot something)
Architects as a whole tend to be very detail oriented, even obsesively fixated on tiny things, in some cases. And they expect the same from us, which is just something that most engineers are uncomfortable doing, lest they be held to their precise number.
Experienced engineers will usually be more precise, but the lazy and inexperienced among us are not (I fall in the latter category, but that's also b/c I consider myself to be an efficient person, and I refuse to spend 50% of my time to only reap a 10% design improvement).
All that said I still think that a big problem is that most engineers and architects do not work nor think holistically. They focus on their specialty and don't bother updating the other side until crunch time or a mjaor change is required. By then the other person is already so invested in their design that they are reluctant to change.
That is a tough attitude Zig,
your engineering fees are miniscule compared the project costs, that 10% design savings could very easily be a much greater savings than your 50% design fee. Of course we standardized elements, for example, it certainly doesn't make sense to have 50 different joist or beam types for a simple roof structure, but excessive over sizing isn't good practice either. Striking the right balance between economical, efficient, asthetic and safe design is what our job is all about.
"that 10% design savings could very easily be a much greater savings than your 50% design fee"
good point Synergy, I meant it makes no sense to invest 50% of your time to improve the design from 80% good to 90% good. Obviously when the savings are there why not do it, although I get the impression that architects need everything to be absolutely perfect, sometimes perfection is not necessarily the best, nor is it the most economical nor efficient.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.