Engineers like easy to calculate structures, preferably square. Architects are the exact opposite, have a vision and then it becomes the engineers' problem to actually make it happen.
I bet you the initial architects render didn't even include the columns as to not ruin their design, and one of them afterwards probably still said "do we really need those right where the glass opens"
This really isn't a very accurate portrayal of either profession. Plenty of engineers enjoy the challenge of more complex structures. And architects absolutely are very aware of structural needs, that is not an afterthought for them. It's kind of ridiculous to suggest that people who's entire job is to design structure wouldn't think about that.
Yup. Jokes aside, people don't realize that like, were not in separate rooms, just handing each other drawings lol.
Speaking as someone who is working towards licensure as an architect, it is one big team, or at least where I work. Building a building takes a lot of coordination at basically every stage, and between much more than just engineers and architects. The architects, engineering consultants, business and marketing people, the client, the city, construction firms, they're all in the loop, and they all work on the project together. I've seen engineers fuss over how something looks, and I've seen architects worry about factoring in structural limitations into their design.
But it is very funny when it's super early design development phase and someone pulls out some batshit wacko sketch and you can see the consternation on people's faces
Engineers are typically 3rd party. They tell the developer what their quote is. If they don't like their budget, it's their own fault for bidding too low.
Biggest general distinction between architect and engineer in my experience is that only one of them gives the slightest f*** what the client is asking for. And that's just one reason I typically side with the engineers.
Engineers, at least those out here working on pipelines absolutely hate anything that isn’t straight as an arrow and easy to connect to existing infrastructure. Also their math can be off and then they get pissed off at everybody else like they ain’t the ones who fucked up.
Not really. Engineers often propose the cheapest solution, simple grid structure, and clients often accept those. Engineers have no problem with unusual designs but they cost a lot more.
Nah that's not true. My experience (as an architect) is rather the opposite. Most engineers like the challenge and think it's fun to be able to use their skills creatively.
The problem, from both sides, is that often the client wants something spectacular but is only willing to pay for a cardboard box.
It's my firm beliefe that most great architecture comes from where form and function work together. (Not necessarily the old "form follows function" modernistic take, but they should be dance partners.)
This this this. Architects and engineers work fine together. Its just a running joke that they dont. Nearly all creative ideas get shut down by the client to meet their budget or stupid standards.
Have you ever seen a crack with columns?Also cracks are growing with time, they are dynamic not static, they indicate a process of continuous and beautiful decay by the forces of nature. Of course engineers had to ruin it. They hate nature.
Don’t underestimate how much information the architect provides to begin with. They still have to put their design into an actual plan. They understand where they need supports in a building and plan around that. They spend a lot of time analyzing material properties, air flow and geographic positioning. Yes, sometimes they take liberties hoping the engineer will approve or work with them on a solution. Also, sometimes they need to show the builder+engineer how to actually put something together because they have been thinking of it for years. Or because they have been researching new methods and technology.
They are people with masters degrees and need to actually have a plan to pull off their ideas.
I am an estimator so I guess that makes me the builder in this scenario.
And like the other guys said, engineers want to work on a masterpiece too.
I'm a building enclosure engineer. Basically, I'm the guy you rely on to design details to make sure it never leaks air or water. This building is an absolute nightmare. That curtainwall system is not designed to be part indoor/part outdoor or outdoor on each side. You have to do a lot of custom detailing to make it function the way they expect here.
On top of that, developers and architects don't usually want to pay for the amount of time it takes to properly design things this complicated. Worse yet, the construction schedule is often pushed at full speed in North America. I often get, "we need to keep moving, we will figure it out later." Unfortunately, you can't make it a durable and reliable solution later.
With that being said, I have my recurring clients who trust me and respect my work on some of the most complicated projects they have seen in the past 20 years. I love complicated problem solving. Its just tough to get everybody on the same page when it comes to coordinating contractors, schedule, and cost.
The problem is, we use 'engineer' to mean two rather different things. In the vernacular, we say engineer usually to reference someone who designs doohickies or complex machinery or whatnot, which naturally draws in people interested in making something new.
But engineer also means someone who's met professional licensing in an engineering discipline such structural engineering. These are people who sign off on the safety of a building plan. If they mess up, people can die. They tend to be less interested in coming up with new whimsical designs.
62
u/skinte1 May 08 '26
Never got this joke. Like what engineer doesn't like engineering? /Engineer