Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!ccplumb From: ccplumb@watmath.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Computer Science: where it belongs Message-ID: <15517@watmath.waterloo.edu> Date: Fri, 13-Nov-87 00:31:18 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.15517 Posted: Fri Nov 13 00:31:18 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 14-Nov-87 15:14:49 EST References: <469@ndsuvax.UUCP> <16118@clyde.ATT.COM> <180@spock.UUCP> <1752@pdn.UUCP> <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> Reply-To: ccplumb@watmath.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 119 Confusion: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes: >In article <1752@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdnbah.UUCP (George Leach) writes: >> >>[Perhaps I'm ignorant, but...] I was always under the >>impression that architecture was purely a design function, while civil >>engineering dealt with structure, materials, etc...... In other words, >>architecture was the art and engineering was the science. Note: I'm not an architect (I was told to stay away; architects don't make any money!), but with 4 out of 5 parents (people-related-to- biological-parents-by-marriage-at-some-time-or-another) and sundry other family members in the field, I hope I have *some* idea of what I'm talking about. >No, when you consider that an architect is often THE responsible party >for a structure, this approach would never do. Indeed. I know of a case where the architect got sued because the brick supplier delivered substandard materials. They went out of business before the facing in question began falling apart, thus the architect got nailed. Imagine something wrong with the *design*. (The architect wasn't crazy about the supplier, but this was a government job, and had to accept the lowest bidder.) > Most architecture >programs I've looked at (maybe it'll be my NEXT career, or the one >after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering >domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural >characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with >concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design, >living space human factors, &c. It is true, though, that architects never use calculus. While they need a feel for structural concerns, most problems are well understood and can be solved with standard rules of thumb. (Most of the structure in a house is to make sure it's rigid enough - so it doesn't flex, producing cracks in the walls - rather than to make sure it's strong enough. The only place structural strength comes to mind is handling snow loads on roofs.) For anything tricky, you call a structural engineer - to cover your ass, if nothing else. BTW, tasteful people *do* use concrete. It just takes a bit of finesse. My current father once had a boss who told him never to use concrete. As soon as he had the chance (his own firm), he designed a mostly-concrete building. He related this story in a speech where he also told architects in Phoenix, Arizona to stop using stucco, so it backfired to a degree, but the building was a success. Also, it's very hard to draw the line between human factors and structure. You have to put mechanical equipment where it doesn't obstruct anyone's view and it doesn't bother anyone with the noise, as well as worrying about routing air ducts and whatnot to it. My parents were once asked, in a renovation of a section of apartment, to draw attention away from the fact that the columns were much too thick and closely spaced. It was an early job, and the architect had been timid. All that structure could have been oppressive. Another example, it's certainly the architect's job to pick where the windows will go, and what their configuration will be. It's also the architect's job to calculate sun angles and ensure that the windows won't leak. This isn't completely trivial - they're having problems with the seals in the glass roof of Harbour Place in Baltimore, Maryland. There are simply so many things that can go wrong. > Most architecture undergrad programs >are 5 year programs (vice 4 for civil engineering), and while you >can get an MS in architectural studies in the usual 30 credits or so, >the "practitioner's" graduate degree is a Master of Architecture, >which is more like a Master of Engineering degree and requires on the >order of 50 credits beyond the Bachelors. Still, reports I've heard say that architecture graduates don't pay nearly enough attention to human factors and practicality. They're all into grand concepts and motifs and axes for everything. Generally, they don't seem to care about arranging to water greenery (or even specifying which kind of plants they want), providing service access, working out heating systems (it's always tricky to have big windows without cold downdraughts or condensation - generally the approach is to place heating grilles below them, but that dries out any plants in the window something fierce), providing the right number of electrical outlets in the right places, or arranging for good circulation (of people, that is). One great example - the U.S. Vietnam memorial. It was designed by a first-year architecture student, and while it's good, its origins show. People like to touch the names they've found, and it's much too tall to do this in the middle. It was originally supposed to have grass all around, but grass just can't take the traffic. (They've now added a walkway past the face, and a railing to keep people on the walkway. Horrible! You can't step back and look at the thing.) The idea behind the grass was that the memorial would merge into the landscape, but all the trees were cleared out of the area. Also, while I don't mind so, I've heard people who wish the stone panels bearing the names were much thicker. As it is, they don't feel solid enough. It's harmless, who really *cares* that the wings of the memorial are aligned with the Lincoln (hideously ugly) and Washington (I think) memorials? You have to pick some arrangement, but there's no great need to put everything on an axis. >If there are any practicing architects listening, I'd appreciate >any corrections, as well as comments about the relationship between >architecture and engineering. Generally, an architect tells an engineer where her/his end of the business is going to go ("this is your mechanical room"), and the engineer makes it work. Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but the engineer works for the architect, who has to be thoroughly cognizant of engineering requirements. >Steve "Tear it down? Hell no, RESTORE IT!" Frysinger -- -Colin (watmath!ccplumb) Zippy says: I want to dress you up as TALLULAH BANKHEAD and cover you with VASELINE and WHEAT THINS..