Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Architects and Math/Science?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Architects and Math/Science? - Page 7

post #91 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyCooN View Post
Did the women love you more when you were the starving artist?
I can't follow any logical relation between your witty retort and my original statement, but i'm sure it's clever and profound. ....I've found that the few architects I know either have a wealthy significant other or old family money and thus don't really care if their career (ahem, hobby?) is successful or not. Any down to earth person that needs to support themselves should NOT choose that career path, download sketchup and have some fun instead.
post #92 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyquik View Post
Is that siding cedar shakes, or some sort of brick?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svenn View Post
That's cedar shakes.
Svenn is correct ... cedar shakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Svenn View Post
Even doctors don't have to take as many demanding exams for as long as architects do.
Except for the mid-term and final exams of my engineering, technology & architectural history classes ... I don't recall all that many exams related to architecture. It was mostly about design, drawing & rendering ability … with the resulting project subjected to a jury of professors and/or architects from the “real” world. Now those could get fairly ... well ... we'd say "snarky" here on Style Forum.

Having said that … I definitely recall the professional licensing exam. The first three days included a test each morning … a break for lunch … and another test in the afternoon. Scheduled for the fourth day … the infamous “Design Exam.” For this grueling experience, a building project was assigned at the beginning ... after which one had twelve hours (with no break) to design the assigned building and prepare a very basic set of construction documents adhering to building code.
post #93 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSS View Post
I think it should be considered that many -- most houses -- are not designed by architects. Still, hiring an architect does not ensure excellent design. As with any field ... some of those who practice the profession are better than others.

right. I find that architects are great for the "little" details that nobody else would consider. For instance, my parents are looking to build a new house, and they've already picked out a McMansion monstrosity. Hate. However, my GF altered the design in just a few key areas that could make a big difference in non-design aspects. I recall her talking about re-arranging some of the front window designs and house placement on the property. Apparently it will now reflect more light at a certain angle and thus reduce heating costs. And then she completely re-arranged the entire interior layout to create non-wall separations between the kitchen, dining room, and great room. Also, by moving the bathroom and master bedroom around just a little, she was effectively able to double the size of the walk-in closet. And pushing the garage over another few feet allowed for the creation of a new utility room (laundry, closet, etc.). From here, she changed the layout of the roof - there will be a visible part in front that will be standard black, but parts of the sides and the rear will all accomodate energy-efficient blue roofing (it took a little re-arranging to get this done). There are a bunch of other improvements, I forget...
post #94 of 97
I'm on the engineering side of the job, and work with a large number of architects - usually on institutional buildings.

What you'll typically find for the design team is the architect heads the team and comes up with the conceptual designs (overall drawings) and schematic designs (layouts) but when it gets to detailed design, there's far more reliance on the engineers.

You do get funny situation where architects want large open rooms (e.g. banquet hall) and the structural eng. has to explain that columns can't be removed with some (usually expensive) consequence. But for the most part, a senior/lead/head/principal architect is usually a guy with 20+ yrs experience so while he may not know the math, he knows what works (and isn't that always how it is?)

What I see when working on these jobs are the junior architects are really doing the cad (menial) work. It takes a lot before you even reach the point where you are responsible for wall types or finishings.
post #95 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Svenn View Post
My guess is that "accessory structure" cost more than the average new american house.
One source suggests that in 2008 the average price of a new house here in America was $296,000.00. If that is so ... that garage was indeed more ... by 8 times.
post #96 of 97
Architecture is about planning & aesthetics ... about a building's layout, its look ... about its materials, fixtures and finishes. It's about what you see.

Engineering is about soil conditions (geotechnical engineering), site grading & drainage (civil engineering), withstanding gravity (structural engineering), building systems (mechanical or HVAC, electrical, plumbing, conveying, etc.). It is the architect's job to make something beaufitul of all these parts.

One architect might choose to see the engineer as adversary ... telling the architect what he can't do. Another architect will seem the engineer as an essential team member ... helping the architect understand what he can do. It's better when the latter is the case.

Architecture is about art. Engineering is about bringing practicality to that art.
post #97 of 97
Def don't need much math...one of my best friends here (at a very good UGrad arch program) sucks at math and is an architecture student.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Architects and Math/Science?