For a freshman like me, your resume is quite impressive but it doesn't change the fact that the building you conceptualize or design will amount to nothing without engineers. In other words, you conceptualized it but you can't engineer it.... and if you can't engineer it, you can't build it.



I am only a student but I'm appalled by your unprofessional and unethical comments regarding civil engineers. It's like saying civil engineers in general don't know how to design buildings. For one thing, handicapped accessibility is a code requirement (depending on building classification) so whether you are an architect or civil engineer, it's the law.... and the design team have to implement the code to avoid violation. There is always the Owner's Project Requirements (OPR) and there is always the engineering team's Basis of Design (BOD) and all those things you mentioned are usually picked up during the design process review.



I would say you are the ignorant.

Michelangelo was called a painter, sculptor, architect, poet, engineer, etc.... but he never had any formal training in engineering or architecture. When he was seven years old, he lived with a stonecutter in the town of Settignano. His father sent him to study grammar with the Humanist Francesco da Urbino in Florence, however, showed no interest in his schooling, preferring to copy paintings from churches and seek the company of painters. In 1493 he carved a wooden crucifix as a gift to the prior of the Florentine church of Santo Spirito, who had permitted him some studies of anatomy on the corpses of the church's hospital. That was his last formal schooling.



I can handle that and believe me I will.... otherwise why am I, just a freshman, arguing with an "experienced talented" architect like you? And trust me.... I have been walking my talk since I can remember. I do my homework and more.... attending special classes in areas like "Engineering Methodology" or "Green Building Technology".... plus the girls, of course. I wonder where you were and what you were doing in first year college.

2xdx

For a freshman like me, your resume is quite impressive but it doesn't change the fact that the building you conceptualize or design will amount to nothing without engineers. In other words, you conceptualized it but you can't engineer it.... and if you can't engineer it, you can't build it.



Answer: Is it fair to say that if you can’t conceptualize it you can’t engineer it? Your main argument, as I perceived it, is who is better than the other. I say everybody is involved but the main player is always the architect, not that he is way better than the rest of the team. His conceptualization is the main underpinning of every building design. You cannot produce a visible product without a concept, and you cannot engineer something without a concept. The main point of my argument here is, in our day and age, we have laws established by the State in order to protect the citizens from wanton practice by individuals who claim they are these or that when they are not. You are a student of a particular field of science, I suppose, and in your studies you will encounter certain laws that governs your profession, and in the future, when you become one, you will be mandated to obey these laws.



On the other hand, it is true that architects cannot engineer their designs, not that they really can’t, but because there are limits to the kind of services they are suppose to offer. They cannot claim to be structural engineers, or any other professional, if they are not registered and licensed to do so. But we do have architects who, at the same time, are licensed as civil or structural engineers and even master plumbers. I knew a lot of them. In that capacity, they too are allowed by law to practice beyond the scope of services that of an architect, but within the realm of the particular license they are privileged to offer by the State. So your argument that architects cannot engineer their designs is not accurately true. And to be fair to civil engineers, there may be some of them who are licensed as architects as well, and as such, they too can offer services that of an architect. That I don’t have any disagreement with.



2xdx

I am only a student but I'm appalled by your unprofessional and unethical comments regarding civil engineers. It's like saying civil engineers in general don't know how to design buildings.



Answer: Pardon me if I “offended” you. But what is “unprofessional” about my comment? I’m only pointing to the facts. Again, we have laws established by the State to regulate different professions. When has it become “unprofessional” for me to point out that civil engineers, and anybody else for that matter, are violating the law when they offer services that, by law, is only given to architects registered and licensed by the State? If there was no such law, I will not even be bringing up this argument.



2xdx

I would say you are the ignorant.

Michelangelo was called a painter, sculptor, architect, poet, engineer, etc.... but he never had any formal training in engineering or architecture. When he was seven years old, he lived with a stonecutter in the town of Settignano. His father sent him to study grammar with the Humanist Francesco da Urbino in Florence, however, showed no interest in his schooling, preferring to copy paintings from churches and seek the company of painters. In 1493 he carved a wooden crucifix as a gift to the prior of the Florentine church of Santo Spirito, who had permitted him some studies of anatomy on the corpses of the church's hospital. That was his last formal schooling.





Answer:

Thanks to Google research? Just kidding. That’s good to know about your research of Michelangelo. History is only giving us little snippets of the person. Who knows he studied the works of Vitruvius?



2xdx

I can handle that and believe me I will.... otherwise why am I, just a freshman, arguing with an "experienced talented" architect like you? And trust me.... I have been walking my talk since I can remember. I do my homework and more.... attending special classes in areas like "Engineering Methodology" or "Green Building Technology".... plus the girls, of course. I wonder where you were and what you were doing in first year college.





Answer:

Well, that’s good to know about your special classes. But don’t be caught up with the girls, you may never finish your studies. You might want to explore architecture too.

This thread is hot. hehe

Hot as summer...

sexy hot or Hot na mainit

lol..

haha...

just kidding!!

^^
...Both???Hahaha

hahaha

I like it!!

^^
...What do you like?

the HOT STUFF!!

lol

Been out for a few months, coz of RL issues besides of frequent travels. This thread is still hot. After reading the posts again.. what can i say., ah hust a big LOL.. haha. Time to get this case closed, its similar to a congress debate and will not have a closure if we discuss more bout laws.

Anyways, professions always have a disparity. Its good that CEs and other engineers, are always the best managers in terms of handling people. They go to the battlefield with their foremans, masons, painters, welders, steelmens, laborers and the likes. We ate the same food, drink the same tuba and share the same beer. When the project is done, CEs always know how to say Thank You to them, besides we owe it to them. Its the best manager-employee relationship..

Unlike oh you know.. LOL..

Oopps, im late its not HOT, it rainy season na.. hahaha

For the information, the ampitheater failure was blamed to the architect who designed it.

First, it was the architect who designed the structure,
Second it was facing to the pacific wherein everybody knows it will catch up strong winds specially on a stormy seasons. The tear on it shows why.
Third, loads (wind, water, etc.) thats why it collapsed.

Why? because if an engineer suggest to changed the design of the structure, surely an architect will not agree with you. Aesthetically twas good, structurally bad.. Both of which was designed by the architect in-charged. An attempt was made to change the structure but to no avail. Architect rules daw ika nga.. Check the CEO and they will confirm this.

Kamao-o,

This is just another misleading conclusions you are making. If the engineer thinks the design is not structurally sound, then why on earth will he sign and seal the structural plans? You are blaming the architect who is not responsible for the structural design and make an excuse that "oh, the architect doesn't want to change the design...? If you are the structural engineer, what would you do?

Secondly, the type of material that was used for the roofing may have met the required loads. But was it considered by the engineer who made the structural calculations? I don't want to second guess but to be fair to everyone involved in that project, they should do a thorough investigation. Your attitude of pointing fingers to the architect will not be very helpful, especially that you are making sweeping accusations to just one particular profession. Remember, engineers are involved also, as well as the builders. And they too are liable under the Civil Code of the Philippines. You may have a perfect design, but if the builder doesn't do their job perfectly it may compromise the structure. What I am saying is, before you make conclusions, an investigation is needed. Then you make the conclusions based on that.

You're more theoritical than factual. Thats the difference of a designer(architect) who works on the table and engineer on the field. I said check at the CEO, they cant gave you a POW what more of an approval from the structural engineer of the city. As per info, it did directly go to the city planning. The project was Design and Build, which means means it will be designed and at the same time built by contractor (an architectural firm in this case).

Now, signed and seal? i dont know where did this architectural firm go for their design to be signed by an SE but as far as the CEO is concerned they have not yet reviewed the documents, they dont have it anyway what more of an approval by the SE.
When they investigated the materials, they've found out that though that it was NOT sub-standard; the design itself will self destruct.

Its the Architect's name at the same time people believe is also the contractor that was put in tarpauline to showcase his design. He maybe an Engr-Architect or they have their own firm with engineers and architect, but people will always look at it as a design failure as it faces where the wind is going. Yah, blame it on the engineer of an Architectural firm. LOL.. Architecs are always safe.. LMAO..

This type of structural failure happens when the architect is more concerned about features of his design while giving less emphasis and importance to the structure's intended performance and usability. Appearance is most important to him. It demonstrates architectural inexperience and lack of technical knowledge. He delegates responsibility on the performance aspect of his design to the engineer..... not only due to his own ignorance..... but to have a scapegoat when worse comes to worst.