"3D Peruna" <wharold@spammenot-weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:vcn4r45op432d@corp.supernews.com...


>



 Can this student learn proper construction theory in Architectural School?
>
> I
>
>>can say he still cannot find out the correct size of the weld or the
>
> number
>
>>or sizes of bolts required of the construction joints or size of the
>>structural members after he graduate, if he does not take the advice of
>>sdsa. If I am wrong, please let me know.
>




>
> I think that you're mistaking structural design for construction details
> which are related, but not the same thing.
>
> Does the structural engineer concern himself with flashing details,
interior
> framing? Trim? Insulation location & placement? Fire rated construction?



THAT'S THE POINT!! THE ARCHITECTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND STRUCTURES AND THE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DO NOT KNOW FLASHING DETAILS AND SO ON. THE RESULT

IS BOTH THE ARCHITECTS AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DO ABORTIVE WORKS A
NUMBER OF TIMES BEFORE A REASONABLE DESIGN CAN BE ACHIEVED AND THIS IS
USUALLY ACHIEVED WITH THE HELP OF THE CONTRACTORS. THE CLIENTS ARE LOSING
MONEY THIS WAY WITHOUT KNOWING THE TRUE REASONS. THEREFORE, THERE MUST BE
PROJECT MANAGERS WHO HAVE REASONABLE KNOWLEDGE OF BUILDING TECHNOLOGY AND
MANAGEMENT TO LEAD THE CONSTRUCTION TEAMS.

UNFORTUNATELY, ONLY THE ARCHITECTS ARE "QUALIFIED" TO BE TEAM LEADERS UNDER
LAW AND THEY ARE MAKING USE OF SUCH LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO PROTECT THEMSELVES,
KNOWING THAT ACTUALLY THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT ENOUGH.

a.. Not only that, but a good architecture student will LEARN what the
> structural details look like and will try and understand what the
engineer
> does and how the engineering impacts the design and vice versa.
b..
c..
HOW CAN ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS LEARN STRUCTURAL DETAILS? YES, HE CAN, IF HE
UNDERSTANDS ADVANCED MATHEMEATICS AND FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL THEORIES.
HOWEVER, STUDENTS WHO CHOOSE TO STUDY ARCHITECTURE ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT LIKE
ADVANCED MATHEMATICS AND STRUCTURAL THEORIES OR DO NOT HAVE THE BRAIN POWER
TO LEARN SUCH. ANYWAY, IF THEY WISH TO LEARN STRUCTURAL DETAILS, THEY SHOULD
HAVE PROPER TRAINING BY OBTAINING A DEGREE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
HOWEVER, "NO" DEGREE COURSES INCLUDING MSC AND PHD DEGREE COURSES CAN TEACH
YOU EVERYTHING. THEREFORE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS ONE'S ABILITY TO
EXPAND HIS KNOWLEDGE QUICKLY AND IN A RIGOROUS WAY AND APPLY THEM
APPROPRIATELY.







"3D Peruna" <wharold@spammenot-weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:vcsbuesnn2go46@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip the yelling>
>
> You miss the point..the entire production of a building is a team effort
> starting with the client through to the client passing through architects,
> engineers, mechancial consultants, building officials, product reps,
> interior designers, day laborers, and many others. Each as a specific job
> to do. You don't expect the mechancial engineer to understand the
flashing
> details, and you don't expect the architect to be a mechanical engineer.
> However both can screw up the other's work...I'm working on some buildings
> where the original architect designed a structure that cause the supplies
> and returns to be within 2 feet of each other, both on the interior side
of
> the room. The result is a very uncomfortable room. The mechanical
designer
> should have told the architect that this wasn't going to work...but he
> didn't need to be a mechanical engineer.
>
> Communication between the various parties is very important and the
> architect needs to have an understanding of all the parts, but he doesn't
> need to design all the parts. The architect does not need to do
structural
> calclulations for moment connection between a beam and column...that's not
> his job. He needs to know what a moment connection does, and how it might
> impact other parts of the design.
>
> As for the help of a contractor, yes sometimes they help, and sometimes
they
> don't. If they are interested in producing a quality building, then
they'll
> make suggestions and recommendations that best serve the client.
Sometimes
> they just want to increase the amount of money in their own pockets a the
> expense of someone else. In these times, it's imporant the architect
stands
> their ground and ensures that the building is constructed as designed.
I've
> worked with both kinds of contractors and the ones that are the best are
the
> ones, who like the architect, doen't assume they know or understand
> everything.
>
> Finally, getting all over for somebody who doesn't understand construction
> details isn't a good idea...see, he might be starting small and working
his
> way up to advanced structural calculations. You won't ever know...but to
> jump on somebody for trying to learn...
>
> P
>
> PS - I have a degree in engineering AND in architecture...becareful what
> assumptions YOU make.
>
>
<snip the yelling>

You miss the point..the entire production of a building is a team effort
starting with the client through to the client passing through architects,
engineers, mechancial consultants, building officials, product reps,
interior designers, day laborers, and many others. Each as a specific job
to do. You don't expect the mechancial engineer to understand the flashing
details, and you don't expect the architect to be a mechanical engineer.

BUT THERE MUST BE SOMEONE WHO HAS "SUFFICIENT" KNOWLEDGE

IN DIFEERENT AREAS TO CO-ORDINATE AND CONTROL THEM. ARE THE

ACHITECTS GOOD ENOUGH FOR SUCH A JOB?


However both can screw up the other's work...I'm working on some buildings
where the original architect designed a structure that cause the supplies
and returns to be within 2 feet of each other, both on the interior side of
the room. The result is a very uncomfortable room. The mechanical designer
should have told the architect that this wasn't going to work...but he
didn't need to be a mechanical engineer.


Communication between the various parties is very important and the
architect needs to have an understanding of all the parts, but he doesn't
need to design all the parts. The architect does not need to do structural
calclulations for moment connection between a beam and column...that's not
his job. He needs to know what a moment connection does, and how it might
impact other parts of the design.

IF, IN THIS WORLD, TIME AND COSTS ARE OF NO SIGNIFICANCE,

ARCHITECTS MAY BE SOME CUTE CREATURES ON EARTH. THE

REALITY IS THAT WE HAVE LIMITED TIME AND BUDGET FOR MOST

PROJECTS. IN MANY CASES, THE ARCHITECTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND

HOW THEIR "DESIGN" OR CHANGES THEY INTEND TO MAKE WOULD

AFFECT THE TIME AND COSTS OF THE PROJECTS. I DO NOT MEAN THAT

THEY HAVE TO COUNT EVERY MINUTE AND EVERY CENT, BUT

AT LEAST THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME ROUGH IDEAS OF THE TIME AND

COSTS IMPLICATIONS. WITHOUT "SUFFICIENT" UNDERSTANDING OF THE

SCIENCE OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONS, THE ARCHITECTS ARE

NEVER ABLE TO DO SO. THEIR ACADEMIC TRAINING IS SO

INSUFFCIENT THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO EXPAND THEIR

KNOWLEDGE COMPETENTLY.

LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. UNDER STANDARD CONTRACT TERMS,

THE ARCHITECTS ARE THE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATORS OF THE

PROJECTS AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE THE DUTIES TO ASSESS

THE APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND OTHER CLAIMS

FROM THE CONTRACTORS. HOWEVER, MANY ARCHITECTS DO NOT

EVEN UNDERSTAND CRITICAL PATH ANALYSIS (CPA). THEN, HOW

CAN THEY FULFILL SUCH OBLIGATIONS SATISFACTORILY?

THE SAD THING IS THEY ARE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY UNDER

THE CONTRACTS, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE

TO EXERCISE THEIR AUTHORITIES APPROPRIATELY. EVEN WORSE,

THEY ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITIES.



As for the help of a contractor, yes sometimes they help, and sometimes they
don't. If they are interested in producing a quality building, then they'll
make suggestions and recommendations that best serve the client. Sometimes
they just want to increase the amount of money in their own pockets a the
expense of someone else. In these times, it's imporant the architect stands
their ground and ensures that the building is constructed as designed. I've
worked with both kinds of contractors and the ones that are the best are the
ones, who like the architect, doen't assume they know or understand
everything.

THE FACT IS, THE COMPETENT CONTRACTORS CAN PUT UP BUILDINGS

WITHOUT ARCHITECTS, BUT THE ARCHITECTS CAN DO NOTHING

WITHOUT THE CONTRACTORS. THERE ARE WAYS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY

CONTROL OF WORKS, BUT THE ARCHITECTS JUST DO NOT KNOW HOW.

NO ONE WOULD DISPUTE THAT THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

STEMS FROM OUR ABILITY TO "MATHEMATIZE" NATURE. IT IS THE MOST SYSTEMATIC

WAY TO ANALYZE THE NATURE, AS FAR AS WE KNOW. INDEED, WE MAY SAY THAT OUR
PHYSICAL WORLD IS GOVERNED BY PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL LAWS.

ECONOMISTS, MANAGERS AND SOCIAL SCIENTISTS ETC. SHOULD KNOW THAT USE OF
MATHEMATICAL MODELS CAN HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THEIR SUBJECTS OR PROBLEMS MORE
THOROUGHLY. ADMITTEDLY, THERE ARE MANY ISSUES WHICH ARE SO COMPLICATED THAT
WE ARE UNABLE TO "MATHEMATIZE" SATISFACTORILY FOR THE TIME BEING. HOWEVER,
WHAT OTHER TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE?

THE ARCHITECTS SHOULD FEEL SHAMEFUL, IF THEY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE MADE

SIGNIFICANT ACHEIVEMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT,

BECAUSE THEY CANNOT EVEN "MATHEMATIZE" THE ISSUES THEY ARE TO DEAL WITH.

IT IS A SHAME THAT OUR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARE BEING LED BY THESE SILLY

"ARTISTS"!!


Finally, getting all over for somebody who doesn't understand construction
details isn't a good idea...see, he might be starting small and working his
way up to advanced structural calculations. You won't ever know...but to
jump on somebody for trying to learn...

P

PS - I have a degree in engineering AND in architecture...becareful what
assumptions YOU make.