I've just finished chapter 13 on the ups and downs of bridges and what engineers gain from both the successes and failures of bridges. I liked how the author stated on page 170 that the grand successes give models and inspiration - but not rules and lead to confidence and stretching those designs to the limit. Engineers could stick to what they are sure will work, but that would limit them. They couldn't use new materials, unique locations, or allow greater loads so there would be no progress. Risk is the price of progress. It made me think of engineering as rock climbing. You may know a certain way up a rock face, places where the hand holds and footing will get you to the top, but you want to find a better quicker way, or climb higher or more difficult walls. You're never satisfied with the status quo. I guess that's human nature.
There are also a great number of picture books available for young students about bridges. I found many at the Boston Museum of Science and many more on Amazon. Here's a quick list from Amazon:
List of Bridge books
I was born and spent my early years in Brooklyn, so it's easy for me to see how the Brooklyn Bridge would be an inspiration to anyone. The story of the Roeblings and the building of the bridge is also fascinating. Its hard to imagine this bridge ever being replaced, so I'm glad they were able to strengthen it over the years to accommodate modern traffic.
I do have one question that arose in the previous chapter from this quote on page 152: As the roles of architects and engineers moved further and further apart in the latter half of the century, the Crystal Palace served as a symbol of what could be but what would not be again until the mid-twentieth century.
What confused me about that was the role of architects and engineers moving further apart. Is that still true today? I would imagine there is a great deal of overlap and that the design process must constantly go back and forth between architects and engineers. What exactly is the relationship between architects and engineers in designing buildings today?
I imagine the relationship between the two being somewhat of a dance. The architect fights for the aesthetics and the engineer the practicality. Both educating each other with a sense of their own priorities being the most important factor to consider. I think the example of the crystal palace shows Paxton as an engineer with a strong aesthetic, or maybe he was an architect with a strong sense of structures.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of something I saw just the other day. I just recently returned from a trip to Montreal and I am always drawn to the Habitat 67 apartments across the river from the city. Take a look at this image of the complex. (I don't think you can link in comment so you'll have to copy and paste)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Habitat_panorama.jpg
When I see this building I think that it must have been a monumental feet by the engineers to bring the architects dream to life. I'm sure that there must have been much doubt on the practicality of the design from an engineering point of view.
We eat with our eyes first, and this structure is definitely something to feast your eyes on. But after the initial moment of WOW I'm left wondering, "Is it safe? sturdy?"
Any engineering challenges I've done in school have always centered around the functionality of the design. To be honest, the aesthetic was never a consideration. However, you make me wonder how students might alter their designs if they had to take into consideration the overall looks of their structures? Would this take away from the science and the understanding or add to it increasing the value of a project?
In some of our rubrics, we do include a category on "marketability". This would include appearance, cost, and efficiency. Let's the students know that if something is "ugly", it may be effective but you could never sell it :-)
ReplyDeleteGood thought. I've not called it that before but also have been trying to include not only the marketability but have the groups verbally sell their designs to the other group.
DeleteArchitects typically are responsible not only for aesthetics, but also the usefulness of the building - layout, accessibility, location of light switches, which ways the doors swing, etc. (although some of these are strongly dictated by code, it is still the architect's responsibility to make sure these codes are met. They are also often responsible for energy requirements - window locations, insulation, etc. For a large structure, a mechanical engineer would be employed to design elevators and heating/cooling, and electrical engineer might be onboard for reserve power requirements, and general electrical systems and the structural engineer to make sure the building stands up. Often, the structural engineer is brought in after the architect and owner have agreed on a basic layout, and sometimes even the basic building material (steel, concrete, timber, etc.). Generally the structural engineer's work must fit within the architect's vision. One of the reasons some engineers really enjoy bridges, is that there is often no architect, and the structural concerns are allowed to drive the project direction. So...the school activities that ignore aesthetics and marketability may not be that far off. They are important, but most engineers are not trained in those areas, and are typically not responsible for them. Safety and efficiency are really where the training is focused. There can be some back and forth if the engineer can save the project enough money, the architect may revise the vision. It is a large team that makes a good building, each bringing different skills and viewpoints to the project.
ReplyDeleteThe comments in this strand about the interplay between engineering and design (what I think people are referring to as aesthetics above) reminded me of something that stood out to me in the Steve Jobs biography I'm reading. Jobs was a stickler (understatement!)for design. In fact, when he rejoined Apple one thing he insisted on was that the design be in the driver's seat and not the other way around. In other words, the engineers would need to figure out how to fit the guts of the device into the design as opposed to working the design around the functioning components. This approach was counterintuitive to my thinking about how a product like an iPod or laptop is developed. Jobs attributed the company's struggles to putting the engineering of the product ahead of design.
ReplyDelete