5 Shocking Architectural Failures

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

Thank you for saying it so I don't have to.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

errr....no. Architects need to understand load capacity and all that sciency-building stuff too.


EDIT: Let me qualify my statement -- I understand that architects are not PEs and do not have the same degree of knowledge as, say, a Civil Engineer would have for building materials, etc. But they are supposed to have some knowledge on these matters as well in order to create realistic designs. Some of the examples given -- in particular the bridge in Tacoma, would seem to be more of an engineer failing than an architectural one, definitely.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

errr....no. Architects need to understand load capacity and all that sciency-building stuff too.


EDIT: Let me qualify my statement -- I understand that architects are not PEs and do not have the same degree of knowledge as, say, a Civil Engineer would have for building materials, etc. But they are supposed to have some knowledge on these matters as well in order to create realistic designs. Some of the examples given -- in particular the bridge in Tacoma, would seem to be more of an engineer failing than an architectural one, definitely.

Uhh... not really. They need to understand very, very basic engineering fundamentals, but that is only really used to gather if what they are conceiving is even remotely feasible. Most of the time they draw on their experience from other jobs and rules of thumb. Actually, never have I seen one do a calculation of any kind.

Architects rely on the engineers to make their buildings safe and code compliant (except for fire codes and egress). Most of the time if there is a "building" failure it is due to engineering/construction... not architects.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by epitome1170

Uhh... not really. They need to understand very, very basic engineering fundamentals, but that is only really used to gather if what they are conceiving is even remotely feasible. Most of the time they draw on their experience from other jobs and rules of thumb. Actually, never have I seen one do a calculation of any kind.

Architects rely on the engineers to make their buildings safe and code compliant (except for fire codes and egress). Most of the time if there is a "building" failure it is due to engineering/construction... not architects.

Since you're a CivE as I recall, I'll definitely defer to you.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Since you're a CivE as I recall, I'll definitely defer to you.

Just trying to teach the world the finer points of my industry.

[rageeumr]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

errr....no. Architects need to understand load capacity and all that sciency-building stuff too.

They don't NEED to. The good ones do, but there are plenty that don't, and still have a stamp.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by rageeumr

They don't NEED to. The good ones do, but there are plenty that don't, and still have a stamp.

err... wrong. To get a stamp they have to pass a test in each discipline which makes them learn the basics. (And it is the basics because I have taught some of the structural portions to a few architect friends to prepare them for that test... which is supposedly the hardest one they take.)

[rageeumr]

Originally Posted by epitome1170

err... wrong. To get a stamp they have to pass a test in each discipline which makes them learn the basics. (And it is the basics because I have taught some of the structural portions to a few architect friends to prepare them for that test... which is supposedly the hardest one they take.)

I feel like we're arguing the same point. I was saying that structural knowledge is not required to have an AIA stamp, but the "good" architects have a pretty decent understanding of structural requirements and constructability. They're obviously not going to be sizing structural members, but they can allow for structure in preliminary sketches, instead of handing over a pretty picture and saying "ok, figure out how to make this stand up"

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

errr....no. Architects need to understand load capacity and all that sciency-building stuff too.


EDIT: Let me qualify my statement -- I understand that architects are not PEs and do not have the same degree of knowledge as, say, a Civil Engineer would have for building materials, etc. But they are supposed to have some knowledge on these matters as well in order to create realistic designs. Some of the examples given -- in particular the bridge in Tacoma, would seem to be more of an engineer failing than an architectural one, definitely.

This is exactly right. The architect who does only "pretty designs" is not a real architect. The Architect does have to have reasonable knowledge of loads and dead and live loads, strength of materials, etc. It helps him/her to avoid creating unreasonably unfeasible designs. But the seeing to the structural integrity of the work is the engineer's role.

In most cases both the Architect and the Engineer sign off to the final product.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by Frankie

This is exactly right. The architect who does only "pretty designs" is not a real architect. The Architect does have to have reasonable knowledge of loads and dead and live loads, strength of materials, etc. It helps him/her to avoid creating unreasonably unfeasible designs. But the seeing to the structural integrity of the work is the engineer's role.

In most cases both the Architect and the Engineer sign off to the final product.

The architect signs off his part of the design... finishes, floor plans, egress, fire protection.

The structural engineer signs off his part... columns, foundations, beams (things that actually make a building safe).

They never sign off on the same items.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Someone needs to learn the difference between an engineer and an architect.

An architect draws a pretty picture of a bridge or a building. It's up to the engineer to make it work or to tell the architect to get real. These are all engineering failures. But cutting edge designs and the resulting failures is one of the ways that engineering knowledge advances.

How is designing a curved hotel that focuses the sun on the swimming pool area an engineering failure?

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by Stewie

How is designing a curved hotel that focuses the sun on the swimming pool area an engineering failure?

How is a swaying bridge an architectural failure?

See my post #22

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by epitome1170

How is a swaying bridge an architectural failure?

See my post #22

Architectural design trends and artistic tastes. My understanding of it since the bridge itself was designed by famous New York bridge engineer Leon Moisseiff, that it was at the time the call for a certain style of aesthetic architecture. His design was influenced by architecture at the time that was meant to include terms such as graceful, elegant, slender, and lean feminine type of architecture.

This type of design is what influenced the call for minimal girders and contributed to its actual failure. I know architecture and engineering run together a lot in design, and is probably why the footage of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge callapse is still shown today to architecture, as well as engineering and physics students as a cautionary tale as well as being selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

Architectural design trends and artistic tastes. My understanding of it since the bridge itself was designed by famous New York bridge engineer Leon Moisseiff, that it was at the time the call for a certain style of aesthetic architecture. His design was influenced by architecture at the time that was meant to include terms such as graceful, elegant, slender, and lean feminine type of architecture.

This type of design is what influenced the call for minimal girders and contributed to its actual failure. I know architecture and engineering run together a lot in design, and is probably why the footage of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge callapse is still shown today to architecture, as well as engineering and physics students as a cautionary tale as well as being selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

I realize the architect was going for a particular aesthetic approach, however, it was not an architectural failure, but rather an engineering one because of the lack of knowledge in vibrations and resonance due to wind and natural frequencies of the bridge.

The bridge itself could have given the same aesthetics had the engineers altered the natural frequencies (which could have been done numerous ways). This is, literally, a text book example of structural engineering failures and has aided in greatly understanding wind phenomenons and how it effects the structure.

There are definitely some architectural failures in that article... this is not one of them.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Stewie

How is designing a curved hotel that focuses the sun on the swimming pool area an engineering failure?

This one is more of an architectural failure, but there must have been hundreds of engineers on the job who had taken physics (as freshmen!) and knew all about how curved mirrors tend to focus light. If one of them had sent their concern up the chain of command, this could have easily been averted. Engineers have responsibility to society to make sure that the projects they work on are safe and serve the needs of their client regardless of whether a particular decision fell within their own realm of responsibility.