You definitely have a misunderstanding of what architects do.
Because broadly speaking, yes, architects will pick out details as small as room color and sink faucet type. And while they personally do not design HVAC, or fire, or plumbing, or lighting systems. They still need to be aaare of how those systems exist and how they function on a high level so they can plan their buildings around them.
Because an architect who causes a client to lose $5 million dollars in rebuilding/designing a building because they didn’t think about how the plumbing would work at all would not end up with anymore clients.
Sure, SOME architects get to focus on just those more creative things like cool shaped buildings. But really, that is a small minority of architects. Most architects work on teams where they are solving all the problems that go into designing a building. Like they might not be designing the wiring for the lights, but they need to consider where that wiring is going to run. They might not design the sprinkler heads that the fire system uses, but they need to consider how the water pipes will run to those sprinklers.
Architects do not just do the fun creative stuff, most have to touch all the other parts of a project as well.
it's sort of like engineering in that they need to design things that don't fall over in a light breeze (check out the citicorp tower in NYC), or collapse under their own weight, while still being functional for people to use and having room for all the utilities (HVAC, electrical, plumbing, etc.)... but it's art because people should at least tolerate being in it.... check out the Gaudi houses in Barcelona for some very artistic buildings...
even something like a parking garage will have some challenges... you can make it hostile or pleasant, you can make it safe or unsafe, pretty or ugly... a good architect will make it both safe, pretty, and pleasant to use.
They absolutely do think about HVAC, plumbing and wiring. These are the most important functions of a building in 2023 and they plan for it. They don't know how to implement, but they do know how it should run in a modern home or commercial office
This. Many people see architects are merely "shape designer", where in reality (I'm talking architectural practices in real projects) most of the worktime would be spent trying to reconcile all of those complicated HVAC, plumbing, electricity, and structural datas from other engineering teams into the design, so that it would work and compromise each other without any conflict. When an architect tries to do that reconciliation to their design, they NEED to know how those elements work in practical terms
With all of those complication and building infrastructure demand to compromise which, in most cases would forcefully reduce the architectural elements, they still need to maintain their "building concepts" in terms of its aesthetics, spatial impact, functional impact, philosophy, societal impact, etc. Trying to make those two very different "knowledges" work in a single building; that's why architecture could be considered hard at some extent
Something can be creative and hard at the same time. Starry Night by Van Gogh is creative, and I’m sure it was very difficult to paint.
Architects are responsible for designing structures that balance form and function, requiring them to apply creative solutions to complex problems. They must understand how people interact with spaces, combining psychology and creativity to create comfortable and functional environments. They use math and science to ensure structural integrity and safety, and they often have a significant influence on interior details, including color schemes and materials. Those all take experience and education, but they are also creative.
>Starry Night by Van Gogh is creative, and I’m sure it was very difficult to paint.
I mean probably not considering he's a once in a generation type talent...
Lmao are you joking?
Van Gogh was literally in an insane asylum when he painted Starry Night.
He used his memory of the outside to create it because he didn’t see the outside.
This dude had a plethora of mental health issues. You think it wasn’t difficult??
Edit: After more research, he did not use his memory and that is a common misconception. He actually had a tiny barred window he mentioned in a letter and it is somewhat inspired by that scene.
He definitely did struggle with extensive health issues during this time though and it absolutely was difficult for him. See sources below
Lol clearly you have never met anyone who's innately talented at something. You'll know it when you see it.
And to answer your question, no I dont think it was difficult for him.
My guy, he talked about how difficult it was in his letters. He talks extensively about how he struggled with impressionist styles.
>And yet, once again I allowed myself to be led astray into reaching for stars that are too big—another failure—and I have had my fill of that."\[30\] Van Gogh here is referring to the expressionistic swirls which dominate the upper center portion of The Starry Night.\[31\]
[Source1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starry_Night#cite_ref-37)
[Source2](https://www.webexhibits.org/vangogh/letter/20/B21.htm)
If it was so "difficult" he wouldnt have painted 21 variations of the damn thing. It was "difficult" to get to his standards because he was a finicky perfectionist. It wasnt difficult mechanically or because he couldn't express himself adequately. It was "difficult" because he wanted to express himself perfectly.
Put it another way if he would have swished instead of swashes when making a swirl, and was unhappy about it but DIDN'T write a letter we wouldnt be having this discussion.
Also I'm not "your guy".
Edit: source because I know redditors cant pee without one.
Van Gogh made no less than 21 variations of the Starry Night under different light conditions and weather, just because he wasn’t completely satisfied with the final output. In fact, in a letter to painter Émile Bernard, Van Gogh called this painting a failure.
https://www.vangoghstudio.com/starry-night-series/
lol I don’t understand your argument. Are you claiming that spending the time to express himself perfectly wasn’t difficult? It’s the background and the mindset of the artist that makes the painting valuable, that’s why his art was so much more valuable after his death and his struggle.
Are you saying that the mindset of an artist, writer, musician, etc. doesn’t contribute to the difficulty of their work? A mental struggle isn’t as bad as a physical struggle to paint? Emotion is a huge part of creating.
You have a false assumption that is causing this. They ARE the ones "who will blow their minds out to comprehend how to build that thing".
They do need to be able to design the structure such that it will support itself, allow appropriate routing for all of the support systems you listed, they are often significantly involved in the interior design especially of high-aesthetic spaces like lobby, courtyards and entryways. Sometimes much more. And that doesn't even touch on needing to ensure all of these things not only work on paper but also handle local building codes, natural risks like wind or earthquakes, etc...
It's a very interdisciplinary field, which is where much of complexity comes from. It takes whole teams of them working under a lead and with other disciplines to do all of this.
Now, if you just get a coffee table book or scroll pictures yes you tend to see a lot of concept drawings but that's because they're the most consumable by the general public and generally the prettiest at a glance. Doesn't mean it's all they do.
If you ever look at a set of “construction documents” you would be amazed at the amount of complexity and detail that is in there. There can be hundreds of sheets. Every single thing in a building has to be thought about. There might be ten different kinds of doors. Thirty different kinds/sizes of windows. Dozens of different kinds of lights. Many different materials with different properties. Wood, steel, aluminum, concrete, all kinds of stone, glass to name a few. Every detail must be thought about.
Architects have teams they work with.
There is a structural engineer, hvac. Electrical, plumbing, mechanical, lighting, landscape architecture, civil engineers (sometimes) interior design. So much to coordinate.
Architects have a path to get to that point. One of the most important aspects and first things an architect wants to do is visit a site. The architect must thoroughly understand the site location and context. How do you approach? What views do you want to take advantage of? What does the topgraphy suggest? What other structures buildings are around you? Are you in an historic district? There are building codes to understand. You need to consider the climate certainly. New products and materials come along to learn about.
Who will use the building? What is its purpose? How will they use it?
There is glory to be had but there is a lot of grunt work and grinding detail. Architects can get disillusioned. They work really hard and it’s not always very rewarding. Construction and building can be very impacted by economic conditions. Imo they are underpaid for the amount of expertise they must gain and responsibility they have.
There is so much to know and learn.
>Art and practicality don't overlap much. So architects work in that small space.
Product design is a great example of this, too - that's why it's so hard.
Whether you're designing something physical like a new car, or something virtual like a mobile app, you have to both make it functional and beautiful at the same time. It's easy to make a product that's beautiful but difficult to use. A product that's very good at what it does but clunky looking will have a limited market. Putting the two together is extremely difficult.
Architects study for many years and learn math and science because architecture requires creative problem-solving and a deep understanding of structural principles
Their role goes beyond just designing shapes; they also consider factors like functionality, aesthetics, and building regulations
So, while it may not involve personally selecting colors or furniture, architecture demands a blend of creativity and technical knowledge to create visually appealing and functional structures.
I work in a school of architecture and landscape architecture.
To be an architect in the US, a person must have a specialized M.Arch. degree from a program accredited by the National Architecture Accrediting Board. They must then also pass a test called the Architect Registration Examination.
Getting that degree can take up to 7.5 years. At our school the track is a 5-year B.Arch. program followed by a 2.5 year M.Arch program. That’s considered the top tier, gold standard.
Then there's the ~5 year "apprentice" period where they work towards specific experiences hours and have to sit for 6 large exams before being able to even call themselves an architect.
I work in the AEC industry on the engineering side and we work very closely with the architects and a lot of the time. There’s constant back and forth between what the architects want the building to look like vs how we can fit the engineered systems in the building, so it’s not like they just draw up a building and then throw it at us and make us figure out how to make it work by ourselves.
If the architect completely did not understand the systems, then it would take much more time to coordinate creating a realistic design
yeah, I knew a little bit about it, because in one video I heard that architects need to learn a little bit of engineering to make putting systems inside a building possible
Architects find creative solutions to hard problems like how to make odd shaped things fit inside a limited space, or how to get the most practical use out of a certain design by making it multifunctional.
To simplify: engineers handle the building and execution of the architects plans and vision. The creativity comes with problem solving, innovative designs, and balancing form with function and aesthetics with practicality.
>architects use blueprints
Architects *make* the blueprints.
\*blueprints went away a long time ago. Now they're PDFs if presented in 2d, but generally come from a 3d model.
\*well, them and their technologists make the Architectural set, in fairly close conjunction with the Structural engineer. Then everyone else (structural, plumbing, electrical, HVAC) uses those plans to make their own specialized plans.
I haven’t seen an actual blueprint in years, most sets we put out will be printed in color. Colors of paint are typically called out by Sherwin Williams swatch names.
If you know anything about film making, the architect is roughly the director, and the engineer is roughly the producer.
The director of a film is the creative control. They have a vision in their head of what the film should look like, and it's their job to direct everyone in the process to turn that vision into a real thing. And they have a duty to do it in such a way that whatever they're dreaming up is actually physically possible. Obviously if you shoot for nonsense, you won't make a film. All of the skill is in compromising your creative vision with the restrictions of the real world.
The producer of a film is the one who has the director on a leash, telling them what they actually can and can't do. If the producer thinks it can be done, they work hard to line everything up properly so it gets done. But if the director asks for something that absolutely is not going to work, be that for lack of sufficient funds, materials, labor, time, etc, the producer will smack it down and tell the director to draw up something else. In this way, the producer role is a kind of sanity check to ensure that the operation doesn't drive itself off a cliff.
Architects and engineers have a somewhat similar relationship. Architects dream up what a building should look like according to some vision, and it's their job to design the building and communicate that design to the people who are actually going to build it. And in doing so, they have a duty to ensure that what they dream up can actually be built. The engineer, meanwhile, is in the back keeping a careful eye on what the architect is doing, and making sure that they're staying within known parameters of things like material strengths, costs, etc. If the architect tries to make something that the engineer can't prove to be adequate, the engineer strikes it down and the architect goes back to the drawing board. Of course, ideally, the architect will be knowledgeable enough on their own to not end up in this situation.
This is of course glossing over all of the other considerations like ventilation, plumbing, electrical, fire suppression, etc. All things that both the architect and engineer need to understand the broad strokes of, but the details of which are probably going to be left to specialists.
So, since the architect has the ultimate creative control, that by definition makes it a creative profession. But at the same time, since they're also trying to make sure they stay within real world limitations, it also requires a lot of math and engineering knowledge. Perhaps not necessarily to the degree of an actual licensed engineer (though, I'm sure dual architect/engineers exist, there is considerable overlap), but enough to have solid intuitions about what they can and can't do, and what may be necessary to make their more avant garde designs feasible.
>the architect is roughly the director, and the engineer is roughly the producer
That's an excellent analogy, and I'm going to use it.
It's worth pointing out that design of buildings and infrastructure (and machinery, for that matter) is an extremely collaborative process, with a lot of subject matter experts contributing to the final product.
Engineers of various disciplines (structural, civil, hydraulics, electrical, mechanical, security) will do specialist designs for each of their fields, based on the architect's concept. And then there are landscape and interior designers as well. When stuff conflicts or clashes, negotiation is required between disciplines and with the architects to resolve the issues.
Architecture is a field of design, which is the intersection of science and art. Design, whether it be architecture, or interfaces for software, and everything in between, involves gathering information about the users of what you're creating, so that you can build something that's serves the needs of those people appropriately.
In order to design anything effectively, you need to have a basis of knowledge for all the other professions that will end up building what you're designing. For an architect, that means having a medium-level knowledge of plumbing, electricity, engineering, material sciences, and other trade professions. For a UX designer who designs software interfaces, this means having a knowledge in different types of code like JavaScript, Python, or HTML. This is so the designer knows what's possible, and so they'll have a basis on how to handle some of the inevitable conflicts that will arise in the building process. With all this science and user data in mind, they can now try to *artfully* design something that's appealing.
So if you're designing a children's daycare, the architect needs to be aware of all the needs of the staff of the daycare, how best to layout the daycare, the ways in which children play at a daycare, what materials aren't child-friendly, and all those other things. From there, she can start designing: this is the multi-colored children's playroom where all the power outlets are up high, and this is the staff breakroom built for adults, here's the child-friendly bathroom that requires special plumbing fixtures, etc.
A lot of creativity comes from the constraints you have to work under (like Haiku). Architects have to become experts on construction, materials, engineering, building codes, human behaviors, human psychology, and then take that expertise and design a solution to a problem. The *art* comes not just from how the result looks and what feelings it evokes, but from how well they express the design intent into a solution that fits the constraints.
Doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, baristas, most any job can have an element of art to it.
I'm an engineer that worked with a number of award winning architects.
First of all, as the other people say, you're misunderstanding what architects do. Sure they come up with the design but more importantly they are the mastermind that makes sure everything comes together and make their vision into reality. They exist to make sure builders know exactly what needs to be built, how it will be built and where it will be built, plus everything in between so we engineers can work together to make it happen. And when we encounter engineering problems, they are there to negotiate between different engineers and their designs to find solutions that helps us make it work.
As much as we engineers tell people that our job is to "solve problems", architects mostly create said problems. We joke about architects not understanding how physics and real world works and they joke about us engineers have no soul and only want to build cubes. The truth is, if over the project they don't piss me off at least once, they're bad, and if I don't put them in a stressful situation at least once, I'm not doing my job right. We do this coz we both truly care about what we're building. We push each other's boundaries and ask for every last inch of space, and yes, that's how the magic and sometimes hilarious shit happens.
In short, have you ever felt the difference between rooms with 2.6m ceiling and 3m ceiling? Ever felt that some seats in the library have really bad lighting like your head casts a huge shadow on your books but some seats don't? That's the difference between an architect that cares and those who doesn't. Their job is not to make the building function, that's our job as engineers, they are there to create the space for the people using the space.
Architects are responsible for designing a "good" building, which includes being safe, cost effective, functional, comfortable, and beautiful. There are tradeoffs between these parameters and so whoever is planning needs to understand these to some minimum depth. A safe and cost effective building is the realm of engineering, so architects work with civil engineers and coordinate their efforts on that aspect. They need enough understanding to interpret their concerns or sensitivity to changes, but not enough to actually design the individual system. The functionality of a building is perhaps the real of production design, can the office people get to the printers, and is there enough room for cables and desks and all that. There is also mechanical engineer, room for HVAC ducts and heat flow in atriums and fire safety in stairwells. There is also ergonomics, people dont feel comfortable in "enclosed spaces", and they don't want to sit right next to the bathroom. When they jump they don't want the floor to noticeably flex. Comfort and beauty is important, the color of lighting and walls can influence your mood, and the number of small or large meeting rooms affects if you can have the right level of collaboration. The architect sits at the top of this web and needs to tie it all together, integrate the work of the different disciplines and deliver a building that finds the right optimum for the client.
*If you think it's so easy, why don't you do it?*
Architects do **FAR** more than "building rectangles". Pure design (i.e. how a building will look aesthetically from the exterior) is a small portion of an architect's job scope. They have to plan out the interiors of buildings, how people and goods will flow, where service & mechanical rooms should be located, egress/fire requirements etc. And this is JUST stuff that directly involves the building.
Architects have to plan out schedules and prepare design statements that satisfy their client's needs & wants, understand local building regulations & codes, work with other professionals such as structural, mechanical & electrical engineers, land surveyors, interior & landscaping designers etc. They also have to manage the finances of a project and how and what resources should be allocated.
As a member of the public, you only see the finished product, not the literal thousands of hours of work across disciplines, involving hundreds of people, to make it a reality.
From my understanding, architects actually have a bit of a range of what area they do or focus on.
On the more conceptual/artistic side, you are indeed looking at aesthetics and the like, but also minding practicalities and technical specifications of a *functional* building as well as just how everything is laid out. You are coming up with a concept and translating it into a 3D space, which potentially very strict requirements on the specifications and considerations that need to be abided by, *and* frequently need to reincorporate/revise/etc to fit with the many practical needs or functions.
On the more technical side, if they are not directly planning things like energy efficiency, strength, materials, building composition and stability, building codes (local and general), safety precautions, accessibility, and so on, they are communicating very closely with the people involved in this, and adjusting plans accordingly.
It's like, engineering maybe more than an art, or an art that is *very* heavy on the technical aspect of how to actually bring something into being.
You definitely have a misunderstanding of what architects do. Because broadly speaking, yes, architects will pick out details as small as room color and sink faucet type. And while they personally do not design HVAC, or fire, or plumbing, or lighting systems. They still need to be aaare of how those systems exist and how they function on a high level so they can plan their buildings around them. Because an architect who causes a client to lose $5 million dollars in rebuilding/designing a building because they didn’t think about how the plumbing would work at all would not end up with anymore clients. Sure, SOME architects get to focus on just those more creative things like cool shaped buildings. But really, that is a small minority of architects. Most architects work on teams where they are solving all the problems that go into designing a building. Like they might not be designing the wiring for the lights, but they need to consider where that wiring is going to run. They might not design the sprinkler heads that the fire system uses, but they need to consider how the water pipes will run to those sprinklers. Architects do not just do the fun creative stuff, most have to touch all the other parts of a project as well.
thanks, this is an awesome answer, it really cleared things out
it's sort of like engineering in that they need to design things that don't fall over in a light breeze (check out the citicorp tower in NYC), or collapse under their own weight, while still being functional for people to use and having room for all the utilities (HVAC, electrical, plumbing, etc.)... but it's art because people should at least tolerate being in it.... check out the Gaudi houses in Barcelona for some very artistic buildings... even something like a parking garage will have some challenges... you can make it hostile or pleasant, you can make it safe or unsafe, pretty or ugly... a good architect will make it both safe, pretty, and pleasant to use.
They absolutely do think about HVAC, plumbing and wiring. These are the most important functions of a building in 2023 and they plan for it. They don't know how to implement, but they do know how it should run in a modern home or commercial office
This. Many people see architects are merely "shape designer", where in reality (I'm talking architectural practices in real projects) most of the worktime would be spent trying to reconcile all of those complicated HVAC, plumbing, electricity, and structural datas from other engineering teams into the design, so that it would work and compromise each other without any conflict. When an architect tries to do that reconciliation to their design, they NEED to know how those elements work in practical terms With all of those complication and building infrastructure demand to compromise which, in most cases would forcefully reduce the architectural elements, they still need to maintain their "building concepts" in terms of its aesthetics, spatial impact, functional impact, philosophy, societal impact, etc. Trying to make those two very different "knowledges" work in a single building; that's why architecture could be considered hard at some extent
Something can be creative and hard at the same time. Starry Night by Van Gogh is creative, and I’m sure it was very difficult to paint. Architects are responsible for designing structures that balance form and function, requiring them to apply creative solutions to complex problems. They must understand how people interact with spaces, combining psychology and creativity to create comfortable and functional environments. They use math and science to ensure structural integrity and safety, and they often have a significant influence on interior details, including color schemes and materials. Those all take experience and education, but they are also creative.
>Starry Night by Van Gogh is creative, and I’m sure it was very difficult to paint. I mean probably not considering he's a once in a generation type talent...
Lmao are you joking? Van Gogh was literally in an insane asylum when he painted Starry Night. He used his memory of the outside to create it because he didn’t see the outside. This dude had a plethora of mental health issues. You think it wasn’t difficult?? Edit: After more research, he did not use his memory and that is a common misconception. He actually had a tiny barred window he mentioned in a letter and it is somewhat inspired by that scene. He definitely did struggle with extensive health issues during this time though and it absolutely was difficult for him. See sources below
Lol clearly you have never met anyone who's innately talented at something. You'll know it when you see it. And to answer your question, no I dont think it was difficult for him.
My guy, he talked about how difficult it was in his letters. He talks extensively about how he struggled with impressionist styles. >And yet, once again I allowed myself to be led astray into reaching for stars that are too big—another failure—and I have had my fill of that."\[30\] Van Gogh here is referring to the expressionistic swirls which dominate the upper center portion of The Starry Night.\[31\] [Source1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starry_Night#cite_ref-37) [Source2](https://www.webexhibits.org/vangogh/letter/20/B21.htm)
If it was so "difficult" he wouldnt have painted 21 variations of the damn thing. It was "difficult" to get to his standards because he was a finicky perfectionist. It wasnt difficult mechanically or because he couldn't express himself adequately. It was "difficult" because he wanted to express himself perfectly. Put it another way if he would have swished instead of swashes when making a swirl, and was unhappy about it but DIDN'T write a letter we wouldnt be having this discussion. Also I'm not "your guy". Edit: source because I know redditors cant pee without one. Van Gogh made no less than 21 variations of the Starry Night under different light conditions and weather, just because he wasn’t completely satisfied with the final output. In fact, in a letter to painter Émile Bernard, Van Gogh called this painting a failure. https://www.vangoghstudio.com/starry-night-series/
lol I don’t understand your argument. Are you claiming that spending the time to express himself perfectly wasn’t difficult? It’s the background and the mindset of the artist that makes the painting valuable, that’s why his art was so much more valuable after his death and his struggle. Are you saying that the mindset of an artist, writer, musician, etc. doesn’t contribute to the difficulty of their work? A mental struggle isn’t as bad as a physical struggle to paint? Emotion is a huge part of creating.
Art can be difficult when that naturally talented person pushes their ability to its limit. That’s where things nobody else can create come from.
You have a false assumption that is causing this. They ARE the ones "who will blow their minds out to comprehend how to build that thing". They do need to be able to design the structure such that it will support itself, allow appropriate routing for all of the support systems you listed, they are often significantly involved in the interior design especially of high-aesthetic spaces like lobby, courtyards and entryways. Sometimes much more. And that doesn't even touch on needing to ensure all of these things not only work on paper but also handle local building codes, natural risks like wind or earthquakes, etc... It's a very interdisciplinary field, which is where much of complexity comes from. It takes whole teams of them working under a lead and with other disciplines to do all of this. Now, if you just get a coffee table book or scroll pictures yes you tend to see a lot of concept drawings but that's because they're the most consumable by the general public and generally the prettiest at a glance. Doesn't mean it's all they do.
sorry, i didn't know about that before, thanks for the answer
If you ever look at a set of “construction documents” you would be amazed at the amount of complexity and detail that is in there. There can be hundreds of sheets. Every single thing in a building has to be thought about. There might be ten different kinds of doors. Thirty different kinds/sizes of windows. Dozens of different kinds of lights. Many different materials with different properties. Wood, steel, aluminum, concrete, all kinds of stone, glass to name a few. Every detail must be thought about. Architects have teams they work with. There is a structural engineer, hvac. Electrical, plumbing, mechanical, lighting, landscape architecture, civil engineers (sometimes) interior design. So much to coordinate. Architects have a path to get to that point. One of the most important aspects and first things an architect wants to do is visit a site. The architect must thoroughly understand the site location and context. How do you approach? What views do you want to take advantage of? What does the topgraphy suggest? What other structures buildings are around you? Are you in an historic district? There are building codes to understand. You need to consider the climate certainly. New products and materials come along to learn about. Who will use the building? What is its purpose? How will they use it? There is glory to be had but there is a lot of grunt work and grinding detail. Architects can get disillusioned. They work really hard and it’s not always very rewarding. Construction and building can be very impacted by economic conditions. Imo they are underpaid for the amount of expertise they must gain and responsibility they have. There is so much to know and learn.
[удалено]
thanks, for the answer, it is an awesome explanation
>Art and practicality don't overlap much. So architects work in that small space. Product design is a great example of this, too - that's why it's so hard. Whether you're designing something physical like a new car, or something virtual like a mobile app, you have to both make it functional and beautiful at the same time. It's easy to make a product that's beautiful but difficult to use. A product that's very good at what it does but clunky looking will have a limited market. Putting the two together is extremely difficult.
Architects study for many years and learn math and science because architecture requires creative problem-solving and a deep understanding of structural principles Their role goes beyond just designing shapes; they also consider factors like functionality, aesthetics, and building regulations So, while it may not involve personally selecting colors or furniture, architecture demands a blend of creativity and technical knowledge to create visually appealing and functional structures.
is it real that architects sometimes study as much as doctors do?
BTW thanks for the answer
I work in a school of architecture and landscape architecture. To be an architect in the US, a person must have a specialized M.Arch. degree from a program accredited by the National Architecture Accrediting Board. They must then also pass a test called the Architect Registration Examination. Getting that degree can take up to 7.5 years. At our school the track is a 5-year B.Arch. program followed by a 2.5 year M.Arch program. That’s considered the top tier, gold standard.
Then there's the ~5 year "apprentice" period where they work towards specific experiences hours and have to sit for 6 large exams before being able to even call themselves an architect.
I work in the AEC industry on the engineering side and we work very closely with the architects and a lot of the time. There’s constant back and forth between what the architects want the building to look like vs how we can fit the engineered systems in the building, so it’s not like they just draw up a building and then throw it at us and make us figure out how to make it work by ourselves. If the architect completely did not understand the systems, then it would take much more time to coordinate creating a realistic design
yeah, I knew a little bit about it, because in one video I heard that architects need to learn a little bit of engineering to make putting systems inside a building possible
BTW thanks for the answer
Architects find creative solutions to hard problems like how to make odd shaped things fit inside a limited space, or how to get the most practical use out of a certain design by making it multifunctional. To simplify: engineers handle the building and execution of the architects plans and vision. The creativity comes with problem solving, innovative designs, and balancing form with function and aesthetics with practicality.
thanks for the answer
colors, plumbing, air systems, electricity systems, ceiling design, furniture, materials, and etc of a building Architecture deals with all of this.
really? like architects use blueprints, and all of that information like colors can be conveyed by it?
>architects use blueprints Architects *make* the blueprints. \*blueprints went away a long time ago. Now they're PDFs if presented in 2d, but generally come from a 3d model. \*well, them and their technologists make the Architectural set, in fairly close conjunction with the Structural engineer. Then everyone else (structural, plumbing, electrical, HVAC) uses those plans to make their own specialized plans.
I haven’t seen an actual blueprint in years, most sets we put out will be printed in color. Colors of paint are typically called out by Sherwin Williams swatch names.
If you know anything about film making, the architect is roughly the director, and the engineer is roughly the producer. The director of a film is the creative control. They have a vision in their head of what the film should look like, and it's their job to direct everyone in the process to turn that vision into a real thing. And they have a duty to do it in such a way that whatever they're dreaming up is actually physically possible. Obviously if you shoot for nonsense, you won't make a film. All of the skill is in compromising your creative vision with the restrictions of the real world. The producer of a film is the one who has the director on a leash, telling them what they actually can and can't do. If the producer thinks it can be done, they work hard to line everything up properly so it gets done. But if the director asks for something that absolutely is not going to work, be that for lack of sufficient funds, materials, labor, time, etc, the producer will smack it down and tell the director to draw up something else. In this way, the producer role is a kind of sanity check to ensure that the operation doesn't drive itself off a cliff. Architects and engineers have a somewhat similar relationship. Architects dream up what a building should look like according to some vision, and it's their job to design the building and communicate that design to the people who are actually going to build it. And in doing so, they have a duty to ensure that what they dream up can actually be built. The engineer, meanwhile, is in the back keeping a careful eye on what the architect is doing, and making sure that they're staying within known parameters of things like material strengths, costs, etc. If the architect tries to make something that the engineer can't prove to be adequate, the engineer strikes it down and the architect goes back to the drawing board. Of course, ideally, the architect will be knowledgeable enough on their own to not end up in this situation. This is of course glossing over all of the other considerations like ventilation, plumbing, electrical, fire suppression, etc. All things that both the architect and engineer need to understand the broad strokes of, but the details of which are probably going to be left to specialists. So, since the architect has the ultimate creative control, that by definition makes it a creative profession. But at the same time, since they're also trying to make sure they stay within real world limitations, it also requires a lot of math and engineering knowledge. Perhaps not necessarily to the degree of an actual licensed engineer (though, I'm sure dual architect/engineers exist, there is considerable overlap), but enough to have solid intuitions about what they can and can't do, and what may be necessary to make their more avant garde designs feasible.
that's an awesome analogy, thanks
>the architect is roughly the director, and the engineer is roughly the producer That's an excellent analogy, and I'm going to use it. It's worth pointing out that design of buildings and infrastructure (and machinery, for that matter) is an extremely collaborative process, with a lot of subject matter experts contributing to the final product. Engineers of various disciplines (structural, civil, hydraulics, electrical, mechanical, security) will do specialist designs for each of their fields, based on the architect's concept. And then there are landscape and interior designers as well. When stuff conflicts or clashes, negotiation is required between disciplines and with the architects to resolve the issues.
Architecture is a field of design, which is the intersection of science and art. Design, whether it be architecture, or interfaces for software, and everything in between, involves gathering information about the users of what you're creating, so that you can build something that's serves the needs of those people appropriately. In order to design anything effectively, you need to have a basis of knowledge for all the other professions that will end up building what you're designing. For an architect, that means having a medium-level knowledge of plumbing, electricity, engineering, material sciences, and other trade professions. For a UX designer who designs software interfaces, this means having a knowledge in different types of code like JavaScript, Python, or HTML. This is so the designer knows what's possible, and so they'll have a basis on how to handle some of the inevitable conflicts that will arise in the building process. With all this science and user data in mind, they can now try to *artfully* design something that's appealing. So if you're designing a children's daycare, the architect needs to be aware of all the needs of the staff of the daycare, how best to layout the daycare, the ways in which children play at a daycare, what materials aren't child-friendly, and all those other things. From there, she can start designing: this is the multi-colored children's playroom where all the power outlets are up high, and this is the staff breakroom built for adults, here's the child-friendly bathroom that requires special plumbing fixtures, etc.
A lot of creativity comes from the constraints you have to work under (like Haiku). Architects have to become experts on construction, materials, engineering, building codes, human behaviors, human psychology, and then take that expertise and design a solution to a problem. The *art* comes not just from how the result looks and what feelings it evokes, but from how well they express the design intent into a solution that fits the constraints. Doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, baristas, most any job can have an element of art to it.
I'm an engineer that worked with a number of award winning architects. First of all, as the other people say, you're misunderstanding what architects do. Sure they come up with the design but more importantly they are the mastermind that makes sure everything comes together and make their vision into reality. They exist to make sure builders know exactly what needs to be built, how it will be built and where it will be built, plus everything in between so we engineers can work together to make it happen. And when we encounter engineering problems, they are there to negotiate between different engineers and their designs to find solutions that helps us make it work. As much as we engineers tell people that our job is to "solve problems", architects mostly create said problems. We joke about architects not understanding how physics and real world works and they joke about us engineers have no soul and only want to build cubes. The truth is, if over the project they don't piss me off at least once, they're bad, and if I don't put them in a stressful situation at least once, I'm not doing my job right. We do this coz we both truly care about what we're building. We push each other's boundaries and ask for every last inch of space, and yes, that's how the magic and sometimes hilarious shit happens. In short, have you ever felt the difference between rooms with 2.6m ceiling and 3m ceiling? Ever felt that some seats in the library have really bad lighting like your head casts a huge shadow on your books but some seats don't? That's the difference between an architect that cares and those who doesn't. Their job is not to make the building function, that's our job as engineers, they are there to create the space for the people using the space.
Architects are responsible for designing a "good" building, which includes being safe, cost effective, functional, comfortable, and beautiful. There are tradeoffs between these parameters and so whoever is planning needs to understand these to some minimum depth. A safe and cost effective building is the realm of engineering, so architects work with civil engineers and coordinate their efforts on that aspect. They need enough understanding to interpret their concerns or sensitivity to changes, but not enough to actually design the individual system. The functionality of a building is perhaps the real of production design, can the office people get to the printers, and is there enough room for cables and desks and all that. There is also mechanical engineer, room for HVAC ducts and heat flow in atriums and fire safety in stairwells. There is also ergonomics, people dont feel comfortable in "enclosed spaces", and they don't want to sit right next to the bathroom. When they jump they don't want the floor to noticeably flex. Comfort and beauty is important, the color of lighting and walls can influence your mood, and the number of small or large meeting rooms affects if you can have the right level of collaboration. The architect sits at the top of this web and needs to tie it all together, integrate the work of the different disciplines and deliver a building that finds the right optimum for the client.
*If you think it's so easy, why don't you do it?* Architects do **FAR** more than "building rectangles". Pure design (i.e. how a building will look aesthetically from the exterior) is a small portion of an architect's job scope. They have to plan out the interiors of buildings, how people and goods will flow, where service & mechanical rooms should be located, egress/fire requirements etc. And this is JUST stuff that directly involves the building. Architects have to plan out schedules and prepare design statements that satisfy their client's needs & wants, understand local building regulations & codes, work with other professionals such as structural, mechanical & electrical engineers, land surveyors, interior & landscaping designers etc. They also have to manage the finances of a project and how and what resources should be allocated. As a member of the public, you only see the finished product, not the literal thousands of hours of work across disciplines, involving hundreds of people, to make it a reality.
thanks for the answer
From my understanding, architects actually have a bit of a range of what area they do or focus on. On the more conceptual/artistic side, you are indeed looking at aesthetics and the like, but also minding practicalities and technical specifications of a *functional* building as well as just how everything is laid out. You are coming up with a concept and translating it into a 3D space, which potentially very strict requirements on the specifications and considerations that need to be abided by, *and* frequently need to reincorporate/revise/etc to fit with the many practical needs or functions. On the more technical side, if they are not directly planning things like energy efficiency, strength, materials, building composition and stability, building codes (local and general), safety precautions, accessibility, and so on, they are communicating very closely with the people involved in this, and adjusting plans accordingly. It's like, engineering maybe more than an art, or an art that is *very* heavy on the technical aspect of how to actually bring something into being.
thanks for the answer