A good architect today must be a generalist, well-versed in space distribution, construction techniques and electrical and mechanical systems, but also knowledgeable in financing, real estate, human behavior and social conduct. In addition, he is an artist entitled to the expression of his aesthetic tenets. He must know about so many specialties that he is sometimes said to know nothing about everything. The engineer, on the other hand, is by training and mental makeup a pragmatist. He is an expert in certain specific aspects of engineering and in those aspects only.
Mario Salvadori, Why Buildings Stand Up (McGraw-Hill, 1980) p. 24.
Given that my last post indicated that a handful of civil engineers routinely attempt to practice architecture, I felt it was incumbent upon me to delve into the difference between these two professional disciplines. Quoting a noted engineering scholar might be a good opener: Mario Salvadori, a professor with doctorates in both civil engineering and mathematics, taught at Columbia University in New York for fifty years. This quote, found in what is essentially a university level primer on structural design, rather accurately sums up what should be everyone’s understanding.
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
The primary differences between architecture and civil engineering are rooted in four areas of professional development: education, certification/registration, training and continuing education.
In Canada, entry into the architectural profession begins with a Master’s Degree devoted exclusively to building design and building science. The very best schools of architecture in Canada strive to achieve harmony between art and science. The former, however, is trivialized by the engineering profession – akin to something that can be achieved through watching HGTV. Their rationale (they say) is enshrined in the NL Engineers and Geoscientists Act of 2008, despite no mention of any consideration towards art or the humanities. Design, it says, calls for the “application of principles of mathematics, chemistry, physics or a related applied subject” and the professional engineering governing body uses this clause as their validation for practicing architecture. Now although an elementary school child could likely spot the limitations, a few engineers it seems, cannot.
In fact, in 2015, the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Newfoundland & Labrador (PEGNL) developed an intrepid PowerPoint presentation which indicated that civil engineers were “trained in the fundamentals of building envelope through the following required courses at MUN: 3731 Materials of Construction, 5713 Fluid Mechanics, and 6322 Thermal Sciences”.
Dear reader, I will not insult your intelligence by exploring why these courses have less to do with the practical applications of building envelope science than they do with the design and manufacture of condoms.
After graduation, intern architects (as they are known) are required to submit their education credentials to the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB). It is the exclusive role of this board to assess the educational qualifications of architecture graduates and accredit professional degree programs in architecture offered by Canadian Universities. There is no such equivalent for engineers wishing to dabble in architectural design.
Newly minted architects must be certified in a program of wide-ranging subjects, both functional and aesthetic. As the (US) National Council of Architectural Registration Boards points out: “An engineering curriculum, in contrast, addresses a single technology focused on one of only the many functional systems that a building comprises.”
Architectural interns then enter an Intern Development Program (IDP) devoted strictly to building design and building science within a prescribed documentation and reporting structure. There are no similar training guidelines leading intern engineers through such broad-based design training experience. They are required to gain experience in one specific aspect of building design. The experience is assumed based on hours logged. No documentation is required that evaluates experience in designated areas of training against established percentages of time spent in those areas.
Registration of architectural and engineering interns (formal entry into the profession) is based on examination. However, even though the minimum prescribed intern time period may have elapsed, architects are required to have fully completed the IDP – sometimes requiring additional time to be expended.
The national architectural examination prior to registration is specific to the candidate’s knowledge and experience in architectural programming, site/environmental analysis, coordination of engineering systems, cost management, code research, schematic/preliminary/ final building project design, bidding and contract negotiation, construction and project management. By contrast, the engineering registration exam is specific to either of the civil, structural, mechanical or electrical disciplines. The candidate is examined in engineering fundamentals and tested in the narrow area of knowledge specific to his/her chosen discipline.
After registration, both architects and civil engineers are required to pursue and document prescribed hours of continuing education every year as a prerequisite for continued licensing. Mandatory core credits for architects demand courses/workshops and practical research related to the practice of architecture and building design. The mandatory Professional Development Program for engineers does not require any specific study or exposure to building design. PEGNL’s guidelines state: “There is no prescribed route for achieving professional development goals. There are some minimums defined in the Guideline, but it is the member’s responsibility to define the goals that make sense for his/her professional development.”
In other words, while PEGNL is very supportive of civil engineers who wish to dabble in architecture, the guidance to do so is totally open to the member’s interpretation.
Architects often point out that their expertise in fire and life safety stemming from the application of building codes and provincial regulations on every project undertaken, sets their experience apart from civil engineers. PEGNL has countered this point by indicating that Fire Protection Engineering is actually an area of engineering expertise. No one would argue that. For extremely complex building concepts, architects often rely on such expertise. But fundamentally, fire protection engineers do not design buildings.
It is insufficient for civil engineers to argue that they have access to fire protection engineering expertise and therefore they can practice architecture (however they wish to define it) – because in practice, this doesn’t happen. Your typical client can ill afford, or has no intention of paying for such additional services. Nor should they.
Unfortunately, the practice of architecture and the practice of engineering, though both are legislatively “self-governing professions”, is regulated by Service NL. This particular provincial ministry has continuously and routinely failed to see the difference between the two professions. It contends that there is an “apparent overlap”. Of course they are being lobbied vigorously and relentlessly by PEGNL and advised from within government by, yep, you guessed it, engineers.
So if you are considering a civil engineer for the design of your next building, I’d say: Fill yer boots. There’s really not much to stop you from doing so, and less to stop them from rising to the task. It really comes down to your critical consideration of scale and context.
Ahhh. Mario Salvadori. May you rest in peace.
Interesting information, well laid out, Jim.
As an internationally trained architect and immigrant I have learned to admire the Canadian system to licences architects. I believe is a necessity for our profession to have such strict guidelines to be certified. I have found that, luckily, clients end up seeing the value of an architect in a project when occupancy permit and life and egress concerns are completely ignored by engineers trying to fulfill the role of an architect.
Thank you for your words
Commercial real estate is, of course, not the only intersection of design function and esthetic. Consider your car. Looks good (hopefully). Says something about you. Has a certain sense of style. Cars are designed not by Architects but by automotive designers, who practice in a similar space to the architect for all the reasons Jim describes (understanding of mechanical systems limitations, regulatory requirements, etc). I can picture now the car commercials with some studious looking individual carving a form for a car from a block of clay. Now in your mind, flip your car upside down. The underside still has all the same requirements as the “right side” of your car, with one glaring exception. No requirement for the esthetic. The engineers at the car company look after the design of the under carriage. And it’s functional, fit for purpose. But it looks like crap. Unless your particular taste in vehicles run towards the “function first, function only” esthetic (think perhaps of the Unimog, or the original Humvee), you shouldn’t have much trouble in comprehending the philosophical, metaphysical difference between the practice of Archirecture v. Engineering.
Dewi: Thank you for such a well-considered and informative comment! My best to you.