Re: What's wrong with Architecture!

- - The original note follows - -

From: mw4711@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Hwa Wu)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Architecture!
Date: 1 Mar 1994 16:46:31 GMT

Dear Architect Hater:

As a soon to be structural and construction engineer I find your post rather,
well let's say, uninformed. Don't you realize that there's enough mistrust
between the professions of engineering and architecture already. In jest or
not, your post simply inflames already-too-irritated-passions and doesn't
inform or provide any help for your "obsolete architects." If they're obsolete,
what should they do?

As a soon to be architecture student I find your post rather, well let's say,
uninformed. The key to mental masturbation is to share it with others so that
it doesn't become masturbation anymore. Artistic, emotional, and philisophical
ideas are very subjective (quite unlike the hard truths of the LRFD code which
a structural engineer might design by). Because you cannot reach the same
emotional or philisophical state that the architect intended simply means that
the architect failed in his intent, not that he is obsolete and shouldn't try.
Some even say that if an inhabitant or visitor experiences anything from his
built environment, he has validated the architect's effort.

The most interesting part of your post to me is your reference to Le Corbusier.
As luck would have it, I just finished reading his series of articles
"A New Architecture" two days ago. I suspect you have read his works, yet I
think you may have misunderstood him. Of all the architects of the 20th century
Mosieur Le Corbusier is the one who understood the importance of engineering in
the much-pained profession of architecture. Why more than half of his articles
are about the sad state of architecture -- always looking back to past styles,
ignoring the marvels of engineering today (that is during the 1920's).
He goes on to praise the engineer's ability to capture the essence of function
and economy (alas, all too often architects are force to only concentrate on
delight and not on 'fimitas'). ^d
Why he even calls homes, "machines for living in." True some of his ideas
are not practical from an engineering point of view (his ideal city in
particular
to me), but he tried something that almost no engineer ever has -- to touch the
human emotions. Have you read the preface to some of his articles (I can't
remember their titles)? To paraphrase, engineering is great. It achieves its
greatness by producing a functional and economical building for the owner. The
owner would thank an engineer like he would thank a taxi-cab driver or a
service-
repairman. On the other hand, what if the engineer also expressed his love for
mathematics and science through his building? This is the challenge of
architecture
is it not? We can use architecture as propaganda (rather than insulting words)
for
our profession! Engineering can easily garner "thanks" from society, but it has
so often failed to elicit that silent feeling of belonging, rightness, and
affection
that good architecture can.

What I'm try to say in this long-winded post is that we cannot function with
only one aspect of building. If engineers were left to design the most
stable, efficient, and cheapest buildings, what would we have? Cubes.
What materials would be used? Fire-proofed steel and reinforced concrete.
But I'm made of flesh, I have always lived on the surface of this planet. I
am not made comfortable by hardness. I am not made comfortable by materials
that
do not occur in our natural enviroment. Architects must also realize that they
need engineers. We (that is civil and mechanical engineers) are your comrades
not your servants as some architects believe.

Michael
mhw42412@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Partial thread listing: