<p>From what I've been told, the difference between the 2 degrees is that Civil engineering is more math based and involves designing the skeletons of buildings and how the columns/beams work to support the structure, while Architecture involves designing the aesthetics of a building. When I think about it though, I can see why an architect would need an engineer's help as the architect most likely doesn't have the knowledge about how buildings stand to make his design a reality. For a civil engineer though, if the civil engineer knew how structures work and was also a creative and artistic person, couldn't he also just easily design the aesthetics as well? I hope I don't sound to naive thinking this but isn't this what a lot of past engineers did as well like Gustave Eiffel, John Roebling, and Leonardo da Vinci?</p>
<p>There’s a lot more to designing buildings than aesthetics, especially nowadays. Functionality is a big part of the field as well. Don’t forget about the implementation of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and sprinkler systems into the structure.</p>
<p>There’s a lot more to designing buildings than aesthetics, especially nowadays.
What goes into designing buildings?</p>
<p>Mechanical (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) systems, electrical systems, plumbing systems, sprinkler systems, fire protection, security, lighting, waterproofing, functionality and use of spaces, accessibility requirements, people flow / vertical transportation.</p>
<p>Obviously, architects have consultants for the specialty fields, but they still need to have a good knowledge of all the areas to know how to bring everything together under one roof.</p>
<p>From a practical perspective, one can’t being an architect without being licensed, and that requires a few years of practice in the field and a professional degree (either B.Arch or M.Arch). While it’s possible to be licensed as both an engineer and architect, it would be very time consuming.</p>
<p>Ken, thanks for your reply. Isn’t the person who is suppose to bring everything together under one roof normally the construction manager though? I always thought Architects were taught to draw, make models, and be creative, but that’s why I never understood how an Architect could have knowledge on the actual building process other than telling the others where he/she wants to put things, which I thought becomes the manager/engineer’s job during the actual building.</p>
<p>Also I know there are a few for civil engineers but is there an exam that architects have to take to get their license? What kind of topics would normally be tested on that exam?</p>
<p>OP, I see that you are a freshman so you haven’t got into the “meat” of civil engineering. The civil engineering and architectural parts of building design really are two different specialties, each requiring their own sets of college coursework and professional licenses. One could possibly do both but not many do. I graduated as a civil engineer but used a lot of my electives to take architectural classes but was no where near getting a dual major in architecture, just much more schooling than I wanted to do. {funny thing is that I ended up working my whole career in aerospace}</p>
<p>The architect lays out the general format of the building and then the engineer lays in the structure. There is a fair amount of back and forth that goes on until the final design is one that both can approve.</p>
<p>BTW, the construction manager is the one who brings it all together but does so by following the plans drawn by the architect and the engineer. The construction manager is an expert in construction methods.</p>
<p>Architecture is also a licensed profession - seven board exams after you complete some number of hours of work.</p>
<p>haha yeah I’m a freshmen. So based on what I’m reading, the Architect is like the idea guy who draws everything and leads the design. The engineer takes those drawings/floor plans and adds things to it like poles, columns, beams, thickness of walls, and perhaps mechanism/shape needed to make the building stand. Does the engineer also decide the material to use as well, like to have bamboo floors?</p>
<p>I was just wondering that if an engineer happened to already have an idea in mind of what he wanted a building to look like, could he just easily overlook or become his own architect and design it himself without a real architect’s help? It’s like when a software engineer has an idea of a program he wants to invent, does he really need a side person telling him what to do and how the program should look like when he already knows himself?</p>
<p>There’s a lot more to architecture than designing the look and feel of the house. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood , all custom homes around 5,000-8,000 sq ft. One can readily tell which ones were designed by an architect and which by a builder. Even by the floor plan, without walking thru. The non-architect buildings usually have common basic design good enough for most uninitiated people, and a few ‘flaws’ that an architect would not be caught dead doing. (Say, is that a structural post right ahead of the entrance door or you’re happy to see me", rooms with nonsensical proportions or door/window placement, etc). Architects also can save money, LOTS of them, if they work directly with the client and use their know-how to optimize things (if carpet comes in 15 foot rolls…) The architect, working with the client, decides on materials based on the client’s needs and budget. </p>
<p>The software guy likewise. He/She will invent what they think is needed, not what actually may be needed. Or it may be needed but if it’s something complicated it will reflect the software guy’s ideas of look and feel versus accepted user interface paradigms applicable (i.e. design languages).</p>
<p>Depends on where you go to school for architecture you do take a few structures and HVAC / mech / electrical courses. Not enough to do a skyscraper on your own, but enough for the basics of a decent size building.</p>
<p>I’m a former civil engineer turned human factors engineer & software developer, and my older daughter is an architecture student. Makes for entertaining discussions.</p>
<p>What I’m getting from this discussion is that architects are a bonus if you can afford them and not really a necessity. And if it is a necessity then it is only because of regulations designed more to protect the profession than anything else.</p>
<p>The regulations are there to protect the public and the building ecosystem more than anything else. Civil Engineers also have lots of regulations for the same reason. Think of fire codes, structural codes, plumbing code, electrical code, etc. Those are all there to keep some sanity in the build process, otherwise we end up with a free-for-all. In many cases the architect of record is the main contact and he/she deals with all the other disciplines who do their part of the work. </p>
<p>Hard as it may seem to believe, good design is cost effective, or can be as long as nobody gets carried away.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>My limited understanding of the fields is that architects learn aesthetics and functionality, with enough of the structural and technical side to handle “small” designs on their own, while architectural/structural/civil engineers focus on the structural and technical details needed to make larger designs work. A typical house might see 90% or more of the design work done by an architect, with perhaps a bit of checking and revision by an engineer to address specific issues. </p>