48
/ BUILDING DIALOGUE / MARCH 2016
B
ecause every building’s form is ultimately de-
fined by a structure that is integral and es-
sential to the success of the design, tapping
structural engineering expertise at the onset of the
design process seems like a wise strategy. But not ev-
ery architect understands or does this. Collaboration
with a structural engineer at the very beginning of a
project not only can accomplish higher-quality archi-
tecture, but also it achieves better integration with the
structure, and enhances the design.
If the correct structural system is selected ear-
ly on when concepts are still fluid, it forms the
right bones for all that follows and inherently
reduces costs due to its appropriateness and effi-
ciency. In fact, structure, when considered proac-
tively, often can become the architecture through
its overt expression of architectural form, or its
articulation of structural details. Exploring a build-
ing’s structural design holistically, and embracing
all of its elements – including façade and MEP sys-
tems – ultimately results in a better building. To that
end, we encourage involvement of all design team
members, contractors and key subcontractors at the
genesis of a project whenever possible.
But, in our experience, many architects and designers
still begin projects thinking: “I’d love to fully realize my
vision and push the design to its greatest potential, but
that would be too complex and expensive.” As a result
of assumptions like these, the vision is immediately di-
aled back and taken down a different path, ultimately
compromising the original intent. Only later, some-
times much further along in the design process, do ar-
chitects bring in their structural engineer and discover
that they missed out on numerous opportunities that
would have made their project better, more efficient,
less costly, or just more aesthetically beautiful overall.
In cases like this, we often find ourselves asking ques-
tions like: You seem to have strayed from your project
vision and goals; is this design fully expressing what
you were originally striving for? Or, are you aware of
all of the efficiencies that could have been easily ad-
dressed if we’d been
engaged from the start?
This is when clients real-
ize that although it would
be best to explore possibil-
ities in a more innovative
way, too much time and ef-
fort already has been invest-
ed in their design to unwind
the process and start again.
We want to hear, on Day
One, all the crazy or wild ideas
our clients would ideally like to
achieve. Most have learned that
it’s to their benefit to start early,
and to be highly proactive when
it comes to structure. They’ve also
learned to never say, “This is how we did it last time,
so we assumed this project would be similar,” because
similar precedents do not always apply in these sce-
narios. Not all engineers welcome the opportunity to
collaborate in this manner, however, as it requires more
time and increases their costs. Thus, building a team as
passionate about design as the owner and architect are,
is critical.
Hearing an architect’s vision, philosophy, goals and
design ideals early in the process – ideally during
the conceptual design or very early schematic design
phases – allows us to explore potential possibilities to-
gether as team. This is where a wide diversity of ideas
are tested, and ultimately accepted or rejected, in ad-
dition to exploring various traditional and nontradi-
tional schemes, structural systems and materials. It is
also important, during this exploratory period, to record
any discarded ideas from the cutting room floor as they
may have relevance as the project evolves. In terms of
“appropriate structural systems,” we suggest that the fol-
lowing elements be considered:
Strength/Stiffness/Ductility/Weight/Fire Resistance.
Lever-
aging these traditional metrics result in building effi-
ciency, cost reduction and, often, lowered loads, which
result in reduced foundation costs. Early integration of
architectural façade, interior finishes, green roofs, and
renewable energy photovoltaic or solar thermal sys-
tems, for example – or planning for their possible fu-
ture addition – greatly minimizes build-out costs later.
Holistic Integration of MEP Systems.
Examining MEP sys-
tems early will determine if it make sense to run air-
conditioning and heating services, wiring and piping
through the depth of the floor and roof structure. If, for
example, there are zoning or building height issues, or
a new building has to be constructed within historic
façade pattern restraints, or the client or market desires
interior headroom heights that can’t be achieved by
placing MEP systems beneath the structural floor zone,
then exploring these ideas early can cut costs dramat-
ically. Considering nontraditional systems, like castel-
lated or cellular floor and roof beams, or beams with
Julian
Lineham, PE
Studio NYL
Structural
Engineers |
The Skins
Group
Christopher
O'Hara, PE
Studio NYL
Structural
Engineers |
The Skins
Group
Architects, share your vision
with us. Tell us your craziest,
impossible, out-of-the-box
ideas on Day One. Don't hold
back. We want to hear it all
because the impossible may
just be possible.
Best Practices
