CREJ

/ BUILDING DIALOGUE / MARCH 2017

ELEMENTS

Structural Design

Elevating Humble Projects through Creative Structures

Q: Why is the role of the structural engineer important,

even on smaller built projects, when architects are

ultimately responsible for a building’s design? Isn’t your

role, in essence, subservient to and in support of their

design?

It is important to remember that structure is an in-

tegral, inseparable part of architecture.

Buildings require both form and func-

tion, and structure is integral to form.

Without structure, there is no building –

regardless how large or small the project

is, or how stunning the design.

As structural engineers, we serve ar-

chitects as specialists whose skills engage

form, materials, efficiency and beauty. Too

often, in cases where this critical relation-

ship is undervalued, structural engi-

neers either end up approaching the

architecture in a reactive mode, or are

brought into the process too late to con-

tribute in a meaningful way. If structure

is not included in the dialogue from the

very beginning of design, the architecture

suffers. Only when disciplines collaborate

early, with the goal of developing a great

building holistically, will the architecture

achieve its highest potential. This applies to

all disciplines that serve the architect, including structur-

al engineers, mechanical systems engineers and building

enclosure consultants to name a few.

Q: Is your approach or mind-set unique?

While we can’t speak for other engineers, we believe

in imagining new solutions from engineering first prin-

ciples. In other words, not approaching a design the way

many have been completed before, and reintroducing de-

light into the process and outcome. To that end, we con-

stantly challenge the whole team, including the architect

and owner, to explore many solutions during the schemat-

ic design phase, to make sure the design is headed down

the right path when flexibility is high.

Q: Well, that makes sense for iconic structures and

projects with large budgets, but what about the more

humble, modest, unpretentious or reserved projects – or

instances where a low budget is emphasized more than

aesthetics?

Surprisingly, we find that buildings with more modest

budgets often require, and benefit from, holistic design

more than those with generous budgets. When a building

is designed holistically, with discussions about structure

from the very beginning, we’re able to discover additional

efficiencies within the form, or site constraints that may

not be readily obvious to the architect. Structural elements

can be manipulated to accommodate a more cost-effec-

tive building skin, for example, or provide benefits such as

thermal mass for the mechanical system. Subtle geometric

moves, designed to fit within a project’s unique parame-

ters, can also save costs through the use of less material,

or by reducing the labor required to build the structure.

When approached in a holistic way, multiple challenges

can be solved, resulting in more cost-effective designs,

particularly relevant on lower budget projects.

Q: Is this a new way of thinking about the role of structural

engineering and design?

Absolutely not; many of these ideas can be found

throughout construction history. In fact, architects used

to design everything, including the structure, in the days

of the “Master Builder.” As new materials were developed,

structural systems evolved to suit their unique properties

and capabilities. Then as building design became more

complicated, more options and ideas became available,

thus expanding the world of architecture. This evolution

eventually led to the development of specializations, with

structure being one of them – in fact, building engineers

once practiced a design art similar to architecture. In the

20th century, university-level architecture and engineer-

ing programs were gradually separated with minimal if

any interaction between the two departmental disciplines.

Architects were taught history and precedents, and encour-

aged to be creative, while engineers were taught science in

support of architecture, rather than how to creatively ma-

nipulate the rules of science to realize good designs.

Tragically, the role of the engineer evolved into a reac-

tionary, technical one with late-20th century North Amer-

ican practice focused on tapping structural engineers late

Christopher

O’Hara

Studio NYL

Julian Lineham

Studio NYL

Fort Lupton’s K-12 Campus Gymnasium structure was

sculpted to match structural needs through the integration

of custom trusses with long span acoustic deck. This estab-

lishes a holistic design that improves acoustics and day-

lighting more economically than traditional bar joist roof

systems.