CREJ - Building Dialogue - March 2017
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? A: It is important to remember that structure is an integral, inseparable part of architecture. Buildings require both form and function, 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 architects as specialists whose skills engage form, materials, efficiency and beauty. Too often, in cases where this critical relationship is undervalued, structural engineers either end up approaching the architecture in a reactive mode, or are brought into the process too late to contribute 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 structural engineers, mechanical systems engineers and building enclosure consultants to name a few. Q: Is your approach or mind-set unique? A: While we can’t speak for other engineers, we believe in imagining new solutions from engineering first principles. In other words, not approaching a design the way many have been completed before, and reintroducing delight into the process and outcome. To that end, we constantly challenge the whole team, including the architect and owner, to explore many solutions during the schematic 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? A: 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-effective 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 parameters, 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? A: 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 engineering programs were gradually separated with minimal if any interaction between the two departmental disciplines. Architects were taught history and precedents, and encouraged to be creative, while engineers were taught science in support of architecture, rather than how to creatively manipulate the rules of science to realize good designs. Tragically, the role of the engineer evolved into a reactionary, technical one with late-20th century North American practice focused on tapping structural engineers late in the design process. Most now provide behind-the-scenes, hidden technology to support an architectural concept, but without any significant challenge to achieve anything difficult or novel. As a result, most structural offerings have become a matter of sizing, selecting and specifying, as opposed to “designing” in the broader sense of the word. In contrast, at our firm we believe in true integration of architecture and engineering as engineering can deliver a level of elegance that helps elevate an architect's building design. Q: While it’s easy to understand how creative structural input would be critical to iconic buildings with bold architectural features and new approaches to construction, how can a smaller or more humble project benefit? A: Not every project is a museum. Many of our projects do not aspire to be an icon. Rather, their purpose is to be a solid building that serves their user’s needs and performs well over time. Often these projects are encumbered by less glamorous parameters such as lower budgets or challenging schedules, but that does not diminish the building’s need to service the user well. Interestingly, the tricks we use to create dynamic structures with cantilevers actually find their roots in warehouses and big-box retail. While sometimes considered to be devoid of design, these buildings actually employ the same conceptual moves as iconic structures, but for the purpose of efficiency, and to save cost. While our industry’s best designers are frequently brought in for the large, glamorous projects rather than the low-budget ones (such as low-income housing or K-12 schools), our firm’s best design is often found on the latter. Indeed, projects where we are asked to do more with less offer the greatest challenges, thus are the most rewarding to us. Despite the broad range of projects across our portfolio, we believe our best design work has occurred on the net-zero low-income housing we developed with Pyatt Studio on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. These dignified homes that embrace the culture of their inhabitants were designed to allow the envelope and structure work as one to limit the loads on the mechanical systems, which make them both high performance and cost competitive with doublewides. Q: But aren’t standard structural approaches good enough? What is the benefit of taking the engineering solutions to another level on projects constrained by budget? A: If, by good enough, you mean that they meet code and will not fail or fall down, then perhaps they are good enough. But if there are architectural or performance goals that will be eliminated because of budget, then every dollar we save in the structure can help preserve other design elements. Even better, when the structure is designed efficiently, it achieves an elegant beauty and enhances the aesthetics and the architecture. A holistically designed structure can also help improve the thermal performance of the building envelope, or the mass can help minimize mechanical needs. As well, lighter, more elegant structures can actually become the aesthetic, or offer opportunities for more daylight through their greater transparency. A structure designed integrally with the architecture may not reduce the structural budget, but it may make the cladding or some other element of the architecture cheaper. Unfortunately, too often our engineers are asked to achieve the bare minimum – take what is drawn and assure that it will not fall down – yet that is just the beginning of what could and should be achieved when designing great architecture. Q: Is there any risk to applying new these approaches to structure on smaller, more humble projects? A: None, other than asking more from your structural designers. Making a high-budget project great is not nearly as challenging as elevating a humble, low-budget one. As a result, our most modest projects require more design rigor. Too often, however, the structural design effort becomes proportional to the budget, and the projects and users who have the highest need for a great building miss out in the end. Unfortunately, this is typically true for all disciplines. Q: Are these innovative approaches you mention more expensive? A: Not when done right. When the architect and structural engineer work collaboratively to create a holistic design early on in a project, great design will result.