| description abstract | Dramatic changes are revolutionizing the building process, but a big question remains: “Who gets to be the prime designer?” Consulting engineers and architects are still trying to find a satisfactory answer. Until recently, architects were traditionally the lead designers on all “people” buildings—e.g., health-care, educational, office, residential, and public facilities. Considering themselves “master builders” responsible for the whole building process, architects relied on consulting engineers to make their aesthetic “master works” functional. Consulting engineers often took a back seat, hidden from public view, except when designing power plants, water treatment facilities, infrastructure, and other civil projects. That's all beginning to change now. In today's sophisticated people buildings, an “aesthetic statement” can no longer be the top priority. Buildings must be engineered to be energy-efficient and cost-efficient and cost-effective as much as they need to be designed to look good, fit their sites, and blend harmoniously with their surroundings. With increased demand for multiple-use, environmentally sensitive, people-accessible, and/or“intelligent” buildings, more engineers are assuming the lead design role as catalysts in the problem-solving process. This is especially true when refined engineering systems comprise a major part of the work—manufacturing plants, warehouses, and parking garages—or when an engineer's expertise for project management is obviously the strongest. This is not necessarily a design competition between architects and engineers, but a nurturing of broader partnerships between major players of the building design equation: “partnering” or “teaming” as a means to meet complex design needs. | |
