--- In [email protected], "Nick Gall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let us know what you find. Steve Jones is looking as well. I still > think that the only solid distinction is the one between high-level > vs. detailed design. > > I agree that in building architecture, architects are more concerned > with the aesthetics of a building, while engineers are more > concerned with how it can actually be built. But the lines are > blurry even in that domain. There was a spat between > the "architect" and the "engineer" for Boston's new Leonard Zakim > Bunker Hill Memorial bridge as to who should get credit for the > overall look of the bridge. I can dig up the Globe article on it if > anyone is interested. And a while back the New York Times Magazine > did a piece on building engineers who were completely designing > buildings themselves, without the involvement of any "certified" > architect -- again because they wanted both aesthetic and > engineering control. Again, I can probably dig up the article if > anyone is interested. > > -- Nick
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture: "In every usage, an architecture may be seen as a subjective mapping from a human perspective (that of the user in the case of abstract or physical artifacts) to the elements or components of some kind of structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the elements or components." A key phrase there would seem to be "...subjective mapping..." which presumably is contrasted with an engineering-based or objective approach. The etymology of "architect" listed on that page indicates that the term effectively means "master builder." This would imply a level of education or experience that "mere designers" wouldn't have. Can an "engineer" create/define an effective architecture? Is architect merely a role, one that can be filled by any capable person regardless of their formal title & training? It would seem that experience is a chief attribute of an architect, thus a seasoned engineer may very likely be able to fill the role of architect. The second paragraph of the wiki article really seems to capture the differences in my mind: "Architects have as their primary object providing for the spatial and shelter needs of people in groups of some kind (families, schools, churches, businesses, etc.) by the creative organisation of materials and components in a land- or city-scape, dealing with mass, space, form, volume, texture, structure, light, shadow, materials, program, and pragmatic elements such as cost, construction limitations and technology, to achieve an end which is functional, economical, practical and often with artistic and aesthetic aspects. This distinguishes architecture from engineering design, which has as its primary object the creative manipulation of materials and forms using mathematical and scientific principles." Architects and engineers both perform design activities. The objectives and principles guiding those activities would seem to form a Venn diagram. It may be a mistake that I keep looking to building architecture definitions, so the differences I'm looking for between architecture and design may exist there but not apply to business and software architecture. -Rob
