(BTW, from the beginning I want to say sorry, I’m just a teenager, and I don’t want to mock, or offend anyone with this post, I’m sorry if this post was a little bit aggresive, and i’m also sorry that I didn’t do research before posting this post, I respect architects, and I find architecture to be interesting)
So, first of all, architects study many years, and they study things like math, and science, and architecture is considered to be an art by many people, So, what kind of creativity, and knowledge of sciences does building a rectangle(cube) need?
Like, how, architecture can be related to creativity, and now i’m not talking about rectangles, and cubes, i’m talking about building that are usually considered to be an art, like creating a crappy sketch of a strange curvy thing, or round thing, or big thing, or maybe thing with a lot of cubes is considered to be creative, and architects aren’t engineering who will blow their minds out to comprehend how to build that thing, and as i know architects have nothing to do with things like colors, plumbing, air systems, electricity systems, ceiling design, furniture, materials, and etc of a building.
Like they don’t go there and say “this room will be blue, this room will be red, and that room will be yellow, electricity system will be like that, air system will be like that, sofas, and chair will be like that, doors, and stair will be like that, colors will be like that, chandeliers will be like that, toilets, and tiles will be like that, carpets, and curtains will be like that” and etc, they don’t do it(as i know, or is it the opposite, and architect is the one who does all of that?)
and so if everything thing is like that, then why do architects study so many years, and they study things like math, and science, and architecture is considered to be a creative thing(art) and is considered to be very hard? (thanks, for reading my post)
In: 0
colors, plumbing, air systems, electricity systems, ceiling design, furniture, materials, and etc of a building
Architecture deals with all of this.
Something can be creative and hard at the same time. Starry Night by Van Gogh is creative, and I’m sure it was very difficult to paint.
Architects are responsible for designing structures that balance form and function, requiring them to apply creative solutions to complex problems. They must understand how people interact with spaces, combining psychology and creativity to create comfortable and functional environments. They use math and science to ensure structural integrity and safety, and they often have a significant influence on interior details, including color schemes and materials. Those all take experience and education, but they are also creative.
Architects find creative solutions to hard problems like how to make odd shaped things fit inside a limited space, or how to get the most practical use out of a certain design by making it multifunctional.
To simplify: engineers handle the building and execution of the architects plans and vision. The creativity comes with problem solving, innovative designs, and balancing form with function and aesthetics with practicality.
You definitely have a misunderstanding of what architects do.
Because broadly speaking, yes, architects will pick out details as small as room color and sink faucet type. And while they personally do not design HVAC, or fire, or plumbing, or lighting systems. They still need to be aaare of how those systems exist and how they function on a high level so they can plan their buildings around them.
Because an architect who causes a client to lose $5 million dollars in rebuilding/designing a building because they didn’t think about how the plumbing would work at all would not end up with anymore clients.
Sure, SOME architects get to focus on just those more creative things like cool shaped buildings. But really, that is a small minority of architects. Most architects work on teams where they are solving all the problems that go into designing a building. Like they might not be designing the wiring for the lights, but they need to consider where that wiring is going to run. They might not design the sprinkler heads that the fire system uses, but they need to consider how the water pipes will run to those sprinklers.
Architects do not just do the fun creative stuff, most have to touch all the other parts of a project as well.
You have a false assumption that is causing this. They ARE the ones “who will blow their minds out to comprehend how to build that thing”.
They do need to be able to design the structure such that it will support itself, allow appropriate routing for all of the support systems you listed, they are often significantly involved in the interior design especially of high-aesthetic spaces like lobby, courtyards and entryways. Sometimes much more. And that doesn’t even touch on needing to ensure all of these things not only work on paper but also handle local building codes, natural risks like wind or earthquakes, etc…
It’s a very interdisciplinary field, which is where much of complexity comes from. It takes whole teams of them working under a lead and with other disciplines to do all of this.
Now, if you just get a coffee table book or scroll pictures yes you tend to see a lot of concept drawings but that’s because they’re the most consumable by the general public and generally the prettiest at a glance. Doesn’t mean it’s all they do.
From my understanding, architects actually have a bit of a range of what area they do or focus on.
On the more conceptual/artistic side, you are indeed looking at aesthetics and the like, but also minding practicalities and technical specifications of a *functional* building as well as just how everything is laid out. You are coming up with a concept and translating it into a 3D space, which potentially very strict requirements on the specifications and considerations that need to be abided by, *and* frequently need to reincorporate/revise/etc to fit with the many practical needs or functions.
On the more technical side, if they are not directly planning things like energy efficiency, strength, materials, building composition and stability, building codes (local and general), safety precautions, accessibility, and so on, they are communicating very closely with the people involved in this, and adjusting plans accordingly.
It’s like, engineering maybe more than an art, or an art that is *very* heavy on the technical aspect of how to actually bring something into being.
Architecture is considered so hard because it’s not *just* art. It’s art with a lot of rules. You can design the coolest looking building ever, but if it’s going to collapse the first time a storm rolls into town, then you’re a terrible architect. Architects have to make something that is *practical*, and then make it look good.
Art and practicality don’t overlap much. So architects work in that small space.
I work in the AEC industry on the engineering side and we work very closely with the architects and a lot of the time. There’s constant back and forth between what the architects want the building to look like vs how we can fit the engineered systems in the building, so it’s not like they just draw up a building and then throw it at us and make us figure out how to make it work by ourselves.
If the architect completely did not understand the systems, then it would take much more time to coordinate creating a realistic design
If you know anything about film making, the architect is roughly the director, and the engineer is roughly the producer.
The director of a film is the creative control. They have a vision in their head of what the film should look like, and it’s their job to direct everyone in the process to turn that vision into a real thing. And they have a duty to do it in such a way that whatever they’re dreaming up is actually physically possible. Obviously if you shoot for nonsense, you won’t make a film. All of the skill is in compromising your creative vision with the restrictions of the real world.
The producer of a film is the one who has the director on a leash, telling them what they actually can and can’t do. If the producer thinks it can be done, they work hard to line everything up properly so it gets done. But if the director asks for something that absolutely is not going to work, be that for lack of sufficient funds, materials, labor, time, etc, the producer will smack it down and tell the director to draw up something else. In this way, the producer role is a kind of sanity check to ensure that the operation doesn’t drive itself off a cliff.
Architects and engineers have a somewhat similar relationship. Architects dream up what a building should look like according to some vision, and it’s their job to design the building and communicate that design to the people who are actually going to build it. And in doing so, they have a duty to ensure that what they dream up can actually be built. The engineer, meanwhile, is in the back keeping a careful eye on what the architect is doing, and making sure that they’re staying within known parameters of things like material strengths, costs, etc. If the architect tries to make something that the engineer can’t prove to be adequate, the engineer strikes it down and the architect goes back to the drawing board. Of course, ideally, the architect will be knowledgeable enough on their own to not end up in this situation.
This is of course glossing over all of the other considerations like ventilation, plumbing, electrical, fire suppression, etc. All things that both the architect and engineer need to understand the broad strokes of, but the details of which are probably going to be left to specialists.
So, since the architect has the ultimate creative control, that by definition makes it a creative profession. But at the same time, since they’re also trying to make sure they stay within real world limitations, it also requires a lot of math and engineering knowledge. Perhaps not necessarily to the degree of an actual licensed engineer (though, I’m sure dual architect/engineers exist, there is considerable overlap), but enough to have solid intuitions about what they can and can’t do, and what may be necessary to make their more avant garde designs feasible.
*If you think it’s so easy, why don’t you do it?*
Architects do **FAR** more than “building rectangles”. Pure design (i.e. how a building will look aesthetically from the exterior) is a small portion of an architect’s job scope. They have to plan out the interiors of buildings, how people and goods will flow, where service & mechanical rooms should be located, egress/fire requirements etc. And this is JUST stuff that directly involves the building.
Architects have to plan out schedules and prepare design statements that satisfy their client’s needs & wants, understand local building regulations & codes, work with other professionals such as structural, mechanical & electrical engineers, land surveyors, interior & landscaping designers etc. They also have to manage the finances of a project and how and what resources should be allocated.
As a member of the public, you only see the finished product, not the literal thousands of hours of work across disciplines, involving hundreds of people, to make it a reality.
Latest Answers