Talk:Architectural engineering/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled 1

I'm not sure if I buy this description of an "Architectural Engineer". Does an architectural engineer replace the various engineers in a project? Is it another professional the owner is expected to hire? What kind of buildings need an architectural engineer?

From my reading of this article "Architectural Engineer" appears to be a fancy name for a broadly trained civil engineer. -- Webgeer 22:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Untitled 2

In fact, an "Architectural Engineer" is more specialized than a regular civil engineer. This specialization is recognized by ABET as well as ASCE. For more info see:

--SR

Education

Is Architecural engineering offered as a course at the undergraduate level (I'm asking about the USA or Europe, have never heard about Architecural engineering in Australia)? If it is, is it a mish-mash of civil, mechanical and electrical engineering?--Commander Keane 11:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Architectural Engineering is offered as an undergraduate course at the University of Leeds, England. A similar course also runs under a different name at the University of Sheffield, England. The USA I am not aware of, but since one of the years of the Leeds Architectural Engineering course is at Pennsylvania State University, I would predict that there is a course available there.

Difference from architecture

"Architectural engineers, as a distinct and separate profession, are somewhat redundant in that their role overlaps that of the architect and other project engineers."

Actually, this is usually not true. For example, depending on local laws/codes, an architect will usually need the help of a building engineer for a building with more than two stories to ensure its integrity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perwisky (talk • contribs) .

The above description does not give a very positive image to future architectural engineers. I am starting to study architectural engineering this year and have chosen it because I believe it to be the most important role in modern architecture in the increasing attitude to let the architect just do the design of the appearance and ambiance of structures and leave everything else (all the building services and structural integrity) up to engineers. Of course, in some cases (or quite possibibly many cases), one person or company may cover several roles in the design of a structure.

In countries such as Canada, the UK and Australia, architectural engineering is more commonly known as Building engineering.

This statement is not true and should be omitted. It also seems to confuse readers not clear with the distinction...The term "Building Engineering" in these countries refers the the various engineering fields involved in the design and construction of a building (structural, building science, mechanical, etc.). An "architectural engineer" is a single professional engineer, recognized in many US jurisdictions, and is similar to an architect.

A simple Google search will prove that "Building Engineering" exists as a discipline in many educational institutions.64.229.141.156 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On another note, you are somewhat incorrect in your assessment of architects and delude yourself if you think training as an architectural engineer will cover all aspects of designing a building. The fragmentation of the architect's role has more to do with the complexity of modern construction and less with "leav(ing) everything else (all the building services and structural integrity) up to engineers". Even the superman "architectural engineer" will need to work with a team of specialists.Denia06 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Building Engineering

Further to the comment posted above, this is a copy of my post on Talk:Building engineering: I think architectural engineering should refer to the specific (i.e. the single, separate engineer/architect animal) and building engineering to the various engineering professions involved with the construction of buildings. I've started to modify both sections to help clarify. Another soution would be to merge the two headings, but keep the two aspects of the definition clearly separate. This is only a beginning and I welcome further comments.207.6.233.239 22:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Response:

Re: a merger. 'Architectural engineering' education is well-established in the U.S., and very possibly predates formal architectural education here (the latter was taught mainly through apprenticeships, even through FLW's time). The architectural engineering name recruits well -- high school students who are considering architecture are often advised by elders to instead study engineering due to better career prospects. 'Architectural engineering' is thus highly attractive to these youth.

Also, unfortunately, the uninformed public perception of the title 'building engineer' here is that they are janitors and maintenance personnel. Ouch.

Thus, it is not likely that U.S architectural engineering programs will convert to 'building engineering'. However, university faculty abroad please consider experimenting with our version, 'architectural engineering', to see if it also has the exceptional recruitment qualities that we've found. You might have some difficulty with the architects, but make it clear that it is 'engineering' that applies to architecture, like 'mechanical engineering' applies to mechanical things. You can also explain that formal architectural engineering education likely predates architecture, but verify this first ...

(above comment added by FactsAndFigures previously)

Duplicate Article

An Architectural Engineering article, started later than this Architectural engineering article (note difference in capitalization is significant in Wikipedia's software), exists. I previously proposed that the former be merged with the latter (see its discussion). I've now copied-over, edited, and added the key content, being the career titles. The formal merger/redirect is still waiting upon any negative comments in the other article.

FactsAndFigures 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

AEs as SEs

This article is a bit overboard in a few spots. The possible title "structural engineer" is not accurate. Many states license this separately, either as a PE specialization, or as a stand-alone license. The critieria for licensed SEs is quite substantial. Calling an AE a structural engineer would be illegal in many jurisdictions, and borderline ethically in the rest. The criteria for SE programs and AE programs are very different and the AEs just don't get enough structures to qualify, even with the concentration. (See here for another AE curricula.) For the record, I hold an Illnois SE, PEs in five states, and am an NCEES Model Law Structural Engineer. MARussellPESE 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

AEs as a discipline

AE isn't really a stand-alone discipline like civil, mechanical, or electrical. It's a specialty of civil, like structural or environmental. It draws from these, but doesn't have a distinct body of knowledge to itself that separates it from other disciplines. It is an ABET accredited program, but it's lead society is ASCE (ABET (2005) Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, Effective for Evaluations During the 2006-2007 Accreditation Cycle. p.6), and there's only fourteen of them nationwide. Its professional association AEI is actually an institute of ASCE and is very young. I'm familiar with the difference between these ASCE institutes and regular professional societies as I'm a charter member of a sister ASCE institute: the Structural Engineering Institute.

This is not to say that AEs don't practice engineering, nor have a unique educational background that exposes them to the building as a suite of integrated systems. (Although the sentence: "… the architectural engineer, with a specialization in structures, may better understand the goals of the architect as he or she designs the structural systems." is a tad hyperbolic.) As an integrated specialty focused on buildings this specialty offers both a broader understanding of these systems as they must be integrated, but at the same time offers a good deal less depth of exposure to any one discipline. This article basically is saying that this specialty is so diverse that's it's a stand-alone discipline. MARussellPESE 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More structural engineering info added, and info that many ARCEs have their P.E.s in other areas to help address the above concerns. ABET's site is not current; there are 18 in the U.S. now -- 125% growth since the late 1970's. Only one BS-SE program left in the U.S. ... 129.237.114.171 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived (old) discussion

/Archive 1 FactsAndFigures 16:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures Needed

Something this article needs is pictures! Ideas, or have public domain ones available? Happy faces, and not just buildings/systems would be great.

FactsAndFigures 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Too American in style

The feeling I get after reading this article is that only American colleges offer Architectural Engineering. User:203.218.216.94

A few others do -- a list of known programs is at the end of the article. But also see Building engineering for the UK, etc. version. FactsAndFigures

After reading this article (and Building Engineering) I still don't understand what "Architectural Engineers" are. In Canada, "building engineers" is a catch-all term for the various engineers involved in the design of buildings- as opposed to industrial, civil structures, manufacturing, etc.. By that definition, these two articles are completely off topic. To my knowledge, in practice the single "architectural engineer" (or "building engineer") as defined in this article does not exist (and I've been involved in this industry for a long time- in Europe and Canada). I appreciate it exists as a discipline, and it may be much more common in parts of the US than elsewhere; but as a profession, I just don't get it... Do graduates work as other discipline engineers that, by virtue of their education, have a greater appretiation of architecture? If so, does that not take away from their required specializations? If not, doesn't their training and job description match (or mirror) that of the architect? The article says "Architectural engineers, with their inter-disciplinary background, understand and address architects' goals as they design building systems'... does this not imply they replace all the various engineers required in a building project? Please shed some light on this! Mariokempes 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it either why these are supposed to be a stand-alone disciplines. They're clearly cross-disciplinary. My guess is that there is a movement to get this recognized as one in the States because the NCEES exams are tough enough to pass by dedicated practitioners in a given discipline.[1] Currently there isn't one for AEs[2], but ABET has accreditation criteria [3], although there aren't as many as one would expect to see. (c.f. AE's 16 to CE, EE, or ME here:[4]) And there aren't that practicing here in the States either.

The breadth of the AE curriculum seems to leave one a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none, leaving passing the pertinent CE, EE, ME, or SE exams extremely tough.

I appreciate the AE curriculum's opportunity for students to explore architecture the way Architects do; however, I get the impression from some AEs that, yes, they do think they replace all the various specialists in a building team. I'm not sure that, by education, they're really qualified to replace any of them except in the most basic applications.

I've got a not small gripe with AEs asserting to be SEs without significant additional training. This curriculum[5] from the Illinois Institute of Technology (A school I hold in high regard.) doesn't come close to even having enough time available to pursue structural engineering practice. (Three semester hours of analysis and six of design, vs. nine each according to NCEES, or 36(!) according to the SECB (See p.2.).) Frankly, there isn't enough time to pursue any engineering discipline in the kind of depth necessary to practice, except the most rudimentary work. And that puts AEs in an ethical bind right out of the box which I'm not sure that they recognize. MARussellPESE 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Currently there isn't one for AEs[6]," Yes, there is! Look in the righthand column of that page. FactsAndFigures 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, Facts. I'd looked at another page on NCEES and it wasn't there.

Interestingly, the eight hour exam's content reflects the curriculum content, and makes my point that AEs aren't qualified by examination as specialists to practice in those disciplines beyond rudimentary application:

Electrical and Lighting Systems: 23% (1 hr 50 min)

c.f. the EE four hour Breadth and four hour Controls or Power Depth exams.

Mechanical Systems: 23% (1 hr 50 min)

c.f. the ME four hour Breadth and four hour HVAC Depth exam.

Structural Systems: 27% (2 hr 10 min)

c.f. the eight hour SE Structures I and Structures II exams; or the four hour CE Breadth and four hour Structural Depth exams.

For those of you practicing in Europe and Canada, remember the Americans do not have a portfolio review and instead rely heavily on the exams. MARussellPESE 13:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states: In countries such as Canada, the UK and Australia, architectural engineering is more commonly known as Building engineering, building systems engineering, or building services engineering.This is inaccurate and, at least in Canada, simply not true. Further to my comment above, there is no equivalent to an architectural engineer as described in this article- yes, there are "building systems engineers" and "building services engineers" (better known as electrical and/ or mechanical [plumbing, HVAC, etc.] engineers), and even building maintenance engineers, but they are not at all the same thing. If "building engineers" do indeed exist, I suspect they are not at all common. I'm inclined to delete that statement, but instead I will add a fact required tag- Can someone shed light on this? Mariokempes 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement than there are not any "Architectural Engineers" out in the field; however, most students who complete the major pick a particular area such as structural or MEP. Having graduated with an BSAE degree from a top school in the U.S (ABET accredited), I disagree with the fact that AE majors don't have enough experience in one area. We have taken the same structural design classes as the civil and structural majors. Looking at the MEP side, we take classes that are specific to building systems, such as HVAC, plumbing, electrical and lighting, etc,. It is fair to say that we are not qualified enough to work as electrical or mechanical engineers, but we have the training to design for buildings. Mechanical engineering is an extremely broad major in itself, and we get the same, if not more, training in the building systems area than they do. I have the expertise to design the electrical system for a building and design lighting for a building based on the IES, but could not practice as an electrical engineer. As for the Architecture aspect, I've taken about 3 architecture history classes and 2 design studios, just enough to become familiar with the aspects of architecture. My program definitely focused more on the engineering than the architecture. Of course, this was at my university. I'm sure other schools run their programs differently. For the FE exam, most of us took both general tests, and everyone I know passed the first time. No matter what exam you choose to take, when you pass, you simply are an Engineer-in-training, it doesn't matter which test you have taken. Angela9298 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How can they do it all??

The article states "Architectural engineers concentrate on ensuring that "the buildings work", e.g., that they stand up, that the HVAC systems operate well, that light and electrical power are delivered safely and as needed, and that fire safety is addressed". This is a very bold statement- especially in this age of specialized services. Perhaps this is an assertion by some academic institutions, but even for the most simple of buildings this is a laughable statement. Mariokempes 16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you consider this a laughable statement, then please inform my clients over the past 20 years, for whom I have designed entire buildings (including architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering). Most of these facilities have been simple, but they have included a large elementary school, churches, office buildings, banks, restaurants, auto dealerships, manufacturing plants, retail buildings, and distribution centers over 100,000 SqFt. I was trained at the University of Texas to design buildings, and to perform structural as well as MEP. Under 'engineering discipline', I'm classified by the Tx Board of Professional Engineers as both MEP and Architectural. In Texas, the practice of engineering has always included the design of entire buildings, and our professional Practice Act predates the architects' practice act by some 50 years. Obviously, it's up to each design professional to practice within his/her area(s) of training, licensure, and experience, but to say that one simply can't "do it all" flies in the face of decades of reality for at least some practicioners. At least in Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.0.242 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

My recent revisions were just undone under the premise "too much good info deleted". This could not be further from the truth. I have three major beefs with the article as it stands:

what is the practice of architectural engineering? I am not American, so I have tried to research this... Although I started with an open mind, I now believe there is no such thing or it is very, very limited. Everything I have read (excluding university and boy's club promos) suggests that in order to practice engineering, the architectural engineer would need to play the de facto mechanical, electrical or structural engineer. It is absolutely absurd to think one person can do it all. If such a thing exists, add it to the article (complete with references, please! Prefereably legislation or acts like one can can find for other engineers and architects).
As far as I can tell, the profession is non-existent outside the US. I tried to clarify what this discipline is for non-american readers, and to emphasise that it does indeed exist in the US as a separate (although mystifying) profession.
statements about "building services engineers" etc. are simply untrue. These are separate traditional professionals (i.e. mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, structural engineers) that serve the building industry- not one entity akin to the architectural engineer.

In addition, I improved the language, removed dangling dubious claims, and clarified some important statements. I plan to revert the undo and would appreciate some discussion or attention to this statement before brushing it off. Mariokempes (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted back the undo posted by an anom IP. I don't intend to start an edit war- in fact I will not change it again should it "come undone". I do ask, however, that someone with actual knowledge on what an AE does, and is entitled to do under law, contribute to clarify what I see as a big mystery. Mariokempes (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"I now believe there is no such thing or it is very, very limited."

False. We even predate _formal professional_ architecture. Late 1800's, I've heard, where architecture maintained a trade-type master/apprentice approach for a few more decades.

"It is absolutely absurd to think one person can do it all."

Happens many times every day, but mostly for smaller projects. For mid to large size project, yes, further specialization occurs. But architectural engineers can, and often do, change areas. But I do agree that more education is wise for other than very basic structural design (simple wood and light weight steel construction is common in the U.S., however).

"known as Building engineering, building systems engineering, or building services engineering.This is inaccurate and, at least in Canada"

That would be news to the Building engineering people in Canada, such as at Concordia University. Colleagues from the UK and Australia, in person, have described how their building services engineering is MEP, but structural engineering is still a distinctly different discipline. In the U.S., professional (ABET) structural engineering programs have disappeared (except one in California, last I knew) and is now part of civil and architectural engineering.

"As far as I can tell, the profession is non-existent outside the US"

As shown by the growing list of international programs, professional architectural engineering education is spreading worldwide. There are even more than shown, but I can't read Korean, Arabic, etc. to find their Web sites. Canada, frankly, is behind the times! Explain, calmly and persistently, to the architects and licensing boards, etc. that 1) formal architectural engineering predates formal architecture {I've heard it all began/happened at M.I.T.}, and that 2) "architectural engineers" are not a threat to their practice of building design. Quite the opposite -- we understand the architect's goals and then we design engineered building systems for them.

Someone always has to be the first, the "Founding Father", in their country. Maybe you?

But if not, I hope your civil and mechanical engineering programs support building systems engineering. Elsewhere in much of the world they do not -- they are too busy chasing research funds in "emerging areas" (e.g., MEs now are doing bioengineering), and buildings are not seen as emerging. An exception, to a degree, is structural engineering research, especially after a bridge fails ...

"boy's club promos"

Just for the record, I'm not a member of, consultant for, etc. of AEI.

FactsAndFigures (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK FactsAndFigures, you seem to missing the fundamental points of my contention. In essence, I think you are confusing the discipline with the practice:

Does someone trained in AE have the right to obtain a licence in MEP or structural simply by virtue of an AE exam? I understand some states have an AE licence... what does that licence entitle them to do? certainly not architecture, MEP or structural?? If so, how is this possible??? The article does not clarify this and conveniently "skirts" the issue.
ALL university info I have come across focusses on the discipline and is generally vague on future licensing... and where it is less so, it alludes to the need for "specializations" in one of the traditional groups if one is to practice as an engineer or architect. To me this means a broadly trained mechanical engineer (or structural, etc.- whatever)- not a generalist architectural engineer that does it all. Again, keep in mind this is academic- practice is a very different thing.
point to any legislation, statute, act- or whatever it is that governs professional practice in your part of the world- that governs the requirement for architectural engineers on any project. This exists for structural, civil, architects, etc., but I've never come across anything for AEs.
Outside the US: In most places, if someone is labelled an AE he/she is, in fact, an architect. **Building engineering as a profession does not exist in Canada- contrary to what Concordia would have you believe. It exists as an academic discipline (a great undergrad degree, I might add, for anyone intending to take it further). **The same is true for Australia and the UK. **Europe: In Italy, one can get a degree in "architectural engineering" although this is being phased out somewhat. It is a specialty of Civil Engineering programmes and graduates actually have the right to practice architecture (the late great Pier Luigi Nervi was one of these engineer-architects). Licenced architects in Germany are "Ing.". This is the case in much of the world- it's not always a clear distinction.
The article is of a "matter-of-fact" style which is misleading. Also, parts of it read like a fundraiser drive for more institutions- not appropriate for Wikipedia.
To summarize this long rant- I am NOT knocking AEs or the discipline. I simply would like to know what the AE is entitled to do by law (without a license in Struct, etc.- just with the AE license), NOT what he/she studied in school. Please don't tell me everything... this cannot be true!! Mariokempes (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

F+F: By the way, I've just read your revisions and I think they are a GREAT improvement. Still a way to go, however:) Mariokempes (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I work for an "MEP" firm and I often state to persons that I am an "MEP" engineer. There seems to be much discussion here that circles around the fact that there is no formal license for an MEP engineer. True. However in the common vernacular it is still accurate to describe a person or a firm as an MEP engineer or MEP engineering firm. I cannot address what goes on in the rest of the world but in the states particularly in Texas where I perform most of my work, the term MEP engineer is widely accepted for my area of practice. For our use of the term, a Building engineer is someone who is involved in direct daily operations of a building or campus of buildings. This "Building engineer" may or may not even have a formal engineering degree, it is true that this term is used inaccurately but it is still in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterho (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources & Unencyclopedic Content

Dovetailing with the conversation above, I'd like to note that the current version lacks sources and contains some unencyclopedic content. The absence of sources is self-explanatory and obvious, but the unencyclopedic content deserve specific comment. "Architectural_engineering#More_programs_needed_worldwide" is intended to be persuasive. Encyclopedias don't discuss "needs" or present arguments justifying hiring faculty. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed format change

OK... I've been mulling this over some more and have the following proposition. I think the article could be restructured to present three basic definitions of the "architectural engineer":

A consulting engineer in the structural, mechanical or electrical fields of building design.
A professional in parts of the United States, usually from university programs preparing students for practice in one of the structural, mechanical or electrical fields of building design but with an appreciation of architectural requirements.
In informal contexts, and formally in some places, synonomous with an architect or another description of an architect.

[No; there is a fourth "basic definition" in Texas, and that is the most basic, universal practice of Architectural Engineering: the design of buildings including their systems. That is NOT either of your first two categories, nor is it the third one, since it is NOT synonymous with mere architecture, but more all-encompassing in that it includes the design of the structural and MEP for the building as well as the building envelope itself. The Architectural Engineer as a general practicioner designs the building, period: the aesthetics, materials selection, space planning, egress and accessibility, fire protection...as well as the structure, the plumbing, HVAC, and electrical. To say that this is "impossible" is insipid in the first degree; tantamount to saying that the medical general practicioner's work is "impossible!" and that everyone who sees a doctor must go to a specialist!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.0.242 (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Item #2 could be modified, depending on answers to my queries above. Under this format, I believe the article would be cohesive, true and potentially encyclopedic. It could also be merged with building engineering. Any thoughts? Mariokempes (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a good angle. It would appear that building engineering and architectural engineering are the EU/Canadian(?) and US names for the same practice. If we merge these two, then the region where the practice is more established or widespread should govern in the article's name.

We should take the time to cull the unencyclopedic content (i.e. the lists and propaganda) from both articles.

MARussellPESE (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started the process. Mariokempes (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than merge, I've reorganized Building engineering to deal with the stand alone discipline. I'm hoping practice-related matters will remain in this article, which I think is now more universal. I'm still not clear on issues I've talked about above, as they relate to the practice specific to the US, and would appreciate input. Mariokempes (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Info about the AE Exam and Licensing

If you have questions about the AE Exam and Licensing, AEI has a good explanation here, AEI FAQs, look at question 4. I will look at some specific state license information to see if I can find any more details. If you have any questions about AE feel free to contact me. I am an AE student, and I find the international interest in AE very positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpo6444 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This Article is universal

To add comments intended for the profession of Architectural Engineer in the United States, go to that section or, better still, to Architectural engineer (PE). This article is intended to be an overview of the term as it's used throughout the world. 75.157.129.70 (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[Yes, well...the only problem is that when one goes there, (s)he is redirected to this article. It is impossible (and pointless) to attempt to compend every bureaucratic and regulatory scheme on earth for the design of buildings, in one Wikipedia article. The advent of computers and then of computer-aided design has begun to relegate the profession of architecture to something more of a back seat than it enjoyed for centuries. In terms of life-safety (and usually cost control), clients are increasingly more willing to entrust their projects to Engineers versus architects, in those jurisdictions where competition exists. For this reason, it has been the stated goal of NCARB (the architect national lobby group) to seek a monopoly and thereby stifle competition for the design of buildings, even though their profession has demonstrably less life-safety design component in its degree programs than do the programs in Architectural Engineering, where the latter exist.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.0.242 (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't be redirected here except through links. Hit this and edit away.

As for your comment above- entirely untrue. If this is the case in your part of the world, it is very isolated and, in most cases, illegal unless the project is primarily an engineering project. Architects, not engineers, are trained to bring projects through planning comissions and permit boards, present and explain complicated design intents to people, realise clients' visions and translate them into buildings, handle the myriad of bureaucratic details, and coordinate the entire team- all while balancing client's needs- AND do everything else that you purport can be done by the AE. Of course a team is required; buildings have become incredibly complicated in the last 80 years or so. One person cannot do it all (in most cases) and even if your mythical superhuman AE were to come to the rescue, he/she could not do it all except for the most simple of projects (projects where in many cases professionals are not required and are often designed by "building designers").

I'm not negating the fact that some academic programs exist in the US and elsewhere, and that the AE professional actually exists in some US jurisdictions. However, it seems to me that the AE, as a supposed distinct and unique professional that can do everything, is fictional or, at best, another version of an architect. Your obvious overstatements are testament that you too realise the limitation of such aspirations. Engineers are specialists. They can be team leaders, but (for the vast majority of building types) the architect is far better suited for the role. 75.157.203.16 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

archicad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.115.222 (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Architectural engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

unclear page concept

all but one of the sections refers the reader elsewhere to get more than a summary of the main page, making this page come across as a verbose disambigation page. Longpinkytoes (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Architectural engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101230715/https://ncees.org/Licensure.php to http://www.ncees.org/Licensure.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)