Is civil engineering on the cutting edge of technology? While almost all civil engineers remain devoutly proud of their chosen profession, some forward looking engineers are challenging the status quo. Are civil engineers followers – mostly implementing the ideas developed by others? Is there a stagnation of ideas in the profession?
Certainly, we are living in a rapidly evolving world that poses new challenges: environmental quality, global warming, worker safety, homeland security. These challenges may appear outside the purview of long-established civil engineering practice. Who then is more qualified to address these challenges? They cannot be met using only the well-known routine solutions; they demand engineering creativity.
Professor Tomasz Arciszewski, of the Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering at George Mason University, has attempted to address these challenges by promoting engineering creativity and inventive design.
Unlike a growing number of faculty, Professor Arciszewski has hands-on design experience in the areas of steel space structures (Poland) and general structural engineering (Switzerland). He is also an inventor with three patents (Canada, Poland, USA) and another seeking approval this year. These experiences let him to an interest in engineering creativity, specifically in inventive design leading to the development of novel, feasible and potentially patentable design concepts.
Over the past decade, Professor Arciszewski has organized a system of courses related to engineering creativity, including a Graduate Certificate Program on "Discovery, Design, and Innovation." He also teaches a course on "Design and Inventive Engineering," which regularly attracts 12-14 PhD students from all areas of IT, engineering, the Departments of Psychology and Physics. The course covers many aspects of engineering creativity (which he calls "Inventive Engineering"), including the historical and psychological background, design methods and theories, bio-inspiration in design, AI in design, invited talks by inventors, etc. Undergraduate courses have also been offered.
Professor Arciszewski's program at George Mason University is unique. The School was established about 20 years ago by Professor Andrew Sage, who was a visionary and saw the future as an intersection of IT/computer science and engineering. In other words, he wanted to create interdesciplinary programs leading to knowledge interegration and emergence of new transdisciplinary knowledge (Building a bridge between Computer Science and Engineering).
This multidisciplinary approach to engineering education has inspired participation from industry leaders. Dr. Paul Seguin of the US Army Corps of Engineers (Office of Strategic Planning) frequently participates in the classes and provides real inventive problems for students to solve. At the end of semester students present their results in front of a panel of about 10 "judges," who are distinguished scholars and practicing civil engineers.
Luckily, you don't need to enroll at George Mason to learn more about inventive engineering. Professor Arciszewski recently published a book on "Successful Education. How to Educate Creative Engineers." It provides a philosophical and intellectual foundation for teaching Inventive Engineering. It is available at http://www.successfuleducationllc.us/.
I commend Professor Arciszewski efforts to transform civil engineering education by teaching students how to become creative people – inventors leading the generation of novel solutions that contribute to the fundamental needs of society and advance our civilization.
What is Pecha Kucha? First things first, try pronouncing it Pe-Cha-Ku-Cha with emphasis on the "Cha's." The expression is a colloquialism for chit-chat in Japanese, but since 2003 it has come to mean something special to young designers in several cities. Regular events feature architects, artists, and even engineers (in my case) giving fast-paced lively presentations. Each presenter is permitted only 20 slides and 20 seconds per slide. The results are entertaining to say the least.
On the night that I was asked to represent the Chicago AIA Younger Architects Forum, we heard presentations ranging from vacation photos from Jamacia to a career of designing military bunkers. The topics ranged broadly, but the speeches were unanimously entertaining. It's not certain whether the venue (Martyr's, a local bar) helped provide some liquid courage. The packed house was a bit imposing, but the audience was incredibly supportive and laughed at most of my lame jokes.
Please enjoy the video of my presentation... or not. I'm afraid to spoil my memory of the event by seeing what actually transpired.
Two weeks ago I attended a lecture/discussion led by Tristan D'Estree Sterk and Douglas Pancoast at the Flatiron Arts Building in Chicago. Both presenters are known for their forward-thinking approach to digital technologies in Architecture.
Tristan founded a small design and technology enterprise called the Office for Robotic Architectural Media & the Bureau for Responsive Architecture (ORAMBRA). We met at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC), where we collaborated in teaching a studio on materials and structures. Douglas is now the director of the Architecture and Interior Architecture graduate program at SAIC.
Last fall, Douglas and Tristan welcomed the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) to Chicago for their annual conference. The featured presenters delivered a diverse account of how technology is informing architecture. However, despite the enthusiasm brought by the ACADIA event, some architects continued to question the long-term effects of digital technologies on architecture.
With that history in mind, I entered the recent lecture expecting a demonstration of technological superiority and an argument to adopt digital technologies or get left behind. Instead, the discussion was far more nuanced and philosophical. Instead of merely presenting a few "killer-apps," Tristan and Douglas attempted to articulate a polemic between new digital technologies and classical design theory. The discussion that followed was intellectual, and to be honest, I had to look up some works, like polemic, when I got home.
Polemic: a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
After leaving the discussion I continued to ponder some of the points that were raised. The following are my perceptions on two topics, as inspired by the talk.
During the presentation, Tristan recalled another architects observation that Western (particularly Christian) culture establishes itself in competition with/ or supremacy over the environment. Many other cultures revere nature or worship the sustaining elements. Christianity, from the earliest chapters of Genesis, places mankind above nature. This line of thought is provocative and largely subconscious but not trivial when it comes to reconciling history, sustainability and technology.
For example, many new analytical procedures have been developed to model efficient heat and light distribution in buildings. However, skeptics refer back to old standards for sizing air conditioners and illuminating rooms. They say that any other approach will be uncomfortable and more expensive. As we enter a new age in design that seeks to be more sustainable, architects must overcome skeptics and re-shape the culture to accept greener norms.
Another healthy discussion focused on the adaptability of buildings as machines for living. An attendee pointed out that the Flatiron Arts building (that the lecture was held at) provided an example of how adaptable traditional design is to new uses. The building began as a warehouse, then was utilized for office space and now houses an eclectic group of art studios. Over time, space has been partitioned into rooms of odd shapes and crooked hallways. Yet, the inefficiency in the layout is recognized as a charming feature of the space, ideally suited for its current residents.
Would new 'super-buildings' serve such a diversity of purpose over time? A building uniquely suited for one particular client, may not over time maintain its relevance. Could the Bilbao Guggenheim ever be re-purposed for anything other than a museum? Have some architects over-utilized computer modeling to generate complex forms simply for the sake of looking modern?
Before wholly embracing the digital revolution, perhaps it is worthwhile to ponder the reasons for doing so. I enjoyed the opportunity presented by Tristan and Douglas' to consider the technological revolution occurring in architecture today.