The divergent perspectives of civil engineers and architects in historic building restoration: A comparative analysis

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 78 - 87, 15.12.2023

Mehmet Emre Aktuna

https://doi.org/10.58598/cuhes.1354966

Öz

This article delves into the distinctive viewpoints held by civil engineers and architects during the process of restoring historic buildings. The restoration of heritage structures involves complex decisions and multidisciplinary collaboration, where professionals from varying backgrounds contribute their expertise. Notably, architects and civil engineers approach restoration with different lenses, stemming from their unique educational backgrounds, professional experiences, role expectations and many various other factors. These divergent perspectives may significantly impact the overall restoration process, influencing design choices, material selection, structural interventions, and project outcomes. To shed light on this phenomenon, this study employs a comprehensive methodology. The research incorporates a meticulous literature review to elucidate existing knowledge on the subject. Subsequently, a structured questionnaire is administered to a diverse pool of practicing civil engineers and architects, aiming to capture their distinct viewpoints and perceptions regarding historic building restoration. The survey is carefully designed to explore a spectrum of factors, including project goals, design approach, project involvement, decision-making processes, and challenges. the collected data, comparing and contrasting the responses of civil engineers and architects were also presented in this research. The analysis uncovers nuanced variations in how these professionals prioritize different aspects of restoration, from historical authenticity and aesthetic considerations to structural stability and feasibility. The implications of these divergent perspectives are critically evaluated, emphasizing how they influence project outcomes and the holistic restoration process. Furthermore, the article addresses the potential benefits of bridging these perspectives, fostering enhanced interdisciplinary communication and collaboration. This article provides a comprehensive understanding of the distinct viewpoints that civil engineers and architects bring to historic building restoration. By recognizing these disparities and their implications, the restoration field can work toward more effective integration of expertise, contributing to more informed decision-making and successful restoration projects that balance both functional and aesthetic considerations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Civil Engineering, Architecture, Conservation, Restoration, Architectural Heritage

Kaynakça

• Davis, M. (2009). Distinguishing Architects from Engineers: A Pilot Study in Differences Between Engineers and Other Technologists. In: Poel, I., Goldberg, D. (eds) Philosophy and Engineering: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2804-4_2
• Cruise, R. B. (2016) Architecture and engineering: interdisciplinary education. In: Research Based Education 2016: aae2016 International Peer-reviewed Conference Proceedings. The Association of Architectural Educators Conference 2016 - Research-Based Education, 07-09 Apr 2016, The Bartlett, Univeristy College London, UK. The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, pp. 427-438. ISBN 9780992948597
• Khan, S. & Tunçer, B. (2019). Speech analysis for conceptual cad modeling using multi-modal interfaces: an investigation into architects’ and engineers’ speech preferences. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing, 33(03), 275-288. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0890060419000015
• Holford, L., & Shepheard, M. H. (1970). The architect and power engineering. Electronics and Power, 16, 449-453.
• Summerson, J. (1985). What is the history of construction? Construction History, 1, 1–2. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41613599
• Saint, A. (2005). Architect and Engineer: A Study in Construction History. Construction History, 21, 21–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41613892
• Whitney, V. (2013). Separate But Unequal.
• Argan, G. C. (1970). The Renaissance City. New York: G. Braziller.
• Straub, H. (1952). A history of civil engineering; an outline from ancient to modern times. L. Hill.
• Thammavijitdej, P., & Horayangkura, V. (2006). Interdisciplinary conflicts and resolution as cultural behavior among architects and engineers. Thammasat Review, 11(1), 50-64
• Genç, M. İ., (2008). İnşaat projelerinde örgüt içi çatışmanın nedenleri ve boyutlarının belirlenmesi, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul.
• Jaffar, N., Abdul, A. H., Tharim, M. N., (2011). Factors of Conflict in Construction Industry, a Literature Rewiev Procedia Engineering, 20, 193-202.
• Çivici, T. (2019). İnşaat Proje Organizasyonlarında Kişiler Arası Çatışma Çözüm Yaklaşımları ile Kişilik Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişki. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 34 (3), 195-206.
• Marra, A., Trizio, I., & Savini, F. (2023). Multidisciplinary Approach for the Knowledge of Historical Built: Digital Tools for the Virtual Restoration. In Digital Restoration and Virtual Reconstructions: Case Studies and Compared Experiences for Cultural Heritage (pp. 205-224). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Fernandez, S. (2017). Engineer’s approach to conservation. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage, 170, 2, 53–66. Thomas Telford Ltd.
• Rabun, J. S. (2000). Structural analysis of historic buildings: restoration preservation and adaptive reuse applications for architects and engineers (dissertation). Wiley, 457.
• Di Biase, C., & Albani, F. (2019). The Teaching of Architectural Conservation in Europe. Maggioli editore.
• Lourenço, P. B. (2006). Structural restoration of monuments: recommendations and advances in research and practice.
• D’Ayala, D. (2014). Conservation principles and performance based strengthening of heritage buildings in post-event reconstruction. Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 1, 489-514.
• Zheng, J. (2011). How many days does it take for respondents to respond to your survey.
• Dennis, J. & Somerville, M. (2022). Supporting thinking about thinking: examining the metacognition theory-practice gap in higher education. Higher Education, 86(1), 99-117.
• Wong, K. L., Ong, S. F., & Kuek, T. (2012). Constructing a Survey Questionnaire to Collect Data on Service Quality of Business Academics.
• Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthíasdóttir, Á. (2007). Online data collection in academic research: advantages and limitations. Br. J. Educ. Technol., 38, 574-582.
• Roztocki, N. (2001). Using internet-based surveys for academic research: Opportunities and problems. In Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM) National Conference (pp. 290-295).
• Regmi, P. R., Waithaka, E., Paudyal, A., Simkhada, P. P., & Teijlingen, E. R. (2016). Guide to the design and application of online questionnaire surveys. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 6(4), 640-644.
• Lin, N. (1976), Foundations of Social Research, 146, McGraw-Hill, USA.
• Croci, G. A. (2000). General methodology for the structural restoration of historic buildings: the cases of the Tower of Pisa and the Basilica of Assisi. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 1, 7-18.
• Traykova, M., & Traykov, A. (2021). Conservation of historical buildings – concepts and details. IABSE Congress, Ghent 2021: Structural Engineering for Future Societal Needs.