by Centurii-chan

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 82 points 1 year ago (29 children)

both of these were designed by architects. neither reflects the twin simplicity and laziness that engineering embodies.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    If engineers had our way all buildings would look like this

    This is the ideal building. You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like 😆

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Why not continue the brick shell at least to eye level? Why does it stop at waist level?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Brick expensive :(

    panel cheap :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The real question is, why is there any brick at all?

    (The answer is almost certainly that somebody other than the engineer imposed the requirement.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Brick waterproof.

    Brick termite-proof.

    Brick fireproof.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Mind explaining why this is peak performance? ELI5 if possible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Engineers love these things because they're real easy to design, and very efficient in usable volume vs materials (which is why they're used for every warehouse/big store/factory)

    Obviously not great for living in or anything but that's the joke :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Very interesting! I never thought of that before. On the building pictured, which would take least effort to double the storage space - making it twice as long, wide or tall?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Do you really mean "effort" (and if so, whose?) or do you mean cost? The other reply is correct that making it twice as long would minimize the need to redesign, but without doing the math (I am a civil engineer, but I can't be bothered) I suspect making it twice as tall would use the least additional materials and therefore be cheapest. (That assumes taking advantage of the extra height for storage is the client's problem, not the engineer's. Having to put in a second story floor would change things.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah I guess I was thinking about cost when I said effort. I figured maybe building up would also provide more design challenges to keep the thing from collapsing, or is that negligible?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You'll have a little bit more wind loading and you may have to put in a little bit of thought into the size and bracing of the vertical support columns to make sure the extra length doesn't risk buckling, but that's pretty much it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    As an engineer, I prefer to call it minmalism.

    Quick edit: I saw the typo, but it is also an example of what the sentence is supposed to convey.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Look. i's ain't cheap, and half the readers won't even use it.

    Leave it out, we'll claim it was a mistake, and if anyone really complains we can add it back later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments