Here is Part 2 (check out Part 1 for the backstory that makes the twist so engaging) of the trials and tribulations at the IABSE Future of Design 2013 conference. After this, I promise, I shall never mention it again…

John Eyre (UCL)

On clocks: “The most interesting thing the designer has to say to anybody has been hidden”.

It’s an unsettling feeling to spend five years of your life at an institution, only to find out after what it was meant to achieve. John’s talk focused on educating students to be engineers; specifically teaching them to design. Starting with the statement that design isn’t something that can be taught, but something that we have to discover within ourself- John continued to explore how the first module at UCL (an open brief: “Build a clock.”) allowed students that opportunity, before the creative ignorance was destroyed by the technical limitation. Ultimately this lead to the paradoxical crux- self-discovery requires failure, but if/as university becomes a tool for delivery, failure is no longer an option.

Roger Ridsdill-Smith (Foster + Partners)

“Being called a creative structural engineer is like being called a tuneful musician”.

I think it goes without saying that a talk from a structural engineer at Fosters + Partners included a variety of stunning high profile projects. Despite the somewhat controversial proposition that the monetary value of materials (as it is largely proportional to energy), when not skewed by labour, is a reliable proxy for sustainable measurement; it was Rodger’s thoughts on Integrated Design that really stood out for me. Most thought provoking was his team formation criterion, aiming not for multi-disciplined ‘all rounders’ (a term repeatedly pedalled during the day) but for individual specialists.

Education Discussion Panel

“Are Universities delivering what industry is looking for?” “No, they’re not.”

Brian Duguid (Mott Macdonald), Caroline Tong (Halcrow CH2M), Brett Steele (AA School London), David Lloyd Smith (Imperial)

It’s going to be a challenge to summarise the somewhat meandering discussion on educating engineers that was had; maybe one day I’ll write a whole post about it. Perhaps a common thread surrounded the essential dichotomy of what University thinks it is and what Industry wants it to be. University, it seems, considers itself a realm where the thought-leaders of tomorrow can develop the skills they need; the result being more an MPhil rather than an MEng; and thus is disappointed that students arrive not already knowing how to build things. Conversely industry seems to find the University student is turned-out non-articulate, non-creative and ultimately not rounded- forced to hire people for their ‘fit’ and what they could become under the vocational guidance, rather for their learnt ability.

Mike Schlaich (SBP)

“Detail nicely, do not only calculate nicely.”

It turns out that we had a bit of a celebrity in our midst at the conference; in-fact, of all of the speakers Mike was the only one I saw actually being asked for autographs. After his talk, however, it wasn’t hard to see why. Although his career includes a variety of high-profile and fascinating projects (load-bearing font development, anyone?), for me it was the leitmotif of “homage” throughout the lecture that made the biggest impression.

Stopping only to lament the loss of shell structures, Mike gave us a tour-de-force of a number of historic structures; and in resonance with my discussion on ‘elegance of design‘ preceded to identify the engineering principles that made them so important to him. Brilliantly, he related all these (engineering) designs that had inspired him back to the structures he had later designed; following the founding-principle and re-applying it in new ways.

Ho-Yin Ng (AL_A)

“What is the art of building”

If Ho-Yin’s talk taught me anything, it’s that Architects have a tenancy to be more articulate than their more technical engineering cousins; it’s like the difference between listening to a talk by Steve Jobs than Bill Gates- perhaps this is the reason why everyone knows what an Architect does and no one knows what a Civil Engineer is? Either way, the highlight of Ho-Yin’s talk had to be the use of CNC cut polystyrene ‘printed’ formwork to (relatively quickly) create complex shapes for structures- although the idea of using furniture as a prototype did strike a chord.

Chris Walker (Flint & Neill)

[On Long Bridges] “A lot of your creative focus is on how to get from A to B”

Chris’ talk was probably the most conventional of the conference; and frankly exactly what I’d come here expecting: Focusing on a single project (The Izmit Bay Bridge) and hashing out the technical issues and solutions. And what a project it is… attempting to build the 4th largest bridge in 37 months (1/2 the time of the closest) across a seismic plane that produces 7.4 magnitude earthquakes as it slides 2.5cm a year.

The solutions for speed are, of course, design to build; make things prefabricated, repetitive, buildable with the available plant in mind and (curiously) the use of prefabricated cables. But, for me at least, the more interesting challenge was designing a bridge that doesn’t mind the cross drift of 2.5cm/year. The answer, it seems, was to significantly reduce fixity; connecting he deck to the piers only by hydraulic buffers, and using gravel-bed “friction” foundations to allow the towers to ‘slide’ across the sea-bed (for a given measurement of slide).

Mike Glover (Arup)

“When you understand all the issues; you can be the conductor of the orchestra.”

It’s hard to think of a better person to finish the conference than Mike, who’s career not only includes several high profile projects (the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, for one) but, more remarkably, includes a view from the start to the end of them. To Mike, although it is something he lives and breaths, design is only a means to an end; and for him the focus is on the end- getting things built. Perhaps, to me, the most interesting point came when he demonstrated this importance by comparing public response to the CTRL to the new HS2 project, arguing (maybe controversially) that this less than warm welcome was because HS2 hasn’t conveyed it’s focus (it’s end product) in a way that the average person could understand.

So that’s it. There were, I think it’s only fair to mention, a few short presentations from young designers, however these were very project centred and I think it would be difficult to do them any justice in a short summary; especially when I only had the faintest grasp on the technicalities behind them.

GSP4GFCWGWZM