Your colleague is wrong and this is a tired debate, but neither are easy.
Engineering deals mostly with objective outcomes. Space shuttle designers have a clear goal and measurable performance metrics. The problems are extremely hard but the design constraints permit a more focused development process.
Architecture is technical but mostly subjective, and deals with a host of multi-disciplinary and social concerns. It's quite open-ended and difficult to settle on an optimal approach. Extreme budget limitations, building code, zoning restrictions, public consultation, and the idiosyncrasies of personal taste complicate this process further. Full-size prototyping is also less common and it's almost impossible to truly test the outcome of a design before actually constructing something.
Building a house and building a perfect house are drastically different accomplishments. A lot of people will even hate the perfect house – there's no winning!
I have a great deal of respect for engineers and (competent) architects. The latter are rare.
Engineering deals mostly with objective outcomes. Space shuttle designers have a clear goal and measurable performance metrics. The problems are extremely hard but the design constraints permit a more focused development process.
Architecture is technical but mostly subjective, and deals with a host of multi-disciplinary and social concerns. It's quite open-ended and difficult to settle on an optimal approach. Extreme budget limitations, building code, zoning restrictions, public consultation, and the idiosyncrasies of personal taste complicate this process further. Full-size prototyping is also less common and it's almost impossible to truly test the outcome of a design before actually constructing something.
Building a house and building a perfect house are drastically different accomplishments. A lot of people will even hate the perfect house – there's no winning!
I have a great deal of respect for engineers and (competent) architects. The latter are rare.