Fair point about the media. And I was mistaken about the architect potentially having a right to it...copyright law prevents Architectural copyright holders from preventing photography of their buildings as long as they are clearly visible from public spaces.
17 US Code S120 - Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works said:
(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.—
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
(b) Alterations to and Destruction of Buildings.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(2), the owners of a building embodying an architectural work may, without the consent of the author or copyright owner of the architectural work, make or authorize the making of alterations to such building, and destroy or authorize the destruction of such building.
Apparently there have been some cases of building owners trying to claim trademark infringement for the use of images of buildings if the image of the building is included in a registered trademark, but that's apparently rare (how many buildings are trademarks?) and hasn't really worked. Trademark infringement requires use in direct competition with the trademark holder, so the only situation I can see impacting the OP would be a different structural engineering firm hiring an architect to build them a building, the architect then hires the OP rather than their client (possible, I suppose), the owner then rebranding to include their building in their trademark, and then the OP posting a picture to promote their competing structural engineering firm. Sounds a bit far fetched to me.
Here's a self proclaimed legal site with an article on the topic (as I'm not a lawyer, I can't say if these folks know their stuff or not...but they do have quite a presence in the low cost/free legal advice arena):
NOLO
And here's one bit of case law that seems to hold that up. Plaintiff accused the defendant (photographer) of trespassing, taking a photo of their property, and selling it. Judge dismissed everything but the trespassing, which suggests to the several commentaries I found that the photography of private property wasn't really an issue (based on federal copyright laws). After the case was settled, the image remained for sale, meaning the photographer was not compelled by the court to cease commercial use of the image.
Of course, obtaining permission certainly doesn't hurt. Or you can put it on your photographer, who as a pro in that field should be aware of his/her legal limitations. Make sure you have a good contract with them in which they guarantee their works are 100% legal and that they'll bear the cost of litigation if they are not. And they should have insurance to back it up.
I've taken to adding a clause in my contracts that the architect and property owner grant permission of use for renderings, photographs, etc. in my marketing material.
And, as always, not a lawyer....just basing this on discussions along similar lines I've had with my attorney...consult your own before you make the final decision.