View allAll Photos Tagged Development,
I've been taking macros of our "bleeding heart" plants, as the flowers develop. Here are a few of my shots.
The background this picture was taken against wasn't great, so have some edited-in bricks instead.
Change is afoot on the Toton Lane to Nottingham park and ride service, since the temporary allocation of mostly double deckers (for social distancing) can be eased off slightly and various members of the RB fleet fill in while the branded vehicles receive attention, with a couple being off the road at any given time. The first of these was 28, now back in traffic on the P&R in its updated livery so now the other buses can have their turn at being repainted.
Reduced PVR:
Although there are six buses branded for the park and ride, a revised timetable sees the same level of service (every 10 min departures with a small amount of recovery time at Toton Lane) but with a PVR of five buses, completely cutting out one of the service boards because a few months ago I sat up all night devising an ingenious new timetable. There are five boards Monday to Saturday and three on a Sunday, so having six branded buses is a massive overkill; four, maybe five would be better.
New Livery for the Darts:
Because I tried to paint all six P&R buses in 2017/18 at the same time, it ended up taking ages and the paint finish was pretty rubbish across all of them. Also I'm a bit sick of the livery now, only having lime green at the front and looking generally uninspired. Because I ideally want to get some more double deckers for the P&R and oust at least three of the Darts onto the 201/211 I wanted to change the livery so it looked better for the P&R but could also be repurposed without me having to repaint them all again.
Repainting 28:
28 is the first Dart to be painted into the revised livery, which isn't too much of a drastic change from the previous one but different enough. The most important part is that I got the finish far better than before, so the whole thing looks neater. Unfortunately I managed to sand off most of the front detail so it looks rather flat... hopefully I won't end up doing the same to the other three. I eventually decided the headlights I painted on looked too rectangular, so I've changed them slightly since this photo and now 28 looks far more like an SLF Pointer. (with the 'rectangle' lights it looks almost like a Mercedes O405!)
Repainting 27 and 31:
Next to be pulled from service is 27, which I'm currently in the process of repainting. 31 wasn't meant to be done until after the Darts, but I had a closer look at it and thought it looked so bad I needed to fix it immediately, so that's being painted at the moment too. I just didn't like the idea of the revised P&R livery on the double deckers, so it's staying in the original P&R livery for now. What I do with it in the future I can worry about when I get to that stage.
Potential for New Buses:
As good as they are, the Darts are a bit of a compromise on the P&R since they are rather small for the job they have. The P&R could really do with a 100% allocation of deckers, but the existing double deckers in the fleet are a bit of a motley collection and, besides, none of them are Euro 6; unlike the Darts with their retrofitted E200 engines. I thought it wouldn't be too impossible to find four - five at a push - double deckers this year to completely renew the P&R fleet, enabling the six buses you see here to be cascaded off to other interesting developments on the RB network.
Of course this relies on some bus/model shows taking place and then me actually getting to them... and then them having models of low floor deckers for sale that aren't £25+ apiece. Hold on, this is sounding less likely by the minute.
In The Meantime:
For now the P&R is mostly back to normal, with 25/6/8/9 on it (providing they aren't breaking down that day) and the 5th board being covered by just about anything Enviro-Dart sized or bigger... 8 the ALX500, 14 the B7 Artic and 20 the BYD electric have all filled in although more commonly it's either 12, 16 or 30. Since going back to normal, the P&R hasn't seen either of the Excels again... yet. When 27 and 31 are finished I'll move on to the other two Darts, then 29 providing I don't change my mind again like I did with 31. Hopefully by then I'll have figured out how viable my "buy 4 or 5 double deckers" plan is and maybe even got some of them! Who knows?
(I mean I really do have a load of things planned for RB which pretty much hinge on me replacing all the current P&R fleet with new deckers.)
A collection of pots and tubs on the patio whils the pond, rockery and raspberry canes are about a yearold here I guess.
Suvet 3D Character Animation Model of 3D Modelling by Gameyan 3D Animation Studio, Indianapolis- Indiana
PROJECT: 3D CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT FOR GAME
CATEGORY: 3D GAME CHARACTERS
For More : www.gameyan.com/3d-character-modeling.html
Suvet is 3D Character Modeling for game development. he is very unique in look with cycling leg and yellow heavy hair. He has sward with hazardous look. The quality of the render and image is pretty good. Tools used for this software is Zbrush, Maya, Photoshop, V-ray By 3D Art Outsourcing.
Management is one basic piece of the business. With better and viable management, a business can get wanted development and benefit in less time. On account of digitization, Management Software is being utilized in each sort of business. Same goes for restaurant or bar business. To get a specific development, restaurant and bar business people counsel Restaurant and Bar Management Software Development Services to build up a management software for them.
Source: maxanderson.postach.io/post/what-benefits-can-be-get-by-r...
was in June 1992 that an unusual architectural manifesto was launched in Great Britain. For the next ten years or more, the manifesto entitled "Urban Villages, a concept for creating mixed-use urban developments on a sustainable scale" continued to make waves, and was much commented and criticised - often unfavourably - in the specialist and general media.
In the language of contemporary British town planning, the expression "urban village" has for many people come to be synonymous with the name "Poundbury", the neo-traditionalist suburban development on the fringes of the rural town of Dorchester, piloted and largely masterminded by the Prince of Wales. Yet although Poundbury is certainly the most extensively developed of Britain's urban village projects, there are many others throughout Britain, and the expression "urban villages" is also used in other English speaking countries to describe modern suburban developments - and in some cases rural developments - that conform (or more or les conform) to certain holistic principles of planning that run against the grain of accepted modern practices in suburban development.
This article takes a concise look at the origins of the "urban village" concept, and its definition, before studying the situation of urban village development in the UK today, looking at Poundbury and the other projects throughout the country that were in 2001 affiliated to the Urban Villages Forum, the think tank set up under the patronage of the Prince of Wales.
Indeed, no discussion of "urban villages" in a British context can begin without reference to the role of the Prince of Wales who, long dissatisfied by much of the dreary suburban development that has occurred in Britain during his lifetime, has used his position to spearhead the development of socially and architecturally successful sustainable communities designed to avoid the failures of the recent past.
The much-used expression "neo-traditionalist", imported from the United States, clearly establishes the conceptual framework that underlies the urban village movement; urban villages are seen as not just an architectural or planning concept, but one predicated on a form of social organisation that has its roots in a long-established model that has stood the test of time. In Britain, as in the United States, the aim of the proponents of urban villages is not just to design modern living environments that reflect those of a previous and supposedly more stable rural society, but to rediscover the forms of living environment that engendered the stability of such traditional rural communities. In this respect, the "urban village" is a concept that takes its place in a historic British - and notably English - paradigm that has previously been illustrated in the model towns of Lever, Cadbury and others, the garden cities of the first half of the twentieth century, and, in community terms at least, in late twentieth century developments such as Newcastle's Byker village.
The expression "urban village" seems however to be an American invention. The earliest bibliographical reference to the phrase would seem to be a book entitled Urban Village: Population, Community, and Family Structure in Germantown, Pennsylvania, 1683-1800, by Stephanie Grauman, published in 1980. Yet early usages of the expression do not refer to any specific planning concept, but are a more a convenient pairing of words used to describe certain types of close-knit urban communities whose structures reflected traditional rural models. The phrase was even used as a rendering of the Spanish expression "barrio". It was in the early eighties, however, that the first references to the "urban village" as a planning concept began to appear, in the writings of Christopher Leinberger, a Los Angeles based urban affairs consultant (Urban Villages: The Locational Lessons. Wall Street Journal. New York. November 13, 1984) and Charles Lockwood (The Arrival of the Urban Village in Princeton Alumni Weekly November 1986). Leinberger used the phrase "urban villages" to describe what he saw as a new tendency towards mixed-use development in suburban America, resulting from the fact that in post-industrial America, there was no longer any need to separate business and residential areas for environmental reasons (pollution, noise, etc.).
More recently, and notably in the 1990's, the phrase has been used sporadically in discussions of the American "new urbanism" movement, often by and with reference to neotraditionalist planners Leon Krier and the Andres Duany / Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk partnership; yet generally speaking, American writers and planners - until recently - have made considerably more use of the expression "new urbanism", rather than "urban village". The idea of the "village", with its notions of "community", seems to be particularly English, and it was only in the late 1990's, following the international interest aroused by the first of England's "urban villages", Poundbury, that the expression really began to become popular in the United States and Australia.
It was the Prince of Wales who introduced the concept of the "urban village" into the vocabulary of British planning; the expression is used briefly in his 1989 book A Vision of Britain (the follow up to a 1988 television documentary), though not at the time directly in conjunction with the Poundbury project, which is mentioned. It was also this book that clearly established the dual parentage of the urban village concept in the English acceptance of the phrase; on the one hand, the historic English village tradition, on the other hand the American neotraditionalist architectural planners, notably Krier and Duany. In the final pages of A Vision of Britain, a presentation of Krier's archetypal neotraditionalist development in Florida, the town of Seaside, covers a full five pages, compared to just two covering the development of "model villages" in the U.K. from Saltaire to the garden cities.
Yet clearly, however great the influence of Krier on Prince Charles has been, it is the historic English concept of the village, and the idealised view of village life, that form the theoretical models that the British proponents of the "urban village" have sought to translate into a modern idiom.
One may speculate as to whether Prince Charles, while thinking over the possibility of creating a planned modern urban village at Poundbury, on the outskirts of Dorchester, had read P.H.Ditchfield's 1908 book The Charm of the English Village, which had recently been reprinted (1985); there is a lot in this book, most notably perhaps its preoccupation with the small details, the use of materials, and the stylistic and functional variety that characterise traditional English villages, that prefigures the Prince's view of the model community. Along with many other publications, both Prince Charles's and Ditchfield's books are also woven on the loom of nostalgia for a supposed almost utopian past, common to the proponents of New Urbanism, and anathema to many modernists. In an article in Harvard Design Magazine in 1997, marxist geographer David Harvey, professor at Johns Hopkins university wrote :
"The New Urbanism in fact connects to a facile contemporary attempt to transform large and teeming cities, so seemingly out of control, into an interlinked series of 'urban villages', where, it is believed, everyone can relate in a civil and urbane fashion to everyone else."
Harvey, however was looking on new urbanism in the fundamentally North American idiom; and although, historically, many earlier settlers in the United States - notably in New England - transposed onto north American soil social models imitated from those of the English village, on the whole the American model was, by definition, different. Early American villages may not have been subject to the rectilinear grid planning of 19th century American towns and villages, but neither did they evolve slowly over time in the manner of the historic English village. In addition, America's "New Urbanism", as exemplified by Seaside, is rather different from the English "urban village" as first exemplified at Poundbury.
Ditchfield (1908) more than once stresses the particular nature of English villages, even as opposed to villages in other parts of Europe, referring to the particular social structure of the English village as the "village commonwealth", a structure that would more normally be referred to in modern terms as the "village community". It should be noted that the notion of "community" is a fundamental building block in the societies of modern English speaking countries, and is considerably more deeply rooted in the English tradition (and more broadly speaking the Germanic traditions) than in that of any newer country, or even of other European countries in which the structures of pre-industrial society had evolved out of Roman law.
Since the departure of the Romans, the village has been the core community unit in the British Isles. Though England long boasted, in London, Europe's largest city, and though Britain was the first European nation to undergo major population drift to the towns, the village has always survived - in thought, literature or art - as the ideal, and often idealised, social unit. In Roman times, cities became the nuclei of life in Britain; but after the Romans left, most of their great cities, with the exception of London, were largely abandoned, the British populations moving out to occupy new village sites outside the city walls or further afield; and whilst in continental western Europe the great cities of Roman times remained great cities after the Romans left, and in many cases remain so to this day, the same was not true in the British Isles.
In mediaeval Britain, the extensive devolution of power and authority under the Anglo-Norman feudal system - inherited from the Anglo Saxon period - and the territorial representation that existed in English parliaments from the late thirteenth century onwards, played their role in formulating, in the national psyche, an image of England as being a nation represented emblematically by its villages, rather than by its capital city. In the English mind, London has never been the nexus of national identity in the way that Paris has long been the symbol of France and French life. In Shakespeare, the quintessential images of English life are not those of Henry IV and Bolingbroke at court or on the battle field; they are those of Justice Shallow in his orchard in rural Gloucestershire.
The Industrial Revolution completed, by the mid nineteenth century, a process that had been set in motion by the Enclosures Acts of the eighteenth, precipitating Europe's first massive rural exodus, and with it a further pauperisation of the former rural labourers. It was during this period that poets, artists and novelists, from Blake to Constable to William Morris or Thomas Hardy, began to place rural England at the heart of English art and writing, often in an idealised manner that helped give a new impetus to the longstanding perception of the superiority of English rural society over urban society. The apparent immortality of the BBC's classic radio soap opera, the Archers, set in its fictitious village of Ambridge, is just another more modern illustration of the same point.
It is perhaps significant that Trevor Osborne, chairman of the Urban Villages Group, notes, in the introduction to Urban Villages, that "the term 'urban village' will not be readily understood in mainland Europe; when exported to other EC member states, it will need a different label." One might even add : "or to the USA".
It is clearly by another quirk of coincidence that the first English "Urban Village", Poundbury, should have been located on the outskirts of Dorchester, the town immortalised under the name of Casterbridge, in the novels of Thomas Hardy.
Proposals for a major expansion of Dorchester were first debated in 1987, and two years later outline planning permission for the westward extension of the town was granted by West Dorset District Council, for a mixed-use residential suburb that will eventually stretch over 400 acres (about 190 hectares). The initial development was to cover 35 acres of land.
Prince Charles was involved in the project from the start; the greenfield site on the outskirts of Dorchester was in effect his land, agricultural leasehold land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall. When the Dorchester council applied to the Duchy to purchase the land for development, the answer they received was more favourable than they had imagined possible. Not only would the Duchy make the land available for development, but Prince Charles himself would oversee the operation, with the aim of establishing an attractive mixed-use and socially mixed suburban development; Britain's first "urban village".
For many in the UK architectural and planning establishment, news that the Prince of Wales was to take charge of a major suburban development project was like a red rag to a bull. Relations between the Prince and many of Britain's leading architects and planners had been, to say the least, tense ever since the Prince had begun airing in public his none-too-complimentary opinions on the architecture and planning of the sixties and seventies. His famous description of Birmingham's new library as looking more like an incinerator than a place of learning, or his much quoted speech to the Royal Institute of British Architects, in 1984, when he described the proposed extension to London's National Gallery as being like a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend", had done little to endear him to the modernists in British architecture.
Consequently, and unsurprisingly, reactions to the initial proposals for Poundbury were not favourable, neither in the specialised reviews nor in the architectural columns of the British broadsheets. The project was decried variously as an exercise in retrophilia, a pastiche, an irrelevance, or worse.
That was in 1989; and it is true that Leon Krier's bird's-eye sketch of what Poundbury might look like, published at the time in A Vision of Britain (p138), does look more like a heteroclite exercise in nostalgia than a serious plan for a late twentieth century suburban development.
The reality of Poundbury has been somewhat different: with the first phase of building now complete, the earliest streets have already had time to mellow, and as an urban environment, the general consensus among both residents and the press is that this new "urban village" is a success. After its early hostile coverage, the British mainstream press - including the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mirror and the Mail - has now changed tack, and since 1998 press coverage of the ever-evolving project has been largely positive.
Among the common complaints voiced by residents now is that Poundbury is a victim of its success, with large numbers of tourists and visiting architects and town planners who invade their space, sometimes in coachloads, turning their residential quarter into an unintended tourist attraction.
So why do they come? What is it that has established Poundbury as a stopping point on the architect's and town planner's tour of Britain in the early twenty-first century? Firstly, of course, there is its curiosity value - an unusual - some would still say eccentric - act of royal patronage, an experiment in suburban architecture and planning, masterminded by an amateur planner who is due to become the next King of England. Secondly they come to see how the ten point theory of the "urban village", laid out in the Vision of Britain, transforms into reality.
Over 22 pages, the book sets out a list of "ten principles we can build upon" in order to create a successful modern urban living environment. These are as follows:
1. Place. That planners should understand the local environment, and design their projects to blend with it.
2. Hierarchy. That the design of buildings should always reflect their hierarchical position in the community, that "public buildings ought to proclaim themselves with pride", and others be designed in function of their value in society.
3. Scale. That buildings should bear relation to the human scale, and the scale of other buildings in an area.
4. Harmony. That buildings should blend harmoniously with others in the vicinity.
5. Enclosure. That spatial identity is of major importance, and that new developments should incorporate such public spaces as squares and courtyards
6. Materials. that building materials used should reflect the diversity of local traditions, and not conform to any national or international standard.
7. Decoration. That decorative craftsmanship should still be, as it always has been, a major feature of the urban environment.
8. Art. That artistic decoration has a major and a symbolic role to play in the enhancement of the urban environment, and that artists as well as architects should have a role to play in the designing of new living environments.
9. Signs and lighting. That these also contribute to the success of the built environment, not detract from it, and should therefore be put up with care and attention.
10. Community. That a successful community is a place where residents feel involved, and contribute to the planning and running of their environment.
While points 1 - 9 can be - and in the case of Poundbury, are being - ensured through the masterplan, point 10 cannot. A successful community can only be brought about by the people who live in it; and so far, in spite of the fact that Poundbury is still very much an ongoing project, those who live there are happy with their environment and, on the whole, consider it to be a successful community.
Besides the above ten points, which essentially concern the architectural and visual aspects of the environment in urban villages, there are other fundamental aspects that distinguish the urban village from other suburban or rural housing projects, aspects that are perhaps rather more fundamental than aesthetics. These are social mixity, and mixed use - together seen as preconditions for the creation of new sustainable communities.
As well as reflecting the ten principles, the masterplan for Poundbury was for a housing development that would include a seamless and indistinguishable mixture of owner-occupied dwellings and social housing. The mixed-use plan also called for the inclusion, within easy walking distance of the residential streets, of shops, workshops and factories, enabling residents to live and work in the community without the need for commuting.
In many details, the masterplan for Poundbury went against conventional planning orthodoxy. Its fundamental tenet, mixed use, ran counter to accepted zoning theory, which prefers to concentrate business in business parks, housing in housing estates, and shops in shopping centers.
As for social diversity, critics of the Poundbury plan argued that the type of home buyers wanting to buy in Poundbury would not wish to buy houses that shared a dividing wall with social housing units; it was also suggested that the densely-packed housing environment was out of keeping with the tastes and expectations of modern middle-class British house-buyers, more usually attracted by the ideal of detached houses in wrap-around gardens.
Others predicted that industry would not want to relocate in the middle, or even on the edge, of a residential area, and that in the end, Poundbury would end up as no more than a "glorified council estate".
So far at least, this has not been the case - which is exactly what its planners expected. Having conceived Poundbury as a carefully planned (or, in its critics' opinions, contrived) recreation of a traditional organically developed village, they did not expect to encounter the problems facing many other suburban developments.
Like the village, the urban village is conceived as a community of mixed housing, catering for all ages and income groups. At Poundbury, the first phase of housing consisted of 55 units of social housing, administered by a housing association, the Guinness Trust, and 141 freehold owner-occupier homes, as well as retail and commercial premises. By the time the development is completed, towards the year 2020, Poundbury will have between 2,000 and 3,000 housing units, with social housing accounting for about 20% of the total, in line with the national average.
The question that remains, however, is whether the model of Poundbury can be transposed into other settings, or whether the success of this rather middle-class development on the edge of a rather trouble-free county town in the heart of the Westcountry, can be replicated in other areas?
Following the media coverage - both positive and negative - given to the Poundbury project when it was first mooted in the late 1980's, a forum known as the Urban Villages Group was founded in 1989, at the Prince of Wales's behest, under the wing of Business in the Community, an organisation whose purpose is "to tackle economic, social and environmental issues affecting local communities" (Aldous, p8).
Among the founder members of the Group were Leon Krier, plus the chief executives of a number of property development companies, housing corporations, and the Managing Director of the Cooperative Bank. The aim of the Group was to encourage councils and property developers to take the urban village concept nationwide, as a viable - if slightly more costly - alternative to the monotonous standardized run-of-the-mill developments, the "edge cities" that have mushroomed, and will continue to mushroom, on the outskirts of most British urban areas.
As of January 2002, eighteen development projects across England are being carried out in partnership with the Prince's Foundation, according to "urban village" principles; none however is as advanced as Poundbury, and some, such as the Westoe Colliery project at South Shields and the Northwich city centre project, are still on the drawing board. Yet as the location of these two projects shows - one in the heart of the depressed northeast, and the other in the rundown centre of a Cheshire town - the "urban village" concept can be, and is being, applied in areas that are very different from semi-rural Dorset.
Only two other projects are listed, like Poundbury, as "urban extensions" on greenfield sites, one in Basdildon Essex, the other in Northampton; by far the majority of projects are "urban regeneration" projects on brownfield sites.
Some of these are in fact far removed from the "urban village" concept as illustrated by Poundbury. In particular, the Ancoats project in Manchester, the Jewellery quarter in Birmingham and the Little Germany redevelopment in the centre of Bradford appear more like classic industrial heritage preservation programmes, along the lines of the Albert Dock regeneration scheme in Liverpool, or the redevelopment of Butler's Wharf on the South Bank in London.
They are, however, different, inasmuch as these three projects, though they will never become villages in the sense that Poundbury can call itself a large village, have been conceived with the ethos of the urban village concept in mind, and not as just three more chic urban residential areas for the upwardly mobile.
Little Germany and the Jewelry Quarter are interesting cases, both being central urban areas which, in the past, had a clear spatial and social identity, the former as the fiefdom of Bradford's German cloth merchants, the latter as the densely populated network of small streets which housed both the homes and the workshops of Birmingham's hundreds of jewelers and watchmakers - a classic historic example of both mixed usage and a clearly defined urban quarter.
A hundred years ago, Birmingham's Jewellery Quarter provided employment for some 70,000 people – many of whom lived and worked in the quarter. Since then, the number of jobs in the sector has fallen by over 90%, and the residential population has all but disappeared. In 2000, the quarter harboured some 1,200 business, but only about 700 residents. The aim of the project is to redress this imbalance, and rekindle the vibrant community that existed at the start of the twentieth century.
The Ancoats Urban Village, in Manchester, is different - so different indeed that although Ancoats announces itself as an "urban village", the project's development manager herself is not convinced that it really is one.
"I feel uneasy about offering Ancoats as representative of the Urban Villages movement, as it does not conform to many of the criteria that the Urban Villages movement sets out, and although we are still members of the Prince's Foundation, I don't think they would suggest Ancoats as an example of their philosophy; we seem to spend most time disagreeing!" (Lyn Fenton, private letter of 02/01/02).
Ancoats prides itself for its place in urban history, as the world's first industrial suburb – an area in which 13,000 people once lived and worked; the targets of the Urban Village project are to bring people back to live in this historic industrial site, close to the centre of Manchester, through a programme of mixed use residential and business development. Classed as a conservation area in 1989, it is on the UK's short list for designation as a UNESCO world heritage site. In spite of the reservations of the developers, the targets set out in the Ancoats Supplementary Planning Guidance reflect the same principles as those adopted for Poundbury; the fact that this, as some other urban village sites, are not totally new-build areas, does not fundamentally change the perspective.
Naturally perhaps, it is not in Britain's great urban centres that other urban village projects closer to the Poundbury model can be found, but on the edges of Britain's smaller towns and cities, as the following two examples illustrate. The Westoe site in South Shields is being developed by Wimpey on the 17 hectare site of a disused colliery, as a high-density mixed-use and socially mixed suburb with up to 800 homes, its own school, shops and office premises. In Lancashire, the Luneside development at Lancaster, albeit smaller - 6 hectares - is being developed along similar lines.
Finally, although only 18 projects are affiliated to the Prince's Trust as recognised "urban village" developments, neither the Prince nor the trust has exclusive rights to the expression, and other new housing development projects elsewhere in Britain, are taking up the label in order to give themselves a certain cachet.
Indeed, the "urban village" approach to the design and planning of residential areas has now found its way into official UK government guidelines, a new guide from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions showing among its primary inspirations:
" the 'Urban Villages' movement in the UK and neo-traditional design generally. Indeed, the design philosophy promoted is essentially one of working with context, promoting pedestrian friendly environments, returning to traditional perimeter block systems, and - where possible - mixing uses." (DETR Website 2002)
The current popularity of the notion of the "urban village" in contemporary UK planning would tend to indicate that a sea change in planning theory has taken place in the UK since Prince Charles first launched his vision of Britain in 1989. Whether or not this will result in the recreation of something resembling the types of close-knit communities that existed in nineteenth century, or pre-Enclosures English villages, or even in twentieth century industrial villages, and whether "mixed usage" will really have any serious impact on the social habits of the British in the 21st century, other than reducing car usage, are different matters.
And in the end, it is perhaps of little matter in the context of this paper, in which I have set out to show the peculiarly high value attached to the word village in England, and the particularly strong belief that runs through English thought and culture, that the village - and notably the idealised village with its green spaces, flowered gardens, and friendly folk, is the finest possible form of spatial and social organisation - even in the resolutely urban society of the start of the third millennium. In this respect, the phrase "urban village" has readily come to be seen not as a contradiction in terms, but as a means of having one's cake and eating it, or at least getting the best of both worlds.
Bibliography
Aldous, Tony. Urban Villages, a concept for creating mixed-use urban developments on a sustainable scale, London, The Urban Villages Group 1992.
Ditchfield, P.H. The Charm of the English Village, 1908, reprinted London, Bracken Books, 1985,
Harvey, David. The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap, in Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 1997, no. 1.
Miller, Anthony. The role of Landscape Architecture in fostering community; Byker, a case study, in L'Espace Urbain Européen, Cahiers du Créhu 6. Annales littéraires de l'Université de Franche Comté 1996
Mumford, Lewis. T, The City in History, Secker & Warburg 1961, reprinted Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1973 &&.
Rossiter, Andrew. Retour à l'Utopie? Poundbury; redéfinir la banlieue en village urbain. In Ville et Utopie, Cahiers du Créhu no. 10, actes du Colloque. Presses Universitaires de Franche Comté, 2001.
Wales, Charles, Prince of. A Vision of Britain, a personal view of architecture. London, Doubleday, 1989
Webography:
Thandani, Diriu A. New Urbanism Bibliography, published by the Architectural Resources Network
periferia.org/publications/cnubibliography.html
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:
www.planning.detr.gov.uk/livingplaces/02/03.htm
Copyright :
About-Britain academic : texts © Authors and About-Britain.com
Andrew Rossiter, Université de Franche Comté
From a paper presented at the International Symposium on Urban and Rural Britain at the University of Valenciennes, France, 2002
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The "Entwicklung" tank series (= "development"), more commonly known as the E-Series, was a late-World War II attempt by Germany to produce a standardized series of tank designs. There were to be six standard designs in different weight classes, from which several specialized variants were to be developed. This intended to reverse the trend of extremely complex tank designs that had resulted in poor production rates and mechanical unreliability.
The E-series designs were simpler, cheaper to produce and more efficient than their predecessors. But, on the other side, their design offered only modest improvements in armor and firepower over the designs they were intended to replace, such as the Jagdpanzer 38(t), Panther Ausf.G or Tiger II. However, the resulting high degree of standardization of German armored vehicles would also have made production, logistics and maintenance easier. Indeed, nearly all of the E-series vehicles — up through and including the E-75 — were intended to use what were essentially the Tiger II's eighty centimeter diameter, steel-rimmed road wheels for their suspension, meant to overlap each other. An innovative conical spring system, replacing their predecessors' torsion bar system which required a special steel alloy, simplified production and required less internal space.
Focus of initial chassis and combat vehicle development was the E-50/75 Standardpanzer, designed by Adler, both being mostly identical and only differing in armor thickness, overall weight and running gear design to cope with the different weights. But there were lighter chassis variants, too, including the light E-5 and E-10 for armored, tracked reconnaissance vehicles, and the medium E-25.
The E-25 designs, in the 25-50 tonnes weight class, were to be replacements for all Panzer III and Panzer IV based designs still in service, as well as for the early variants of the Panzer V (the Panther). This chassis' main designers were Alkett, Argus and Adler, with the involvement of Porsche. The proposed vehicle family would include medium reconnaissance vehicles, a medium Jagdpanzer and a heavy Waffenträger, but the chassis was also considered for other armed vehicles.
The original E-25 chassis used five Tiger II style road wheels per side, combined with "slack-track" design. Track propulsion was switched to a rear drive sprocket, as a consequence of mating the engine and the gearbox into a single tail-mounted, very compact power pack that made the voluminous and heavy power train all through the hull obsolete. This allowed the tank’s body to be lowered, and the gained space offered more room for the crew’s operations, heavier guns and ammunition storage.
The first member of the E-25 family that entered production was the medium tank hunter. It received highest priority and the project was called “Jagdpanzer E-25/88”, running under the inventory ordnance number "SdKfZ. 194". However, at the time of its introduction the E-25 chassis was also considered for a medium battle tank in the 35 ton class, since it had become clear that the E-50/75 battle tanks were rather large and resource-consuming. A lighter, more agile vehicle was needed, and it was to be armed with either the highly effective 75mm L/70 cannon (used in the Panther and the late Jagdpanzer IV) or the more powerful 8.8 cm L/56 gun, used in the Tiger I and the Jagdpanther.
Porsche was tasked with the adaptation of the E-25 chassis for a turret for both heavy guns. The work was in close collaboration with Henschel and the Oberschlesische Gusswerke Beuthen who were both working on a new, unified cast steel turret for the 88mm gun for a wide range of medium tanks like the Panther, the E-50/75 family and the heavy Tiger II. Alternatively, the new E-25 battle tank was to accept the so-called Schmalturm, which could carry both cannon types, too.
After the Allied invasion in the Normandy in 1944 and with ever-rising pressure through the Red Army from the East, the E-25 MBT project eventually gained more and more priority and momentum. As a consequence, Porsche was assigned by the Heeresleitung to build a running prototype as quickly as possible, ideally until early 1945.
Porsche was certain that the original E-25 chassis was too short and light for the adaptation of the cast turret. In order to keep the tight timeline, Porsche decided to develop a new welded steel hull while using as many Einheitspanzer components as possible. The resulting vehicle had little in common with the original Adler E-25 chassis and rather resembled the bigger and heavier E-50/75 family. Overall dimensions ended up close to the Panther hull, as a result of a certain minimum width that was necessary to mount the new turret’s bearings and balance its weight. However, the new tank's overall silhouette was considerably lower than the Panther’s or the E-50/75 family MBT’s.
The Porsche design also made full use of several new technical solutions for the engine and the new, space-saving E-50/75 suspension. For instance, thanks to the rear-mounted power unit with the gearbox and the driving sprocket wheels, the front armor could be optimized to offer very good ballistic protection (achieving a very shallow 30°angle) despite a maximum thickness of only 70 mm. The thickest armor, the cast steel gun mantlet, was 80 mm.
The tank’s running gear consisted of six steel-rimmed wheels per side, mounted in three staggered pairs, similar to the heavier E-50 tank. Thanks to the lower overall weight, a new Niresit track with less width could be used. The so-called “Beuthen Turm” offered excellent ballistic protection, a very low profile and featured a commander cupola with a full 360° view through periscopes as well as a 200cm width stereoscopic optical rangefinder for the gunner. A few vehicles were additionally equipped with FG1250/1251 infrared illuminators, too, allowing night operations in coordination with special versions of the Sd.Kfz.251 with long-range infrared illuminators, and complemented by assault troops using Vampir-modified Sturmgewehr guns.
Savings in material and complexity were achieved through simplified shapes and the use of stock components from other or older tanks, as well as the reduction of the crew to only four: the traditional radio operator in the hull, next to the driver, as well as a hull-mounted machine gun, were completely omitted. The driver was furthermore moved to the right side, a result of the secondary ammunition bunker in the hull being placed in front of the loader in the turret for easy access.
In this form, the tank was tested in early 1945 and hastily pushed into production, receiving the designation Sonderkraftfahrzeug 194 and officially christened ”Fuchs”. In order to reflect Porsche's involvement in this new tank's design and to differentiate it from the standard E-25 tank, the vehicle and its chassis variant was called E-25(P).
The resulting medium battle tank received, depending on its main weapon, the suffix 'A' for the 75mm cannon (SdKfz. 194/1) and 'B' for the 88mm gun (SdKfz. 194/1). The Schmalturm did not find its way on the production vehicles, and both variants had an operational weight of roundabout 38 tons. This was considerably less than any German contemporary MBT from the E-50/75 family, and even lighter than the late Panther variants. For its weight, the powerful main weapons made the vehicle a highly mobile and deadly enemy, enabling the crews to execute “hit and run” tactics which were impossible with the bigger and slower tanks.
The first production vehicles were deployed to independent units at the Western front line along the lower Rhine in May 1945, but due to the lack of thorough tests, sufficient crew training and lack of combat experience with the new vehicle, the initial results were poor. The majority of tank losses was not through enemy fire, though - many tanks had to be abandoned and were destroyed by their crews after technical failures.
The Fuchs MBT was popular among the crews, though, since it offered a much higher mobility than its heavier Einheitspanzer brethren. The relatively large and spacious turret was another point that found much appraise – but its poor technical reliability was its biggest Achilles heel.
Due to the ever-worsening situation, less than 100 E-25(P) hulls were completed and probably less than 50 combat-worthy vehicles arrived at front line units and were involved in battle until the end of hostilities. But the design work, with many radical and innovative ideas, did not get lost – many of the Fuchs’ design features like its hull layout and armor design or the Beuthen turret found their way into the highly successful German Leopard I MBT in the early 1960ies, which entered service with the German Bundeswehr in 1965 and still serves with several armies until today.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, radio operator, driver)
Weight: 38 tonnes (41.9 short tons)
Length: 7,02 metres (23 ft), hull only
9.77 metres (32 ft) overall, with the gun forward
Width: 3.96 metres (12 ft 11 1/2 in)
Height: 2.34 metres (7 ft 8 in)
Ground clearance: 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)
Suspension: Conical spring
Fuel capacity: 450 litres (120 US gal)
Armor:
10–80 mm (0.4 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Speed
- Maximum, road: 52 km/h (32 mph)
- Sustained, road: 42 km/h (26 mph)
- Cross country: 16 to 25 km/h (9.5 to 15.5 mph)
Operational range: 210 km (130 mi)
Power/weight: 14,47 PS/tonne (12,86 hp/ton)
Engine:
V12 Maybach HL 101 gasoline engine with 550 PS (539 hp, 341 kW)
Transmission:
ZF AK 7-200 with 7 forward 1 reverse gears
Armament:
1× 8.8 cm KwK 43/4 L/56 with 48 rounds
2× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns with a total of 5.200 rounds
(one co-axial with the main weapon, one manually operated on the commander's cupola)
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional Heer '46 is based on the fact that the famous German post-WWII MBT Leopard 1 – at least the Porsche prototype – was based on designs from the WWII era. So, why not spin this story further and retro-grade a Leopard 1 into a Heer ’46 tank, as a kind of grandfather design with then-state-of-the-art technologies…?
Well, that job could be easily done with a Leopard 1 kit built more or less OOB and just painted in typical WWII colors – I have actually seen such things in simulation games like World of Tanks, and it did not look bad at all. But for the ambitious modelers, this would be a bit too simple, wouldn’t it?
For instance, there are some features like the running gear on the Leopard that are very modern and would IMHO not fit into the late WWII timeframe. The general lack of high quality materials and design simplifications everywhere would certainly also take their toll. As a consequence the starting basis for this whiffy tank model actually became an 1:72 Leopard 1 (to be exact, it’s Revell’s Leopard 1A5 kit), but from this basis only a few parts were actually taken over.
Work started with the upper hull, which received the transplantation of the complete upper rear deck from a leftover Hasegawa Panther, including the turret’s attachment ring. Internally the whole affair was reinforced with styrene profiles along the seams. The basic idea behind this move was to get rid of the rather modernistic, raised engine cover of the Leopard, and the Panther’s armored cooling fan covers would add a very familiar, German touch. Furthermore, the Panther turret is set relatively further back than on the Leopard, resulting IMHO in a positive side effect for the vehicle’s proportions. The front with the driver’s hatch and the side walls of the Leopard hull were taken over, just the glacis plate was cleaned from the moulded snow claws for the modern Leopard track.
While I could have used the original, casted Leopard 1 turret without any extra armor, I rather reverted to a donor part: an aftermarket resin turret from the German short run producer Modell Trans. What spoke for this aftermarket piece is that this Heer ’46 turret piece was exactly that kind of add-on this kit would need: a retrograded Leopard 1 turret, with a simplified shape, a simple commander cupola, typical bulges for a late-war optical rangefinder in the turret sides and even a 8.8cm KwK barrel! The resin turret, which also comes with an AA machine gun, was taken OOB. Only the original resin gun barrel came slightly bent – this could have been corrected easily, but I replaced it with a more delicate white metal and brass piece, anyway. Additionally, an adapter for the hull opening had to be scratched.
So far, so good - but the running gear became the biggest challenge. The Leopard 1’s advanced torsion bar running gear with rubber-rimmed wheels would not make sense anymore, due to the special high quality materials needed for its construction. Since the Einheitspanzer family was to share as many components as possible, I decided to implant an E-50-style running gear with its typical cast standard wheels.
This sounds easy, but scratching a running gear is a real stunt! Work started with the attachment points for the driving and guide wheels at the hull’s ends, which were cut off of the Revell kit’s parts and glued into their respective places. The drive wheel was taken over from the Leopard, but the guide wheel at the front end was replaced by a simpler and smaller pair of wheels from a Russian IS-3 tank.
Using the E-50 as benchmark for the running wheels, I gathered twelve of them from the scrap box and from several Modellcollect kits in the stash (The 1:72 E-50 kits from Modelcollect and Trumpeter all come with the option to build an E-75, too, so that each kit offers two pairs of excess parts). Mounting these wheels to the hull, in a staggered fashion, became the kit’s true challenge, though, because I did not have a sufficient number of original wheel carriers/suspension packs. Improvisation resulted in the adaptation of twelve leftover suspension arms from a Modelcollect E-100 kit, even though they had to be tailored in depth and length to fit under the Leopard’s hull. It took some trial and error to find a proper position that would produce a plausible stance, but I think the effort of this transplantation really changes the tank’s look into something Heer ’46-ish?
The track was taken OOB from the Leopard 1 kit, and it is of the segmented IP type. It was mounted after most painting was done, starting with single track segments on the drive and guiding wheels, and then the gaps were filled with other track elements. A bit of a gamble, but the theory, that the track parts should match, was confirmed. Phew…
Painting and markings:
For some subtlety, the model received a classic German paint scheme with “Hinterhalt” colors (Dunkelgelb, Olivgrün and Rotbraun). Once the kit’s components were finished (hull, turret and the separate wheels), everything received an overall coat with matt RAL 7028 (Modelmaster Authentics).
On top of that, a dense pattern of red brown (Humbrol 160) and finally green (RAL 6003 from Modelmaster Authentics) mottles in 1 1:2 ratio was applied with a flat, narrow brush, for a somewhat square shape of the blotches. Pretty straightforward, seen on a late war Panther - and suitable for a summertime scenario as well as in line with common field practice, even though at the time where the model is placed, tanks might have looked more extraordinary or improvised due to the general material shortages.
Once the basic painting was done, the kit received a thin, water-based wash with dark brown, carefully swabbed with a soft cotton cloth in order to leave just a thin and cloudy film on the surfaces and more of the wash in recesses and corners. There were only a few decals to apply, namely three small German crosses and the tactical code on the turret’s flanks. Later some dry-brushing with light grey and hemp was done, emphasizing the edges and highlighting surface details.
The track segments were primed with a mix of acrylic iron, black and dark brown and received a final paint treatment after mounting them onto the wheels, hiding some glue stains and other blemishes.
Artist pigments (a mix of ochre, grey and brown) were dusted with a soft brush onto the lower kit areas, after having sealed the model with matt acrylic varnish beforehand.
Well, what could have been a simple paint job in order to achieve a time-warped Leopard 1 became a massive kitbashing project. However, I think this extra effort, esp. the adaptation of the E-50 running gear, and all the potential risks of mixing parts from different kits, was worthwhile? The paint scheme certainly suggest the WWII era, too. The resulting “new” tank looks IMHO pretty plausible, and both hull and turret shape remind of the Leopard 1 without looking like the real thing behind this build. In fact, from certain angles this one appears like the missing link between the Panther and the Leopard 1, and a lot like an inspiration for the Soviet T-54/55 or even the T-72?
Candidates of the Infantry Officer Development Period 1.1 course (Dismounted Infantry Platoon Commander) conduct hasty attacks, ambushes, raids and patrols while being assessed as dismounted platoon commanders in offensive operations, as part of an intense 12 day exercise at the Infantry School Combat Training Center, Canadian Forces Base Gagetown NB, July 12, 2019.
Photo: LS Zach Barr, Canadian Army Trials and Evaluations (CATEU) Gagetown
GX11-2019-0031-009
Des candidats à la période de perfectionnement 1.1 du cours d’officier d’infanterie (commandant de peloton d’infanterie débarquée) mènent des attaques improvisées, des embuscades, des raids et des patrouilles pendant leur évaluation à titre de commandants de peloton débarqué lors d’opérations offensives, dans le cadre d’un exercice intense de douze jours au Centre d’instruction au combat de l’École d’infanterie, à la Base des Forces canadiennes Gagetown au N. B., le 12 juillet 2019.
Photo : Mat 1 Zach Barr, Unité de l’Armée canadienne d’essais et d’évaluation (UACEE)
GX11-2019-0031-009
Trade and Investment for Climate Action
Rachel Kyte, Dean, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, USA; Laurence Breton Moyet, Managing Director, European Climate Foundation, Netherlands; Arunabha Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), India; Jakob Kiefer, Group Head, Public Affairs, ABB, Sweden; Page Motes, Head, Global Sustainability, Dell Technologies, USA; Sarah Thorn, Senior Director, Global Government Affairs, Walmart, USA; Børge Brende, President, World Economic Forum; Mafalda Duarte, Chief Executive Officer, Climate Investment Funds, Washington DC; Khalid Al-Falih, Minister of Investment of Saudi Arabia; Reta Jo Lewis, President, Export-Import Bank of the United States, USA
Copyright: World Economic Forum/Jeffery Jones
Sustainable Development Impact Meetings, New York, USA 19 - 23 September
I had a successful molding run yesterday, and as a result there are now two different versions of the BrightScreen: the original microprism style on the left and a new one with a diagonal split image spot inside a microprism collar, shown on the right. This was I think the fourth molding run since the spring of 2018, and we seem to learn something on each run. We're actually getting pretty good at this now......
Makes for a long day, though, as the molding shop is a bit of a drive from home. I left the house at 7:30 yesterday morning and got back home at 9:30 last night. But I have enough screens on hand now that I won't have to do it again for a while.
Agriculture women worker
Solomon Islands
©ILO/Peter Blumel
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo/deed.en_US.
26-27 November 2019
2019 Green Growth and Sustainable Development Forum - GGSD
OECD Headquarters, Paris, France
Photo: OECD/Andrew Wheeler
Ingic has hard core skills inAndroid Mobile App Development. We not only create apps also promote and get most out of it.
Modern new houses mushrooming near the ancient village of Kokana (in the background)Lalitpur, Nepal.
Man with a Stop Sign at the construction site near the West Side Rail Yards at the Highline Park.
Olympus E-M5 with a Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 Lens
So I have been working on this for a week. I have now figure out how to add the rig, make the animation, add the mesh modifier upload the mesh, and script it to work. There is a crazy limitation on distance, and I developed a hack to get more distance on the animations. I'm sure I know someone thinking, "how is he getting the distance so far"
This timelapse video shows zebrafish development from a single cell to 22 hours after fertilization. The embryo has a transgene (fli1a:EGFPy1) that labels blood vessels green. Footage was collected using a Nikon Ti2 with a CSU-W1 spinning disk confocal and a 4X objective. Credit: Daniel Castranova, NICHD/NIH
My neighbor lived here as a renter since 1992. The property was sold, to be replaced by townhouses.
He had done amazing work inside and had a lovely little garden behind. There is a second little house back there as well.
Post demolition that cedar tree remains. Whether it will stay is unknown.
My workspace right now. Pretty much my ideal combination of glass-and-steel cleanliness, device integration and wireless freedom.
1 April 2015 -Grace Perez- Navarro, Deputy Director, OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, during
2015 Global Forum on Development, Post-2015 Financing for Sustainable Development
Opening session
OECD Headquarters, Paris, France
Photo: OECD/ Andrew Wheeler
Another image of the construction in London. In this scene i used ND filters to achieve a different shot. The tall cranes boldly tower into the sky above. The lengthened shutter helped to lose the little detail into the sky, leaving behind an almost white screen for the cranes to stand against. The traffic below also deserved a place in the shot. Blurring the cars with the use of a 3 stop ND filter allows this additional depth to be added to the shot without distracting the image.
I am very pleased with the feel that i captured in this image. The detail in the construction work contrasting with the deliberate blur in the foreground I find works very well.Ricky Adam's 35mm work really came to my mind when shooting this scene. For some reason the site seemed to be quite old fashioned and retro. I think its because the building carcasses appeared to be very basic, 1970s flats style. The conversion to monochrome i believe finalised the shot, capturing the moment well.