extrapolated photos on Flickr

1:72 MiG-19bis (NATO ASCC code: "Farmer F"); aircraft "07 Blue" of the 180th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment, Soviet Anti-Air Defence (Protivovozdushnaya Oborona Strany, PVO); Veshchevo AB (Leningrad Oblast), 1962 (Whif/Mastercraft kit conversion) by Dizzyfugu

1 3

+++ 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 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 (NATO reporting name: "Farmer") was a Soviet second-generation, single-seat, twin jet-engine fighter aircraft. It was the first Soviet production aircraft capable of supersonic speeds in level flight. A comparable U.S. "Century Series" fighter was the North American F-100 Super Sabre, although the MiG-19 would primarily oppose the more modern McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and Republic F-105 Thunderchief over North Vietnam. Furthermore, the North American YF-100 Super Sabre prototype appeared approximately one year after the MiG-19, making the MiG-19 the first operational supersonic jet in the world.

On 20 April 1951, OKB-155 was given the order to develop the MiG-17 into a new fighter called "I-340", also known as "SM-1". It was to be powered by two Mikulin AM-5 non-afterburning jet engines, a scaled-down version of the Mikulin AM-3, with 19.6 kN (4,410 lbf) of thrust. The I-340 was supposed to attain 1,160 km/h (725 mph, Mach 0.97) at 2,000 m (6,562 ft), 1,080 km/h (675 mph, Mach 1.0) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft), climb to 10,000 m (32,808 ft) in 2.9 minutes, and have a service ceiling of no less than 17,500 m (57,415 ft).
After several prototypes with many detail improvements, the ministers of the Soviet Union issued the order #286-133 to start serial production on February 17, 1954, at the factories in Gorkiy and Novosibirsk. Factory trials were completed on September 12 the same year, and government trials started on September 30.

Initial enthusiasm for the aircraft was dampened by several problems. The most alarming of these was the danger of a midair explosion due to overheating of the fuselage fuel tanks located between the engines. Deployment of airbrakes at high speeds caused a high-g pitch-up. Elevators lacked authority at supersonic speeds. The high landing speed of 230 km/h (145 mph), compared to 160 km/h (100 mph) for the MiG-15, combined with the lack of a two-seat trainer version, slowed pilot transition to the type. Handling problems were addressed with the second prototype, "SM-9/2", which added a third ventral airbrake and introduced all-moving tailplanes with a damper to prevent pilot-induced oscillations at subsonic speeds. It flew on 16 September 1954, and entered production as the MiG-19S.

Approximately 5,500 MiG-19's were produced, first in the USSR and in Czechoslovakia as the Avia S-105, but mainly in the People's Republic of China as the Shenyang J-6. The aircraft saw service with a number of other national air forces, including those of Cuba, North Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan, and North Korea. The aircraft saw combat during the Vietnam War, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1971 Bangladesh War.

However, jet fighter development made huge leaps in the 1960s, and OKB MiG was constantly trying to improve the MiG-19's performance, esp. against fast and high-flying enemies, primarily bombers but also spy planes like the U-2.

As the MiG-19S was brought into service with the Soviet air forces in mid-1956, the OKB MiG was continuing the refinement of the SM-1/I-340 fighter. One of these evolutionary paths was the SM-12 (literally, “SM-1, second generation”) family of prototypes, the ultimate extrapolation of the basic MiG-19 design, which eventually led to the MiG-19bis interceptor that filled the gap between the MiG-19S and the following, highly successful MiG-21.

The SM-12 first saw life as an exercise in drag reduction by means of new air intake configurations, since the MiG-19’s original intake with rounded lips became inefficient at supersonic speed (its Western rival, the North American F-100, featured a sharp-lipped nose air intake from the start). The first of three prototypes, the SM-12/1, was essentially a MiG-19S with an extended and straight-tapered nose with sharp-lipped orifice and a pointed, two-position shock cone on the intake splitter. The simple arrangement proved to be successful and was further refined.

The next evolutionary step, the SM-12/3, differed from its predecessors primarily in two new R3-26 turbojets developed from the earlier power plant by V. N. Sorokin. These each offered an afterburning thrust of 3,600kg, enabling the SM-12/3 to attain speeds ranging between 1,430km/h at sea level, or Mach=1.16, and 1,930km/h at 12,000m, or Mach=1.8, and an altitude of between 17,500 and 18,000m during its test program. This outstanding performance prompted further development with a view to production as a point defense interceptor.

Similarly powered by R3-26 engines, and embodying major nose redesign with a larger orifice permitting introduction of a substantial two-position conical centerbody for a TsD-30 radar, a further prototype was completed as the SM-12PM. Discarding the wing root NR-30 cannon of preceding prototypes, the SM-12PM was armed with only two K-5M (RS-2U) beam-riding missiles and entered flight test in 1957. This configuration would become the basis for the MiG-19bis interceptor that eventually was ordered into limited production (see below).

However, the SM-12 development line did not stop at this point. At the end of 1958, yet another prototype, the SM-12PMU, joined the experimental fighter family. This had R3M-26 turbojets uprated to 3.800kg with afterburning, but these were further augmented by a U-19D accelerator, which took the form of a permanent ventral pack containing an RU-013 rocket motor and its propellant tanks. Developed by D. D. Sevruk, the RU-013 delivered 3,000kg of additional thrust, and with the aid of this rocket motor, the SM-12PMU attained an altitude of 24,000m and a speed of Mach=1.69. But this effort was to no avail: the decision had been taken meanwhile to manufacture the Ye-7 in series as the MiG-21, and further development of the SM-12 series was therefore discontinued.

Nevertheless, since full operational status of the new MiG-21 was expected to remain pending for some time, production of a modified SM-12PM was ordered as a gap filler. Not only would this fighter bridge the performance gap to the Mach 2-capable MiG-21, it also had the benefit of being based on proven technologies and would not require a new basic pilot training.

The new aircraft received the official designation MiG-19bis. Compared with the SM-12PM prototype, the MiG-19bis differed in some details and improvements. The SM-12PM’s most significant shortfall was its short range – at full power, it had only a range of 750 km! This could be mended through an additional fuel tank in an enlarged dorsal fairing behind the cockpit. With this internal extra fuel, range could be extended by a further 200 - 250km range, but drop tanks had typically to be carried, too, in order to extend the fighter’ combat radius with two AAMs to 500 km. Specifically for the MiG-19bis, new, supersonic drop tanks (PTB-490) were designed, and these were later adapted for the MiG-21, too.

The air intake shock cone was re-contoured and the shifting mechanism improved: Instead of a simple, conical shape, the shock cone now had a more complex curvature with two steps and the intake orifice area was widened to allow a higher airflow rate. The air intake’s efficiency was further optimized through gradual positions of the shock cone.
As a positive side effect, the revised shock cone offered space for an enlarged radar dish, what improved detection range and resolution. The TsD-30 radar for the fighter’s missile-only armament was retained, even though the K-5’s effective range of only 2–6 km (1¼ – 3¾ mi) made it only suitable against slow and large targets like bombers. All guns were deleted in order to save weight or make room for the electronic equipment. The tail section was also changed because the R3M-26 engines and their afterburners were considerably longer than the MiG-19's original RM-5 engines. The exhausts now markedly protruded from the tail section, and the original, characteristic pen nib fairing between the two engines had been modified accordingly.

Production started in 1960, but only a total of roundabout 180 MiG-19bis, which received the NATO code "Farmer F", were built and the Soviet Union remained the only operator of the type. The first aircraft entered Soviet Anti-Air Defense in early 1961, and the machines were concentrated in PVO interceptor units around major sites like Moscow, Sewastopol at the Black Sea and Vladivostok in the Far East.

With the advent of the MiG-21, though, their career did not last long. Even though many machines were updated to carry the K-13 (the IR-guided AA-2 "Atoll") as well as the improved K-55 AAMs, with no change of the type’s designation, most MiG-19bis were already phased out towards the late 1960s and quickly replaced by 2nd generation MiG-21s as well as heavier and more capable Suchoj interceptors like the Su-9, -11 and -15. By 1972, all MiG-19bis had been retired.

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 13.54 m (44 ft 4 in), fuselage only with shock cone in forward position

15.48 m (50 8 ½ in) including pitot

Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)

Height: 3.8885 m (12 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 25 m² (269 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,210 kg (11,475 lb)

Loaded weight: 7,890 kg (17,380 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,050 kg (19,935 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,450 l (556 imp gal; 647 US gal) internal;

plus 760 l (170 imp gal; 200 US gal) with 2 drop tanks

Powerplant:

2× Sorokin R3M-26 turbojets, rated at 37.2 kN (8,370 lbf) thrust each with afterburning

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,380km/h at sea level (Mach=1.16)

1,850km/h at 12,000m (Mach=1.8)

Range: 1,250 km (775 mi; 750 nmi) at 14,000 m (45,000 ft) with 2 × 490 l drop tanks

Combat range: 500 km (312 mi; 270 nmi)

Ferry range: 2,000 km (1,242 mi; 690 nmi)

Service ceiling: 19,750 m (64,690 ft)

Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 353.3 kg/m² (72.4 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.86

Armament:

No internal guns.

4× underwing pylons; typically, a pair of PTB-490 drop tanks were carried on the outer pylon pair,

plus a pair of air-to air missiles on the inner pair: initially two radar-guided Kaliningrad K-5M (RS-2US)

AAMs, later two radar-guided K-55 or IR-guided Vympel K-13 (AA-2 'Atoll') AAMs

The kit and its assembly:

Another submission for the 2018 Cold War Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and again the opportunity to build a whiffy model from the project list. But it’s as fictional as one might think, since the SM-12 line of experimental “hybrid” fighters between the MiG-19 and the MiG-21 was real. But none of these aircraft ever made it into serial production, and in real life the MiG-21 showed so much potential that the attempts to improve the MiG-19 were stopped and no operational fighter entered production or service.

However, the SM-12, with its elongated nose and the central shock cone, makes a nice model subject, and I imagined what a service aircraft might have looked like? It would IMHO have been close, if not identical, to the SM-12PM, since this was the most refined pure jet fighter in the development family.

The basis for the build was a (dead cheap) Mastercraft MiG-19, which is a re-edition of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) kit – as a tribute to modern tastes, it comes with (crudely) engraved panel, but it has a horrible fit all over. For instance, there was a 1mm gap between the fuselage and the right wing, the wing halves’ outlines did not match at all and it is questionable if the canopy actually belongs to the kit at all? PSR everywhere. I also had a Plastyk version of this kit on the table some time ago, but it was of a much better quality! O.K., the Mastercraft kit comes cheap, but it’s, to be honest, not a real bargain.

Even though the result would not be crisp I did some mods and changes. Internally, a cockpit tub was implanted (OOB there’s just a wacky seat hanging in mid air) plus some serious lead weight in the nose section for a proper stance.

On the outside, the new air intake is the most obvious change. I found a Su-17 intake (from a Mastercraft kit, too) and used a piece from a Matchbox B-17G’s dorsal turret to elongate the nose – it had an almost perfect diameter and a mildly conical shape. Some massive PSR work was necessary to blend the parts together, though.

The tail received new jet nozzles, scratched from steel needle protection covers, and the tail fairing was adjusted according to the real SM-12’s shape.

Ordnance was adapted, too: the drop tanks come from a Mastercraft MiG-21, and these supersonic PTB-490 tanks were indeed carried by the real SM-12 prototypes because the uprated engines were very thirsty and the original, teardrop-shaped MiG-19 tanks simply too draggy for the much faster SM-12. As a side note, the real SM-12’s short range was one of the serious factors that prevented the promising type’s production in real life. In order to overcome the poor range weakness I added an enlarged spine (half of a drop tank), inspired by the MiG-21 SMT, that would house an additional internal fuel tank.

The R2-SU/K-5 AAMs come from a vintage Mastercraft Soviet aircraft weapon set, which carries a pair of these 1st generation AAMs. While the molds seem to be a bit soft, the missiles look pretty convincing. Their pylons were taken from the kit (OOB they carry unguided AAM pods and are placed behind the main landing gear wells), just reversed and placed on the wings’ leading edges – similar to the real SM-12’s arrangement.

Painting and markings:

No surprises. In the Sixties, any PVO aircraft was left in bare metal, so there was hardly an alternative to a NMF finish.

Painting started with an all-over coat with acrylic Revell 99 (Aluminum), just the spine tank became light grey (Revell 371) for some contrast, and I painted some di-electric covers in a deep green (Revell 48).

The cockpit interior was painted with a bright mix of Revell 55 and some 48, while the landing gear wells and the back section of the cockpit were painted in a bluish grey (Revell 57).

The landing gear was painted in Steel (unpolished Modelmaster metallizer) and received classic, bright green wheel discs (Humbrol 2). As a small, unusual highlight the pitot boom under the chin received red and white stripes – seen on occasional MiG-19S fighters in Soviet service, and the anti-flutter booms on the stabilizers became bright red, too.

After the basic painting was done the kit received a black ink wash. Once this had dried and wiped off with a soft cotton cloth, post shading with various metallizer tones was added in order to liven up the uniform aircraft (including Humbrol’s matt and polished aluminum, and the exhaust section was treated with steel). Some panel lines were emphasized with a thin pencil.

Decals were puzzled together from various sources, a Guards badge and a few Russian stencils were added, too. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of sheen acrylic varnish (a 2:1 mix of Italeri matt and semi-gloss varnish).

The K-5 missiles, last but not least, were painted in aluminum, too, but their end caps (both front and tail section) became off-white.

The Mastercraft kit on which this conversion was based is crude, so I did not have high expectations concerning the outcome. But the new nose blends nicely into the MiG-19 fuselage, and the wide spine is a subtle detail that makes the aircraft look more “beefy” and less MiG-19-ish. The different drop tanks – even though they are authentic – visually add further speed. And despite many flaws, I am quite happy with the result of roundabout a week’s work.

Team #339 01 IMG_2224 (in-between area; a starting point) by AnimaSuri

3

This is the starting-point of an urban excursion. Its location and trajectory covers parts of Beijing's CBD area (on a commonly smoggy/polluted day). It show-cases a large "in-between area" as a starting point of one of the ways a city can be experienced.

ESSAY BACKUP:

—————————————————

A Personal View on Today´s Cities

—————————————————

Institution: Leuphana Digital School

Think Tank — Ideal City of the 21st Century

Supervision: Daniel Libeskind, B.Arch. M.A. BDA AIA

Tutor: Mariam

Assignment: 01

Start Date: January 23, 2013

team code: 339

co-authors: Jan Hauters and Nedyalko Terziev

"TERRITORIZE!"

A Personal View on Today´s Cities

Content:

1. A Theoretical Framework (inferred from daily experiences)

2. Two Case Studies

2.1. Case Study One —Singapore— (Introduction and images + caption)

2.2. Case Study Two —Beijing— (Introduction and images + caption)

3. Epilogue

4. References

1.

A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (inferred from daily experiences)

For the occasion of this essay we opted for a less conform verb and title: "TERRITORIZE!" It symbolizes the (lack of) dynamics observed within the two case studies supporting this text. Within the two following case studies, any reference to this essay shall mainly be made by two mutually accompanying formats: photography and its caption. These two shall be explored below this introductory essay. Both case studies, Singapore and Beijing, are similar and yet tremendously different, especially by means of the specific attributes the co-authors decided to point their lenses and attention to. Although this text is planned, produced and constructed around two intricately folded focuses, yet it shall aim to hint in a direction of far more complex considerations in regards to an idealization of a near-future city.

A noticeable major tension lies in how seemingly, in both case studies, territories have been allocated and fixed by means of centralized planning. However each differ in how these territories are sustained or claimed by others. Hence—in a somewhat superficial ode to Deleuze and Guattari (1972)—one could speak of dynamics related to the action of terrritorialization, namely: deterritorialization and reterritorialization. These create complex mechanisms where areas—themselves territories—are stuck in-between other territories, have been seemingly fixated in spacetime by means of regulation, social consideration, form and fixtures—or contrary to this—are gradually in struggle with other territories.

All these dynamics create processes that could be, if artificially seen as a moment in-between function, community, culture, form, and other (note: here as a textual reduction of a non-demarcated, non-linear and multidimensional fluidity of moments into moments). The idea of 'in-between-ness' is lightly borrowed from Bhabha's 1994 work entitled The Location of Culture.

With 'in-between spaces' we shall poetically (cf. Bachelard, 1958) refer to those spaces between nexuses of habitation or labor. As these are poetic references to space, these spaces do not simply refer to physical spaces nor to their reduced forms of infrastructural constructs or public spaces (i.e. roads, bridges, parks, strips of land, etc). Hence, 'in-between spaces' are not a critique on landscape architecture nor structural engineering. 'In-between' shall secondly, and more specifically, also refer to being and becoming 'in-between' or being mid-struggle for occupation of space. Thirdly, in further detailed connotation and as previously hinted, 'in-between' shall refer to a mechanism of unsettled territorial functionality (proprietary, aesthetic, social, cultural, political, etc).

As it was decided to associate these concepts with the texts as provided within this assignment it is aimed to work around the following citation from Lemann :

"There is something delightfully counter intuitive...: you would have thought it was dull Babbitts who made a city commercially successful, but no—it's kids with scruffy beards and tattoos... What is the connection between them and prosperity?" (Lemann, 2011, p.77)

We would like to explore, expand on, support or contradict this image and consider the 'in-between spaces' not only from a point of view of "commercial success" but also add-on 'social success' (or lack thereof) and the dynamics as implied in the citation of struggles or uncanny communities (i.e. scruffy bearded men with tattoos) (or lack thereof; or variations thereon). These considerations would then ideally be trans-coded into the visions of this assignment's team as well as the conceptualizations concerning an ideal twenty-first century city.

In an ideal city of the twenty-first century, city planning would consciously consider 'in-between space' (tangible and intangible; and both in infinite flux) as spaces not simply as disconnected structures supporting facilities (such as for transitional transportation) or such as desolate landscape architecture. The consideration would occur from several angles such as:

1/ the socio-political and the multi-sensorial aesthetic,

2/ the formal and functional,

3/ the interactive or immersive and psychological, and

4/ the business and infrastructural.

The convoluted consideration of these (and possible others) would aim to maximize the in-between as essential and inherent breathing parts of the whole; equally important as one or other composer supposedly claimed composite silences to be equally if not more important than sound. However, currently, in our today's cities some of these in-between territories are stuck others are in flux. Some have settled and created more desirable conditions and while others do not seem maximized some are still too much in flux to realize their full potential. Combining both case studies we noticed that some (imposed) territories terrorize. That is to say, they poetically terrorize form, function, aesthetic, ideal, community (or the potential thereof), commercial viability, sustainability, and so on while others seem to support (cultural, economic, social, aesthetic, functional or other types of) poetic nourishment.

Thus, "TERRITORIZE!" is an outcry (opposing the terror) as well as a call-for-action; promoting the fluid and dynamic maximization (as mentioned, and more: cultural, ecological, aesthetic, communal manners of maximization) of urban(ized) spaces.

2.

CASE STUDIES

While high-levels of central urban planning are prevalent in both Singapore and Beijing, we see two cities of contrast. On one side we have the modern, clinically-clean yet tropically green Singapore which has largely solved the infrastructure and environment issues stemming from its dense population with in-between spaces virtually non-existent. Juxtaposed, we see Beijing rapidly growing but struggling to transition from its communist past with many urban development problems still to be resolved. The two contributors for this assignment also took a divergent approach to examining the cities to show alternative ways that an urban setting can be viewed and experienced. Whereas, the view on Singapore is more of a high-level, city-wide perspective the way a foreigner touring the city might experience it, the approach with Beijing takes a specific path through the city, a path not too different from the one an ordinary Beijing citizen would take on a regular day. Singapore’s case offers an urban panorama providing the reader with a broad view of how territory and in-between space can be observed and experienced. In contrast, Beijing’s case hyper-focuses on a single trajectory.

2.1

Case Study One

—Singapore—

For his participation in the team-driven first assignment, one resident of Singapore took a broad look at Singapore, visiting some distinct destinations indicative of Singapore's character. Geographically, several of the photographs were taken at the central business area. The ones focusing on infrastructure (port, subway, cameras, etc) were made in various, more distant locations. However, in all cases, the contributor has tried his best to pinpoint the salient features of this highly-developed nation. Some of the photos were taken for this assignment specifically, while others were taken earlier, some time during the year before. The order of the photos follows thematic order rather than geographical or chronological order.

Title: Pragmatic Singapore

Caption: The Parliament of Singapore- a building where important decisions are made every day, yet a building void of any pompousness and imposing stature. While cameras videotaping passers-by are of course abundant, lacking any kind of fence or military guards nearby, the Parliament has the demeanor of a very open and accessible building. In fact, probably one of the most noticeable features of the Singapore Parliament building is its lack of notice-ability- one never sees crowds of tourists taking pictures of themselves in front of the Parliament. Open, pragmatic, yet well-fortified, the Parliament of Singapore exemplifies Singaporeans and Singapore itself.

Although differences shall be evident when viewing the Beijing photography, one similarity can be identified: hardly any one frequents the areas in-between the nexuses of activity such as the Singapore parliament and the surrounding architectural structures. Similarities between two cities in regards to a lack of dynamics among some territories can be found. The parliament is such an example. The examples given for Beijing shall speak for themselves as well. Such spaces seem to be fixed in space-time (sustained either by means of technology, such as cameras, white metal fences, or watch-groups). Although one might hide it behind pleasantries and blue skies while the other one (and its chosen imagery) might appear far more crude, each in their own right seems to lack a certain organic or communal feel.

Title: It started with a port

Caption: Devoid of almost any natural resources, the naturally deep port of Singapore located key geographically in the Straits of Malacca is about the only natural endowment Singapore inherited. Today, it is the world's busiest port. The port and the closely related shipping and logistics industry, have been the fundamental driver which raised Singapore's economy from the post-WWII shambles to the world's most competitive economy in the span of 50 years. In addition to its economic importance, the magnitude of the port, the efficiency with which it operates, as well as how well defined and specialized the different parts of the port are is also symbolic for Singapore in general. Thanks to the port and thanks to the qualities which the port represents, Singapore has become the poster child, the shining exception that proved developed countries can also emerge in the hot, subtropical regions of the world (Sachs, 2001). Yet, such economic success has not come without some sacrifices as hopefully, the later photos would prove.

Title: Big Brother

Caption: In Singapore, cameras are literally everywhere. Every bus stop, every metro station and any larger building or street boasts a handful of cameras videotaping. One simply cannot go outside their home without being videotaped by at least a few cameras. Fines for misbehavior are heavy and as a result, law is followed strictly by everyone. Crime is virtually non-existent at the expense of Big Brother constantly 'watching over' Singaporeans. We leave it up to the reader to decide whether Singapore today is a heaven of safety or an Orwellian 1984 city.

Title: Singapore is a FINE city

Caption: Singaporeans like to joke that Singapore is a 'fine' city. Shown above are signs about what one is not allowed to do while in the subway (no chewing gum either, please). In addition to the signs, many subway stations play voice recordings and play short TV clips reinforcing some of the same messages about food and drinks not being allowed. The result of all the cameras and the heavy fines, Singapore is probably the cleanliest big city in the world not just inside the metro but also city-wide.

P.S. Durian is a type of tropical fruit noted for its strong taste and smell.

Caption: Control and safety

Caption:The subway station photographed in this picture is among the many that people use to commute to work. A safety glass prevents people from accidentally falling over or intentionally jumping on subway tracks. The yellow arrows on the photo are directions as to how to enter and how to exit the subway in order to achieve maximum efficiency. Additionally, TV screens instruct people at the station how to spot terrorists who might have boarded on a train and to prevent disasters from happening.

Noted for its cleanliness, Singapore's metro is also known for its convenience- most Singaporeans live within a walking distance from the train station allowing majority of population to live and work without having a car. The fewer cars driven by Singaporeans is the major reason why air pollution is very low and traffic jams are significantly smaller than those in most mega cities.

Title: 'Underground' Singapore

Caption: In a small, densely populated and pragmatically ruled island such as Singapore, in-between spaces are virtually non-existent. On the contrary, lacking enough space on the ground, the city state has developed a maze of underground passageways not just for the subway but also for shopping. Numerous shiny shops inside can sell you from a high fashion clothing to a household good. With some of these underground shopping centers hosting as many as six underground floors of shops one easily gets lost in the shopping frenzy of the locals. Indeed, for many people visiting Singapore, the island seems like a giant shopping mall both above the ground and under.

Title: Green Singapore

Caption: In spite of being the second most densely populated country and boasting numerous high-rise residential and office buildings, Singapore is unmistakably green. Both in-between areas of the city as well as the specially designated parks and gardens, are home for many evergreen trees. This photo is taken in Eastern Singapore, close to the East Coast Park, but it could have well been taken in any other part of Singapore. With its 15 kilometers length, East Coast is the longest park in Singapore stretching all the way from the city center to the Changi airport. To further lengthen the parks available, a recent initiative has connected different parks via park connectors for Singaporeans to enjoy an uninterrupted tropical greenery experience.

Title: Pockets of ethnicity

Caption: Little India. Together with Chinatown and Arab Street, Little India is among the three distinct ethnic areas in the city state. Whereas the country has been known for its order and cleanliness, the little ethnic neighborhoods allow Singaporeans and tourists to still experience the Asian culture in the otherwise very modernistic, efficient, clinically-clean city state.

Title: A nexus of cuisines and traditions

Caption: Cohabiting variation within one territory: the hawker centers. Singaporeans like good deals and love food. Food courts which in Singapore are referred to as hawker centers are a popular hang-out place as they offer affordable food from various cuisines and vendors. In fact, one frequently finds food stalls called 'Economic rice'. There is at least one hawker center in every neighborhood and they are a vibrant part of the community. Photographed here is Lau Pa Sat, Singapore's most iconic hawker center. Singapore's food courts are also an interesting juxtaposition to the rest of the city. Whereas, Singapore's cleanliness and efficiency is well-known, the inevitable messiness of the street food providing a quick escape from Singapore's glitter and modernity to our cultural past. It is also a great opportunity to dive into the food cultures of various cuisines. Located right in the middle of the business center, Lau Pa Sat is probably the best study of compare and contrast between Singapore's 21st century modernism and its cultural past.

Title: Attracting tourists

Caption: Land deterritorializing sea. Welcome to the Sentosa Island! An artificial island which the Singaporean government decided to create out of the blue ocean waters as a way to attract more tourists to the country as well as to offer Singaporeans a popular weekend destination for relaxation and enjoyment.

Title: Building a city icon

Caption: This nexus does not simply stay isolated within itself; its aura or its features (light, color, social status) radiate outwards into other areas. An icon is in battle with those city elements that have to give way for a far reaching status of the iconic. Thanks to its signature three skyscrapers connected via a ship-resembling structure at the top, Marina Bay Sands is perhaps the most recognizable view of Singapore. Just like Sentosa Island, Marina Bay Sands attracts millions of tourists to Singapore every year and adds a visual image to the name Singapore. The Singapore's Formula 1 race is the only night race and runs around Marina Bay Sands allowing million of sport fans around the globe to see Singapore's most iconic building, further enhancing the image of the city-state.

Title: A hub of innovation

Caption: Attributes seen as important within spaces and their accompanying territories are evaluated, devaluated and reevaluated over and over again. Green buildings is one such collective of attributes that has been evaluated replacing those attributes that no longer are considered desirable. Fusionopolis is the first green building in Singapore showing government's desire to support sustainable buildings. Fusionopolis is also designed to become the hub for IT, data management and communication technology companies in Singapore. In the immediate proximity, Biopolis and Mediapolis are currently being built with which the area is planned to become a vibrant cluster for innovative companies from IT, R&D, life sciences and media sectors. A number of universities are also close by to further strengthen the connection between the academia and real-world applications.

Title: Attracting universities

Caption: Territorialization crosses borders and crosses industries. Among the top business schools in Europe, INSEAD was the first major foreign university to establish a campus in Singapore. Singapore's Economic Development Board is actively looking to attract top universities to come and further enhance the quality of Singapore's workforce. So far, INSEAD, Duke, University of Chicago, NYU and MIT among others have established presence in the country. Yale University will be opening its first campus outside of US, this coming Fall as well. Do these institutions alter the dynamics within communities; if so how? Do they replace users/communities, reshuffle them? What happens?

Case Study Two

—Beijing—

For his participation in the team-driven first assignment, one citizen of Beijing offers a case study hyper-focusing on a pedestrian trajectory between the 'Pingguo Shequ Beiqu' residential/cultural business area —located in the southern part or south of 'Beijing's CBD' area (Central/China Business district)— and leading via the 'Tong Hui He canal' along and under the 'Guomao bridge' to the buildings (and one of the publicly accessible rooftops) of 'Guomao' (all the while contextualizing such background architectural structures as Koolhaas' CCTV tower; which after all these years has still not been occupied). Adopting a few words from Bachelard: although several of the spaces shown here as photographic highlights have "no vital necessity" they do have a "bracing effect on our lives." (Bachelard, xxvi)

This co-author chose to walk the distance based on a believe that an urban setting should be enjoyable not simply from aerial photography or comfortably observed from top-floor based boardroom windows, but rather also on the single human's active and participatory scale. The walking distance between the two parts takes about 30 minutes and constitutes a conglomeration of virtual urban islands, perhaps insufficiently radiating their influence into the in-between spaces. These "islands" struggle with various types of physical (i.e. formal and functional) as well as cultural (i.e. social, political, historical, sub-cultural) in-between areas and dynamics of (de-) or (re-)territorializations.

Several such similar 'clouds' have been identified within Beijing yet are not included due to textual, project and temporal constraints. As supportive examples: the 'dramatic' area including and surrounding Steven Holl's MOMA complex—with numerous empty apartment units; the post-Olympic sport facility area and its larger surroundings; the supposedly hundreds of thousands of square meter of empty spaces in Beijing; and so on). This photographer/writer plays with the thesis that such in-between spaces and their dynamics can be found across the globe and across time.

3.

EPILOGUE

Singapore's views, amongst others, showcase ethnic groups. although unique in nature and different from what one might consider (as a bias) to be "Singapore," yet their territory (spacial and probably also economic) is clearly framed within the larger city. The framing one might possibly speak of, in regards to ethnicity , is in useable tension with the de- or re-teritorrialization. One could speak of where one territory battles with another (i.e. The Beijing photography showing graffiti vs out-door signage; the badly masked phone numbers on the bridge pillar; the bicycle repair man on an in-between patch of land; etc ).

In Beijing areas labelled 'dead-zones' or 'no-man's land' were showcased. The reason why those small plots of Beijing land were labelled 'dead-zones' is intended to be made obvious from the drab feel one gets when viewing the images. Similar to Singapore's ethnic districts these 'dead-zone and in-between areas' too are clearly framed (i.e. the white or other fences around areas that have no activity). In stark contrast, Singapore's well-framed ethnic areas are social, human, with spirit and with economic potential.

Additionally, if under the condition the framing of Singaporean ethnic neighborhoods is sufficiently inclusive, one could argue those are islands of centralized activity. This is in contrast with what is shown here in an otherwise highly centralized-controlled city as Beijing. A few Beijing photographs highlighted decentralized 'economic' activity, for instance, the image showing recycling efforts as well as the bicycle repair man (two activities that return at several seemingly random locations around Beijing). These activities, the associated artifacts and their coordinating individuals have taken over areas that were initially not intended for such functionality; they territorialized these spaces. One might argue which economic model would create most social or economic success (see Lemann's quote above); Singapore's or this particular highlighted one in Beijing?

It seems, in the Singaporean setting, as shown above, any struggle is absent in regards to the ethnic neighborhoods (or those places where these Singaporean ethnic areas might transition into/ be stuck in-between other areas); or any other image captured above. Is this factually so, can this be extrapolated across the urban space, or, is this urban imagery patient and editorial in nature and potentially idealizing what is truly happening at the territorial/cultural/or other (intangible) fault-lines? Additionally, might Beijing have very different examples showcasing a rather opposite dynamic as portrayed in the constructed storyline here above? An overarching question floats to the surface: which filtering lenses shall be used to construct, promote and sustain the 'ideal' actualities of a near-future city?

4.

REFERENCES

Bachelard, G. (1958). The Poetics Of Space. Boston: Beacon Press.

Bhabha. H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.

Deleuze, G. & Felix Guattari. (1972, 2000). Anti-Oedipus - Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.

Hauters, J. (2013). Beijing, P.R. China photography

Lemann, N. (2011). A Critique At Large. Get Out Of Town. Has The Celebration of Cities Gone Too Far? in The New Yorker (June 27, 2011).

Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. A novel. London: Secker & Warburg.

Sachs, Jeffrey (2001). Tropical Underdevelopment. National Bureau of Economic Research

Terziev, N. (2013). Singapore photography

Imaginary dog meets extrapolated horse by alexander_stein_taech

11 7

Fossil turtle bone by Truth in science

3

The turtle is an example of a living fossil, it is un-evolved after millions of years and remains alive today unchanged from its fossil ancestors.

Rapid formation of strata, latest evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

The formation of fossils.

What many people don't seem to realise is that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, quite likely in catastrophic conditions.

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

Rapid formation of strata, latest evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by breeders to be strictly limited.

This was due to the fact that the changes seen in selective breeding were due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There was no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new structures and features (macro-evolution).

Darwin ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired an ideological status, belief in it outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and ridiculed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes require new, additional, genetic information.

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda involved in the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.

The public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet.

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply evolved in the light of greater knowledge.

The new, improved Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

So what is Neo-Darwinism?

It is progressive, macro evolution based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. Macro evolution is based on a belief in a complete progression from microbes to man through millions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, it is unscientific nonsense which defies logic.

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, constructive, genetic information, that is what is essential for macro evolution. Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all.

Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

Conclusion:

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

What about the fossil record?

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

Piltdown Man (a fake),

Nebraska Man (a pig),

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

Orce man (a donkey),

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

Peking Man (a monkey),

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

Etc. etc.

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

1:72 MiG-19bis (NATO ASCC code: "Farmer F"); aircraft "07 Blue" of the 180th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment, Soviet Anti-Air Defence (Protivovozdushnaya Oborona Strany, PVO); Veshchevo AB (Leningrad Oblast), 1962 (Whif/Mastercraft kit conversion) by Dizzyfugu

2