View allAll Photos Tagged propose
Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg. Proposed Land Use [map]. Scale not given. In: Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg. Downtown Winnipeg. Winnipeg: Planning Division, 1969, map 17.
Earth Designs Garden Design and Build were asked to created a landscape and propose garden design in Bishop's stortford, Essex here are the details of the project.
The Modern Famiy Garden in Bishop's Stortford, Essex
BRIEF:
The clients had lived in the house for a few years, and had undertaken considerable refurbishment on the interior of the property. They had a large family garden which needed to accommodate two children and a very active black Labrador. A block of flats had recently been built next door, leaving the clients feeling very exposed. They wanted to break the garden up into a series of smaller areas in order to create a more dynamic space
SOLUTION:
The clients had an existing block wall that retained the second upper level of the garden. Costly and difficult to remove, we decided to make a feature of this wall by rendering it to allow it to be painted to a colour of the clients’ choosing. The client also had an extremely large area of paving outside the back door, which was larger that actually required, so the design broke this space up using soft organic curves and spirals that bisected each other in large sweeps across the space. We also broke the large area of hard landscaping up by using three different types of material to create interest – two types of sandstone paving for the area directly outside the patio doors with a broad section of mint fossil sandstone sweeping from the integrated seating area wrapping around the side of the house. We used the existing wall and extended it further back to create an opportunity to include some railway sleeper seats and table. Planting in the space consisted of strong architectural plants interspersed with feathery grasses nestling alongside long flowering perennials.
TESTIMONIAL:
Everyone has watched enough television to know that some garden designers pursue their own vision at the expense of what their client wants. A truly talented designer listens to their clients' vision and is able to marry this with their own inspiration and flair. Earth Designs fall squarely into this latter category. Within a couple of hours of meeting us, Katrina had sketched the first draft of her final design; over the next few days she refined this, and transformed our half-baked idea into a beautiful, practical and elegant garden.
We are absolutely delighted with the design and finish. We would thoroughly recommend Earth Designs to anyone; whatever your budget or the scale of your garden.
If you dig this and would like to find out more about this or any of other of our designs, please stop by our web-site and have a look at our work.
Earth Designs is a bespoke London Garden Design and build company specialising in classic, funky and urban contemporary garden design.
Our Landscape and Garden build teams cover London, Essex and parts of South East England, while garden designs are available nationwide.
Please visit www.earthdesigns.co.uk to see our full portfolio. If you would like a garden designer in London or have an idea of what you want and are looking for a landscaper London to come and visit your garden, please get in touch.
Follow our Bespoke Garden Design and Build and Blog to see what we get up to week by week, our free design clinic as well as tips and products we recommend for your garden projects www.earthdesigns.co.uk/blog/.
Earth Designs is located in East London, but has built gardens in Essex , gardens in Hertfordshire Hertfordshire and all over the South East. Earth Designs was formed by Katrina Wells in Spring 2003 and has since gone from strength to strength to develop a considerable portfolio of garden projects. Katrina, who is our Senior Garden Designer, has travelled all over the UK designing gardens. However we can design worldwide either through our postal garden design service or by consultation with our senior garden designer. Recent worldwide projects have included garden designs in Romania. Katrina’s husband. Matt, heads up the build side of the company, creating a unique service for all our clients.
If you a not a UK resident, but would like an Earth Designs garden, Earth Designs has a worldwide design service through our Garden Design Postal Design Vouchers. If you are looking for an unique birthday present or original anniversary present and would like to buy one of our Garden Design Gift Vouchers for yourself or as a present please our sister site www.gardenpresents.co.uk. We do also design outside of the UK, please contact us for details.
Proposed Demolition
NCDC agenda
April 21, 2014
- The former Housing Mart (Pictured above)
Henry Grimball was the principal architect for the structure.
'Grimball said the housing mart building, now under construction, will reflect architectural characteristics of New Orleans, such as balconies, exterior stairways and wide roof overhangs." He was a modernist and preservationist - "unalterably opposed" to the Riverfront Expressway. Grimball was associated with Louisiana Landmarks, served as the VCC architectural committee chairman, and was architect for the restoration planning of the Olivier House. He was honored by the regional AIA for his deisgn of the Marina. Grimball designed Mildred Osborne Elementary at 6701 Curran, which has since been demolished. He was the architect of new construction at Jackson Barracks in 1977 and designed UNO Library 1979.
View the agenda here:
The Saint Hilarion Castle lies on the Kyrenia mountain range, in Cyprus. This location provided the castle with command of the pass road from Kyrenia to Nicosia. It is the best preserved ruin of the three former strongholds in the Kyrenia mountains, the other two being Kantara and Buffavento.
History
The castle is not named after St. Hilarion, active in Palestine and Cyprus in the 4th century. It was named after an obscure saint, who is traditionally held to have fled to Cyprus after the Arab conquest of the Holy Land and retired to the hilltop on which the castle was built for hermitage. An English traveller reported the preservation of his relics in the 14th century. It has been proposed that a monastery built in his name preceded the castle, which was built around it. However, this view is not supported by any substantial evidence.
Starting in the 11th century, the Byzantines began fortification. Saint Hilarion, together with the castles of Buffavento and Kantara, formed the defense of the island against Arab raids against the coast. Some sections were further upgraded under the Lusignan dynasty, whose kings may have used it as a summer residence. During the rule of Lusignans, the castle was the focus of a four-year struggle between Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II and Regent John d' Ibelin for control of Cyprus.
Much of the castle was dismantled by the Venetians in the 15th century to reduce the cost of garrisons.
Architecture
The castle has three divisions or wards. The lower and middle wards served economic purposes, while the upper ward housed the royal family. The lower ward had the stables and the living quarters for the men-at-arms. The Prince John tower sits on a cliff high above the lower castle.
The upper ward was surrounded by a 1.4 metre-thick Byzantine wall, made of rough masonry. The entrance is through a pointed arch built by the Lusignans. This was protected by a semicircular tower to the east. Within the ward is a courtyard, with twin peaks being situated to either side of it. To the north-east is an extremely ruined kitchen. To the west are the royal apartments, dated by various sources to the 13th or 14th centuries. Although mostly ruined today, this was a structure in the northeast-southwest axis, with a length of 25 m and width of 6 m. It has a basement containing a cistern and two floors. The ground floor has a height of 7 m and a pointed barrel vault. The upper floor is known for its carved windows, one of which is dubbed the Queen's Window. These are placed on the western wall, which has a scenic view of the northern coast of Cyprus, especially the plains of Lapithos.
In fiction
Two of the main characters in the 1958 historical novel, Exodus, by Leon Uris, spend a day walking around the castle ruins. Featured in the 1999 novel “Race of Scorpions” by Dorothy Dunnett. The Castle of Saint Hilarion appears in the 2009 action-adventure video game Assassin's Creed: Bloodlines, the 2015 novel "The Lost Treasure of the Templars" by James Becker, and Death in Cyprus by M. M. Kaye. The castle is also featured in the 2016 crypto-thriller The Apocalypse Fire by Dominic Selwood.
The Kyrenia Mountains (Greek: Κερύνειο Όρος; Turkish: Girne Dağları) is a long, narrow mountain range that runs for approximately 160 km (100 mi) along the northern coast of the island of Cyprus. It is primarily made of hard crystalline limestone, with some marble. Its highest peak is Mount Selvili, at 1,024 m (3,360 ft). Pentadaktylos (also spelt Pentadactylos; Greek: Πενταδάκτυλος; Turkish: Beşparmak) is another name for the Kyrenia Mountains, though Britannica refers to Pentadaktylos as the "western portion" of the latter, or the part west of Melounta. Pentadaktylos (lit. "five-fingered") is so-named after one of its most distinguishing features, a peak that resembles five fingers.
The Kyrenian mountains are named after the Kyrenian mountains in Achaia, Greece, which are well known from mythology because of the connection with one of the 12 labours of Hercules, the capture of the Kerynitis deer that lived there. This sacred deer of Artemis with golden horns and bronze legs ran so fast that no one could reach it. Hercules, however, after pursuing it for a whole year, managed to catch it and transport it alive to Mycenae.
A devastating fire in July 1995 burned large portions of the Kyrenia Mountains, resulting in the loss of significant forest land and natural habitat.
The only other mountain range in Cyprus is the Troodos Mountains.
Geology
These mountains are a series of sedimentary formations from the Permian to the Middle Miocene pushed up by a collision of the African and Eurasian plates. Though only half the height of the Troodos Mountains, the Kyrenia Mountains are rugged and rise abruptly from the Mesaoria plain.
History
The location of the mountains near the sea made them desirable locations for watch towers and castles overlooking the northern Cyprus coast, as well as the central plain. These castles generally date from the 10th through the 15th centuries, primarily constructed by the Byzantines and Lusignans. The castles of St. Hilarion, Buffavento, and Kantara sit astride peaks and were of strategic importance during much of the history of Cyprus during the Middle Ages.
Painted flag
A flag of Northern Cyprus is painted on the southern slope of the Kyrenia Mountains. It is reportedly 425 metres wide and 250 metres high, and is illuminated at night.
The flag is considered controversial as evidenced in the Parliamentary Question put to the European Parliament by Antigoni Papadopoulou on 22 October 2009, "How can it permit the existence of such a flag which, apart from the catastrophic environmental damage it causes, the use of chemical substances and the brutal abuse of the environment, involves an absurd waste of electricity at a time of economic crisis? Does Turkey show sufficient respect towards the environment to justify its desire to open the relevant chapter of accession negotiations?"
Legends
There are many legends about the Pentadactylos mountains. One tells the story of a conceited villager who fell in love with the local queen and asked for her hand in marriage. The queen wished to be rid of the impertinent young man and requested that he bring her some water from the spring of Apostolos Andreas monastery in the Karpas, a perilous journey in those days. The man set off and after several weeks returned with a skin full of that precious water. The queen was most dismayed to see that he had succeeded, but still refused to marry him. In a fit of rage, he poured the water on to the earth, seized a handful of the resulting mud and threw it at the queens head. She ducked and the lump of mud sailed far across the plain to land on top of the Kyrenia mountain range, where it is to this day, still showing the impression of the thwarted villager’s five fingers.
Another famous one is of the Byzantine hero Digenis Akritas. Tradition has it that Digenis Akritas's hand gripped the mountain to get out of the sea when he came to free Cyprus from its Saracen invaders, and this is his handprint. He also threw a large rock across Cyprus to get at the Saracen ships. That rock landed in Paphos at the site of the birthplace of Aphrodite, thus known to this day as Petra Tou Romiou or "Rock of the Greek".
Northern Cyprus, officially the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), is a de facto state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. It is recognised only by Turkey, and its territory is considered by all other states to be part of the Republic of Cyprus.
Northern Cyprus extends from the tip of the Karpass Peninsula in the northeast to Morphou Bay, Cape Kormakitis and its westernmost point, the Kokkina exclave in the west. Its southernmost point is the village of Louroujina. A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island and divides Nicosia, the island's largest city and capital of both sides.
A coup d'état in 1974, performed as part of an attempt to annex the island to Greece, prompted the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. This resulted in the eviction of much of the north's Greek Cypriot population, the flight of Turkish Cypriots from the south, and the partitioning of the island, leading to a unilateral declaration of independence by the north in 1983. Due to its lack of recognition, Northern Cyprus is heavily dependent on Turkey for economic, political and military support.
Attempts to reach a solution to the Cyprus dispute have been unsuccessful. The Turkish Army maintains a large force in Northern Cyprus with the support and approval of the TRNC government, while the Republic of Cyprus, the European Union as a whole, and the international community regard it as an occupation force. This military presence has been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Northern Cyprus is a semi-presidential, democratic republic with a cultural heritage incorporating various influences and an economy that is dominated by the services sector. The economy has seen growth through the 2000s and 2010s, with the GNP per capita more than tripling in the 2000s, but is held back by an international embargo due to the official closure of the ports in Northern Cyprus by the Republic of Cyprus. The official language is Turkish, with a distinct local dialect being spoken. The vast majority of the population consists of Sunni Muslims, while religious attitudes are mostly moderate and secular. Northern Cyprus is an observer state of ECO and OIC under the name "Turkish Cypriot State", PACE under the name "Turkish Cypriot Community", and Organization of Turkic States with its own name.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus began on 20 July 1974 and progressed in two phases over the following month. Taking place upon a background of intercommunal violence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and in response to a Greek junta-sponsored Cypriot coup d'état five days earlier, it led to the Turkish capture and occupation of the northern part of the island.
The coup was ordered by the military junta in Greece and staged by the Cypriot National Guard in conjunction with EOKA B. It deposed the Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios III and installed Nikos Sampson. The aim of the coup was the union (enosis) of Cyprus with Greece, and the Hellenic Republic of Cyprus to be declared.
The Turkish forces landed in Cyprus on 20 July and captured 3% of the island before a ceasefire was declared. The Greek military junta collapsed and was replaced by a civilian government. Following the breakdown of peace talks, Turkish forces enlarged their original beachhead in August 1974 resulting in the capture of approximately 36% of the island. The ceasefire line from August 1974 became the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus and is commonly referred to as the Green Line.
Around 150,000 people (amounting to more than one-quarter of the total population of Cyprus, and to one-third of its Greek Cypriot population) were displaced from the northern part of the island, where Greek Cypriots had constituted 80% of the population. Over the course of the next year, roughly 60,000 Turkish Cypriots, amounting to half the Turkish Cypriot population, were displaced from the south to the north. The Turkish invasion ended in the partition of Cyprus along the UN-monitored Green Line, which still divides Cyprus, and the formation of a de facto Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration in the north. In 1983, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) declared independence, although Turkey is the only country that recognises it. The international community considers the TRNC's territory as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. The occupation is viewed as illegal under international law, amounting to illegal occupation of European Union territory since Cyprus became a member.
Northern Cyprus, officially the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), is a de facto state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. It is recognised only by Turkey, and its territory is considered by all other states to be part of the Republic of Cyprus.
Northern Cyprus extends from the tip of the Karpass Peninsula in the northeast to Morphou Bay, Cape Kormakitis and its westernmost point, the Kokkina exclave in the west. Its southernmost point is the village of Louroujina. A buffer zone under the control of the United Nations stretches between Northern Cyprus and the rest of the island and divides Nicosia, the island's largest city and capital of both sides.
A coup d'état in 1974, performed as part of an attempt to annex the island to Greece, prompted the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. This resulted in the eviction of much of the north's Greek Cypriot population, the flight of Turkish Cypriots from the south, and the partitioning of the island, leading to a unilateral declaration of independence by the north in 1983. Due to its lack of recognition, Northern Cyprus is heavily dependent on Turkey for economic, political and military support.
Attempts to reach a solution to the Cyprus dispute have been unsuccessful. The Turkish Army maintains a large force in Northern Cyprus with the support and approval of the TRNC government, while the Republic of Cyprus, the European Union as a whole, and the international community regard it as an occupation force. This military presence has been denounced in several United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Northern Cyprus is a semi-presidential, democratic republic with a cultural heritage incorporating various influences and an economy that is dominated by the services sector. The economy has seen growth through the 2000s and 2010s, with the GNP per capita more than tripling in the 2000s, but is held back by an international embargo due to the official closure of the ports in Northern Cyprus by the Republic of Cyprus. The official language is Turkish, with a distinct local dialect being spoken. The vast majority of the population consists of Sunni Muslims, while religious attitudes are mostly moderate and secular. Northern Cyprus is an observer state of ECO and OIC under the name "Turkish Cypriot State", PACE under the name "Turkish Cypriot Community", and Organization of Turkic States with its own name.
Several distinct periods of Cypriot intercommunal violence involving the two main ethnic communities, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, marked mid-20th century Cyprus. These included the Cyprus Emergency of 1955–59 during British rule, the post-independence Cyprus crisis of 1963–64, and the Cyprus crisis of 1967. Hostilities culminated in the 1974 de facto division of the island along the Green Line following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The region has been relatively peaceful since then, but the Cyprus dispute has continued, with various attempts to solve it diplomatically having been generally unsuccessful.
Cyprus, an island lying in the eastern Mediterranean, hosted a population of Greeks and Turks (four-fifths and one-fifth, respectively), who lived under British rule in the late nineteenth-century and the first half of the twentieth-century. Christian Orthodox Church of Cyprus played a prominent political role among the Greek Cypriot community, a privilege that it acquired during the Ottoman Empire with the employment of the millet system, which gave the archbishop an unofficial ethnarch status.
The repeated rejections by the British of Greek Cypriot demands for enosis, union with Greece, led to armed resistance, organised by the National Organization of Cypriot Struggle, or EOKA. EOKA, led by the Greek-Cypriot commander George Grivas, systematically targeted British colonial authorities. One of the effects of EOKA's campaign was to alter the Turkish position from demanding full reincorporation into Turkey to a demand for taksim (partition). EOKA's mission and activities caused a "Cretan syndrome" (see Turkish Resistance Organisation) within the Turkish Cypriot community, as its members feared that they would be forced to leave the island in such a case as had been the case with Cretan Turks. As such, they preferred the continuation of British colonial rule and then taksim, the division of the island. Due to the Turkish Cypriots' support for the British, EOKA's leader, Georgios Grivas, declared them to be enemies. The fact that the Turks were a minority was, according to Nihat Erim, to be addressed by the transfer of thousands of Turks from mainland Turkey so that Greek Cypriots would cease to be the majority. When Erim visited Cyprus as the Turkish representative, he was advised by Field Marshal Sir John Harding, the then Governor of Cyprus, that Turkey should send educated Turks to settle in Cyprus.
Turkey actively promoted the idea that on the island of Cyprus two distinctive communities existed, and sidestepped its former claim that "the people of Cyprus were all Turkish subjects". In doing so, Turkey's aim to have self-determination of two to-be equal communities in effect led to de jure partition of the island.[citation needed] This could be justified to the international community against the will of the majority Greek population of the island. Dr. Fazil Küçük in 1954 had already proposed Cyprus be divided in two at the 35° parallel.
Lindley Dan, from Notre Dame University, spotted the roots of intercommunal violence to different visions among the two communities of Cyprus (enosis for Greek Cypriots, taksim for Turkish Cypriots). Also, Lindlay wrote that "the merging of church, schools/education, and politics in divisive and nationalistic ways" had played a crucial role in creation of havoc in Cyprus' history. Attalides Michael also pointed to the opposing nationalisms as the cause of the Cyprus problem.
By the mid-1950's, the "Cyprus is Turkish" party, movement, and slogan gained force in both Cyprus and Turkey. In a 1954 editorial, Turkish Cypriot leader Dr. Fazil Kuchuk expressed the sentiment that the Turkish youth had grown up with the idea that "as soon as Great Britain leaves the island, it will be taken over by the Turks", and that "Turkey cannot tolerate otherwise". This perspective contributed to the willingness of Turkish Cypriots to align themselves with the British, who started recruiting Turkish Cypriots into the police force that patrolled Cyprus to fight EOKA, a Greek Cypriot nationalist organisation that sought to rid the island of British rule.
EOKA targeted colonial authorities, including police, but Georgios Grivas, the leader of EOKA, did not initially wish to open up a new front by fighting Turkish Cypriots and reassured them that EOKA would not harm their people. In 1956, some Turkish Cypriot policemen were killed by EOKA members and this provoked some intercommunal violence in the spring and summer, but these attacks on policemen were not motivated by the fact that they were Turkish Cypriots.
However, in January 1957, Grivas changed his policy as his forces in the mountains became increasingly pressured by the British Crown forces. In order to divert the attention of the Crown forces, EOKA members started to target Turkish Cypriot policemen intentionally in the towns, so that Turkish Cypriots would riot against the Greek Cypriots and the security forces would have to be diverted to the towns to restore order. The killing of a Turkish Cypriot policeman on 19 January, when a power station was bombed, and the injury of three others, provoked three days of intercommunal violence in Nicosia. The two communities targeted each other in reprisals, at least one Greek Cypriot was killed and the British Army was deployed in the streets. Greek Cypriot stores were burned and their neighbourhoods attacked. Following the events, the Greek Cypriot leadership spread the propaganda that the riots had merely been an act of Turkish Cypriot aggression. Such events created chaos and drove the communities apart both in Cyprus and in Turkey.
On 22 October 1957 Sir Hugh Mackintosh Foot replaced Sir John Harding as the British Governor of Cyprus. Foot suggested five to seven years of self-government before any final decision. His plan rejected both enosis and taksim. The Turkish Cypriot response to this plan was a series of anti-British demonstrations in Nicosia on 27 and 28 January 1958 rejecting the proposed plan because the plan did not include partition. The British then withdrew the plan.
In 1957, Black Gang, a Turkish Cypriot pro-taksim paramilitary organisation, was formed to patrol a Turkish Cypriot enclave, the Tahtakale district of Nicosia, against activities of EOKA. The organisation later attempted to grow into a national scale, but failed to gain public support.
By 1958, signs of dissatisfaction with the British increased on both sides, with a group of Turkish Cypriots forming Volkan (later renamed to the Turkish Resistance Organisation) paramilitary group to promote partition and the annexation of Cyprus to Turkey as dictated by the Menderes plan. Volkan initially consisted of roughly 100 members, with the stated aim of raising awareness in Turkey of the Cyprus issue and courting military training and support for Turkish Cypriot fighters from the Turkish government.
In June 1958, the British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, was expected to propose a plan to resolve the Cyprus issue. In light of the new development, the Turks rioted in Nicosia to promote the idea that Greek and Turkish Cypriots could not live together and therefore any plan that did not include partition would not be viable. This violence was soon followed by bombing, Greek Cypriot deaths and looting of Greek Cypriot-owned shops and houses. Greek and Turkish Cypriots started to flee mixed population villages where they were a minority in search of safety. This was effectively the beginning of the segregation of the two communities. On 7 June 1958, a bomb exploded at the entrance of the Turkish Embassy in Cyprus. Following the bombing, Turkish Cypriots looted Greek Cypriot properties. On 26 June 1984, the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktaş, admitted on British channel ITV that the bomb was placed by the Turks themselves in order to create tension. On 9 January 1995, Rauf Denktaş repeated his claim to the famous Turkish newspaper Milliyet in Turkey.
The crisis reached a climax on 12 June 1958, when eight Greeks, out of an armed group of thirty five arrested by soldiers of the Royal Horse Guards on suspicion of preparing an attack on the Turkish quarter of Skylloura, were killed in a suspected attack by Turkish Cypriot locals, near the village of Geunyeli, having been ordered to walk back to their village of Kondemenos.
After the EOKA campaign had begun, the British government successfully began to turn the Cyprus issue from a British colonial problem into a Greek-Turkish issue. British diplomacy exerted backstage influence on the Adnan Menderes government, with the aim of making Turkey active in Cyprus. For the British, the attempt had a twofold objective. The EOKA campaign would be silenced as quickly as possible, and Turkish Cypriots would not side with Greek Cypriots against the British colonial claims over the island, which would thus remain under the British. The Turkish Cypriot leadership visited Menderes to discuss the Cyprus issue. When asked how the Turkish Cypriots should respond to the Greek Cypriot claim of enosis, Menderes replied: "You should go to the British foreign minister and request the status quo be prolonged, Cyprus to remain as a British colony". When the Turkish Cypriots visited the British Foreign Secretary and requested for Cyprus to remain a colony, he replied: "You should not be asking for colonialism at this day and age, you should be asking for Cyprus be returned to Turkey, its former owner".
As Turkish Cypriots began to look to Turkey for protection, Greek Cypriots soon understood that enosis was extremely unlikely. The Greek Cypriot leader, Archbishop Makarios III, now set independence for the island as his objective.
Britain resolved to solve the dispute by creating an independent Cyprus. In 1959, all involved parties signed the Zurich Agreements: Britain, Turkey, Greece, and the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, Makarios and Dr. Fazil Kucuk, respectively. The new constitution drew heavily on the ethnic composition of the island. The President would be a Greek Cypriot, and the Vice-President a Turkish Cypriot with an equal veto. The contribution to the public service would be set at a ratio of 70:30, and the Supreme Court would consist of an equal number of judges from both communities as well as an independent judge who was not Greek, Turkish or British. The Zurich Agreements were supplemented by a number of treaties. The Treaty of Guarantee stated that secession or union with any state was forbidden, and that Greece, Turkey and Britain would be given guarantor status to intervene if that was violated. The Treaty of Alliance allowed for two small Greek and Turkish military contingents to be stationed on the island, and the Treaty of Establishment gave Britain sovereignty over two bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia.
On 15 August 1960, the Colony of Cyprus became fully independent as the Republic of Cyprus. The new republic remained within the Commonwealth of Nations.
The new constitution brought dissatisfaction to Greek Cypriots, who felt it to be highly unjust for them for historical, demographic and contributional reasons. Although 80% of the island's population were Greek Cypriots and these indigenous people had lived on the island for thousands of years and paid 94% of taxes, the new constitution was giving the 17% of the population that was Turkish Cypriots, who paid 6% of taxes, around 30% of government jobs and 40% of national security jobs.
Within three years tensions between the two communities in administrative affairs began to show. In particular disputes over separate municipalities and taxation created a deadlock in government. A constitutional court ruled in 1963 Makarios had failed to uphold article 173 of the constitution which called for the establishment of separate municipalities for Turkish Cypriots. Makarios subsequently declared his intention to ignore the judgement, resulting in the West German judge resigning from his position. Makarios proposed thirteen amendments to the constitution, which would have had the effect of resolving most of the issues in the Greek Cypriot favour. Under the proposals, the President and Vice-President would lose their veto, the separate municipalities as sought after by the Turkish Cypriots would be abandoned, the need for separate majorities by both communities in passing legislation would be discarded and the civil service contribution would be set at actual population ratios (82:18) instead of the slightly higher figure for Turkish Cypriots.
The intention behind the amendments has long been called into question. The Akritas plan, written in the height of the constitutional dispute by the Greek Cypriot interior minister Polycarpos Georkadjis, called for the removal of undesirable elements of the constitution so as to allow power-sharing to work. The plan envisaged a swift retaliatory attack on Turkish Cypriot strongholds should Turkish Cypriots resort to violence to resist the measures, stating "In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside, intervention would be either justified or possible." Whether Makarios's proposals were part of the Akritas plan is unclear, however it remains that sentiment towards enosis had not completely disappeared with independence. Makarios described independence as "a step on the road to enosis".[31] Preparations for conflict were not entirely absent from Turkish Cypriots either, with right wing elements still believing taksim (partition) the best safeguard against enosis.
Greek Cypriots however believe the amendments were a necessity stemming from a perceived attempt by Turkish Cypriots to frustrate the working of government. Turkish Cypriots saw it as a means to reduce their status within the state from one of co-founder to that of minority, seeing it as a first step towards enosis. The security situation deteriorated rapidly.
Main articles: Bloody Christmas (1963) and Battle of Tillyria
An armed conflict was triggered after December 21, 1963, a period remembered by Turkish Cypriots as Bloody Christmas, when a Greek Cypriot policemen that had been called to help deal with a taxi driver refusing officers already on the scene access to check the identification documents of his customers, took out his gun upon arrival and shot and killed the taxi driver and his partner. Eric Solsten summarised the events as follows: "a Greek Cypriot police patrol, ostensibly checking identification documents, stopped a Turkish Cypriot couple on the edge of the Turkish quarter. A hostile crowd gathered, shots were fired, and two Turkish Cypriots were killed."
In the morning after the shooting, crowds gathered in protest in Northern Nicosia, likely encouraged by the TMT, without incident. On the evening of the 22nd, gunfire broke out, communication lines to the Turkish neighbourhoods were cut, and the Greek Cypriot police occupied the nearby airport. On the 23rd, a ceasefire was negotiated, but did not hold. Fighting, including automatic weapons fire, between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and militias increased in Nicosia and Larnaca. A force of Greek Cypriot irregulars led by Nikos Sampson entered the Nicosia suburb of Omorphita and engaged in heavy firing on armed, as well as by some accounts unarmed, Turkish Cypriots. The Omorphita clash has been described by Turkish Cypriots as a massacre, while this view has generally not been acknowledged by Greek Cypriots.
Further ceasefires were arranged between the two sides, but also failed. By Christmas Eve, the 24th, Britain, Greece, and Turkey had joined talks, with all sides calling for a truce. On Christmas day, Turkish fighter jets overflew Nicosia in a show of support. Finally it was agreed to allow a force of 2,700 British soldiers to help enforce a ceasefire. In the next days, a "buffer zone" was created in Nicosia, and a British officer marked a line on a map with green ink, separating the two sides of the city, which was the beginning of the "Green Line". Fighting continued across the island for the next several weeks.
In total 364 Turkish Cypriots and 174 Greek Cypriots were killed during the violence. 25,000 Turkish Cypriots from 103-109 villages fled and were displaced into enclaves and thousands of Turkish Cypriot houses were ransacked or completely destroyed.
Contemporary newspapers also reported on the forceful exodus of the Turkish Cypriots from their homes. According to The Times in 1964, threats, shootings and attempts of arson were committed against the Turkish Cypriots to force them out of their homes. The Daily Express wrote that "25,000 Turks have already been forced to leave their homes". The Guardian reported a massacre of Turks at Limassol on 16 February 1964.
Turkey had by now readied its fleet and its fighter jets appeared over Nicosia. Turkey was dissuaded from direct involvement by the creation of a United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) in 1964. Despite the negotiated ceasefire in Nicosia, attacks on the Turkish Cypriot persisted, particularly in Limassol. Concerned about the possibility of a Turkish invasion, Makarios undertook the creation of a Greek Cypriot conscript-based army called the "National Guard". A general from Greece took charge of the army, whilst a further 20,000 well-equipped officers and men were smuggled from Greece into Cyprus. Turkey threatened to intervene once more, but was prevented by a strongly worded letter from the American President Lyndon B. Johnson, anxious to avoid a conflict between NATO allies Greece and Turkey at the height of the Cold War.
Turkish Cypriots had by now established an important bridgehead at Kokkina, provided with arms, volunteers and materials from Turkey and abroad. Seeing this incursion of foreign weapons and troops as a major threat, the Cypriot government invited George Grivas to return from Greece as commander of the Greek troops on the island and launch a major attack on the bridgehead. Turkey retaliated by dispatching its fighter jets to bomb Greek positions, causing Makarios to threaten an attack on every Turkish Cypriot village on the island if the bombings did not cease. The conflict had now drawn in Greece and Turkey, with both countries amassing troops on their Thracian borders. Efforts at mediation by Dean Acheson, a former U.S. Secretary of State, and UN-appointed mediator Galo Plaza had failed, all the while the division of the two communities becoming more apparent. Greek Cypriot forces were estimated at some 30,000, including the National Guard and the large contingent from Greece. Defending the Turkish Cypriot enclaves was a force of approximately 5,000 irregulars, led by a Turkish colonel, but lacking the equipment and organisation of the Greek forces.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations in 1964, U Thant, reported the damage during the conflicts:
UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances; it shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting.
The situation worsened in 1967, when a military junta overthrew the democratically elected government of Greece, and began applying pressure on Makarios to achieve enosis. Makarios, not wishing to become part of a military dictatorship or trigger a Turkish invasion, began to distance himself from the goal of enosis. This caused tensions with the junta in Greece as well as George Grivas in Cyprus. Grivas's control over the National Guard and Greek contingent was seen as a threat to Makarios's position, who now feared a possible coup.[citation needed] The National Guard and Cyprus Police began patrolling the Turkish Cypriot enclaves of Ayios Theodoros and Kophinou, and on November 15 engaged in heavy fighting with the Turkish Cypriots.
By the time of his withdrawal 26 Turkish Cypriots had been killed. Turkey replied with an ultimatum demanding that Grivas be removed from the island, that the troops smuggled from Greece in excess of the limits of the Treaty of Alliance be removed, and that the economic blockades on the Turkish Cypriot enclaves be lifted. Grivas was recalled by the Athens Junta and the 12,000 Greek troops were withdrawn. Makarios now attempted to consolidate his position by reducing the number of National Guard troops, and by creating a paramilitary force loyal to Cypriot independence. In 1968, acknowledging that enosis was now all but impossible, Makarios stated, "A solution by necessity must be sought within the limits of what is feasible which does not always coincide with the limits of what is desirable."
After 1967 tensions between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots subsided. Instead, the main source of tension on the island came from factions within the Greek Cypriot community. Although Makarios had effectively abandoned enosis in favour of an 'attainable solution', many others continued to believe that the only legitimate political aspiration for Greek Cypriots was union with Greece.
On his arrival, Grivas began by establishing a nationalist paramilitary group known as the National Organization of Cypriot Fighters (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston B or EOKA-B), drawing comparisons with the EOKA struggle for enosis under the British colonial administration of the 1950s.
The military junta in Athens saw Makarios as an obstacle. Makarios's failure to disband the National Guard, whose officer class was dominated by mainland Greeks, had meant the junta had practical control over the Cypriot military establishment, leaving Makarios isolated and a vulnerable target.
During the first Turkish invasion, Turkish troops invaded Cyprus territory on 20 July 1974, invoking its rights under the Treaty of Guarantee. This expansion of Turkish-occupied zone violated International Law as well as the Charter of the United Nations. Turkish troops managed to capture 3% of the island which was accompanied by the burning of the Turkish Cypriot quarter, as well as the raping and killing of women and children. A temporary cease-fire followed which was mitigated by the UN Security Council. Subsequently, the Greek military Junta collapsed on July 23, 1974, and peace talks commenced in which a democratic government was installed. The Resolution 353 was broken after Turkey attacked a second time and managed to get a hold of 37% of Cyprus territory. The Island of Cyprus was appointed a Buffer Zone by the United Nations, which divided the island into two zones through the 'Green Line' and put an end to the Turkish invasion. Although Turkey announced that the occupied areas of Cyprus to be called the Federated Turkish State in 1975, it is not legitimised on a worldwide political scale. The United Nations called for the international recognition of independence for the Republic of Cyprus in the Security Council Resolution 367.
In the years after the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus one can observe a history of failed talks between the two parties. The 1983 declaration of the independent Turkish Republic of Cyprus resulted in a rise of inter-communal tensions and made it increasingly hard to find mutual understanding. With Cyprus' interest of a possible EU membership and a new UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1997 new hopes arose for a fresh start. International involvement from sides of the US and UK, wanting a solution to the Cyprus dispute prior to the EU accession led to political pressures for new talks. The believe that an accession without a solution would threaten Greek-Turkish relations and acknowledge the partition of the island would direct the coming negotiations.
Over the course of two years a concrete plan, the Annan plan was formulated. In 2004 the fifth version agreed upon from both sides and with the endorsement of Turkey, US, UK and EU then was presented to the public and was given a referendum in both Cypriot communities to assure the legitimisation of the resolution. The Turkish Cypriots voted with 65% for the plan, however the Greek Cypriots voted with a 76% majority against. The Annan plan contained multiple important topics. Firstly it established a confederation of two separate states called the United Cyprus Republic. Both communities would have autonomous states combined under one unified government. The members of parliament would be chosen according to the percentage in population numbers to ensure a just involvement from both communities. The paper proposed a demilitarisation of the island over the next years. Furthermore it agreed upon a number of 45000 Turkish settlers that could remain on the island. These settlers became a very important issue concerning peace talks. Originally the Turkish government encouraged Turks to settle in Cyprus providing transfer and property, to establish a counterpart to the Greek Cypriot population due to their 1 to 5 minority. With the economic situation many Turkish-Cypriot decided to leave the island, however their departure is made up by incoming Turkish settlers leaving the population ratio between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots stable. However all these points where criticised and as seen in the vote rejected mainly by the Greek Cypriots. These name the dissolution of the „Republic of Cyprus", economic consequences of a reunion and the remaining Turkish settlers as reason. Many claim that the plan was indeed drawing more from Turkish-Cypriot demands then Greek-Cypriot interests. Taking in consideration that the US wanted to keep Turkey as a strategic partner in future Middle Eastern conflicts.
A week after the failed referendum the Republic of Cyprus joined the EU. In multiple instances the EU tried to promote trade with Northern Cyprus but without internationally recognised ports this spiked a grand debate. Both side endure their intention of negotiations, however without the prospect of any new compromises or agreements the UN is unwilling to start the process again. Since 2004 negotiations took place in numbers but without any results, both sides are strongly holding on to their position without an agreeable solution in sight that would suit both parties.
Like it or not, all agree $4 billion development proposal is huge
By DEIRDRE FERNANDES AND CAROLYN SHAPIRO, The Virginian-Pilot
© December 22, 2006
VIRGINIA BEACH - A $4 billion proposal to build skyscrapers, hotels and condos at the Oceanfront and a massive golf resort near City Hall has left many business leaders and residents stunned.
The plan by a South Korean company includes more than 3,800 condominiums, 1,500 hotel rooms and seven towers soaring up to 40 stories high.
"This is like Hampton Roads attracting a major league sports franchise," said James Koch, an Old Dominion University economist. "Economically speaking, it might be a great thing or may not amount to anything at all."
The size of the proposal by Sun Rise Development Co. Ltd., which covers more than 64 acres at the former Dome site, Rudee Loop, the Convention Center and the Tournament Players Club of Virginia Beach, surpasses any proposal the city has seen in years.
"The scale of it is enormous," said Deborah Stearns, managing director of the Norfolk office of GVA Advantis real estate company.
Virginia Beach's Town Center had an overall master plan but "unfolded one piece at a time," Stearns said. The Korean proposal includes many more pieces, all unveiled in a single swoop.
"I can't recall another announcement that would have that many square feet and that many developments proposed at one time," she said.
Bruce Thompson, chief executive officer of Gold Key/PHR Hotels and Resorts, said Virginia Beach may be ripe for such a project, and he said few properties are as attractive as the ones Sun Rise has selected.
It was only a matter of time before a major national or international company "came to Virginia Beach and recognized what we've known all along," Thompson said. "This is the best beach on the East Coast."
But Thompson also raised his eyebrows at the cost of the proposal.
"We have a half-billion dollars in real estate at the Oceanfront," he said. "I know how long it took us to develop a half a billion."
Thompson said he was surprised that a project this big materialized without local property owners and developers knowing about it.
Don Maxwell, the city's economic development director, said he is confident in the company's ability to deliver on its proposals, even though little is known about Sun Rise.
Still, the cost of the project to taxpayers is unknown.
The city probably would have to build roads and hire more police for the Oceanfront, Koch said. The city also risks losing its largest employer - the Navy - in the process, he added.
The Navy is unlikely to support towering buildings right under the paths of jets from Oceana Naval Air Station.
The federal government already has threatened to move jets out of Virginia Beach because of development near Oceana, and other states would be happy to host them, said U.S. Rep. Thelma Drake, who represents Virginia Beach.
"I don't think this plan meets the Navy's needs at all," Drake said. "And the important thing is that when the Navy says this doesn't work, they take it very seriously."
Drake said city officials should consider all development proposals but must include the Navy in discussions from the start. City officials told Oceana leaders about the Sun Rise plans Wednesday, after it was made public.
Ellis Hinnant-Will, an Oceanfront resident and civic leader, worries that the plan would transform Virginia Beach into a city in the style of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., with its tall hotels.
"I really can't believe that we would really consider something like this," Hinnant-Will said.
Still, Sun Rise's proposal could draw visitors who had never considered Virginia Beach before, said Brad Garner, who has studied Virginia Beach as vice president of Smith Travel Research, a tourism consulting company in Hendersonville, Tenn.
While Virginia Beach has more demand for hotel space than supply, Sun Rise would have to tap entirely new markets for visitors - particularly if it sought travelers from Asia - to fill the rooms it has proposed, he said.
The company would have to create a draw akin to Walt Disney World, Garner said.
"They've got to bring the entertainment component with it. They've got to bring the food and beverage component with it," he said. "They've got to bring the whole package with them."
The city also needs more condominiums along the Oceanfront, said Councilwoman Rosemary Wilson, a real estate agent who handles property at the resort.
"People want to be at the Oceanfront and want to be on the Boardwalk," Wilson said. "It's all about the view."
Still, Wilson said, Sun Rise's proposal needs more review. "Is it the right fit?" she asked. "We don't know."
Staff writer Richard Quinn contributed to this report.
Reach Deirdre Fernandes at (757) 222-5121 or deirdre.fernandes@pilotonline.com. Reach Carolyn Shapiro at (757) 446-2270 or carolyn.shapiro@pilotonline.com
Lifted from http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=116493&ran=180696
Proposed Demolition
NCDC agenda
April 21, 2014
- The former Housing Mart (Pictured above)
Henry Grimball was the principal architect for the structure.
'Grimball said the housing mart building, now under construction, will reflect architectural characteristics of New Orleans, such as balconies, exterior stairways and wide roof overhangs." He was a modernist and preservationist - "unalterably opposed" to the Riverfront Expressway. Grimball was associated with Louisiana Landmarks, served as the VCC architectural committee chairman, and was architect for the restoration planning of the Olivier House. He was honored by the regional AIA for his deisgn of the Marina. Grimball designed Mildred Osborne Elementary at 6701 Curran, which has since been demolished. He was the architect of new construction at Jackson Barracks in 1977 and designed UNO Library 1979.
View the agenda here:
Earth Designs Garden Design and Build were asked to created a landscape and propose garden design in Mill Lane, London*. Here are the details of the project
Brief: The brief from this client was to create a low maintenance, accessible and above all stylish garden, suitable for dining and entertaining. The client was looking for a real 'wow' factor and wanted the exterior of their property to mirror the high finish and individuality of their interior space. The existing space suffered from many drawbacks - it had an uninspiring, drab layout and was excessively overlooked from flats above and to the right and left. Its North facing aspect means that it does not benefit from a great deal of sunlight.
Solution: This design created create a stylish and contemporary space with a plethora of visual stimuli that offers extensive opportunity for enjoyment throughout the year.
The existing fencing along the rear and right hand boundaries was clad with opaque purple Perspex sheeting to create a uniform, modern backdrop to the space. Two distinct seating areas, each designed with a different use in mind, were created to allow the client maximum scope for entertaining and relaxation.
The first, in the top right corner of the space, forms the main focal point to the garden and comprises a slightly sunken conversation pit enclosed within a four-poster bed style structure. Constructed from sturdy railway sleepers, this area offers ample space for lounging and serves as a visually imposing talking-point. One side of the structure includes numerous open shelves, allowing the client to display a variety of sculpture and ephemera, while a second side houses a bespoke stainless steel water feature. The water feature itself is comprised of a large stainless steel tank fed from above by two stainless steel water blades. For comfort, large custom-made weatherproof cushions cover the conversation pit floor. These cushions can be removed and stored during inclement weather.
The second seating area, centre left of the space, comprises an L-shaped railway-sleeper fixed bench backed by a railway-sleeper raised bed. Serving as an informal alfresco dining area, this section of the space benefits from a low coffee-style table with a second table at kitchen-counter height, beside which the client has placed a BBQ for alfresco food preparation.
Flooring throughout is in attractive cream travertine, laid in a formal grid pattern and inlaid in the centre with a single rectangular strip of plum slate tiles, providing an elegant contrast to the dark stained railway sleeper structure and seating.
The left hand boundary was clad with stainless steel sheeting to create a stunning backdrop to the dining area. This panelling continues along the boundary beyond the seating area to mask a bespoke storage area in an alcove to the left of the space. The stainless steel theme is echoed with the addition of six stainless steel planters placed at intervals around the edge of the paving.
Planting in the space follows a strong architectural theme, consisting of sculpted box balls and tall, elegant allium in the raised bed, framed by the primeval fronds of dicksonia antartica (tree fern) clustered in the flush bed beyond. The box ball theme is echoed in the stainless steel planters spaced around the paving and a variety of climbers have been placed so that they will gradually adorn the Perspex fencing over time.
A comprehensive lighting scheme was installed with mood and accent in mind. Down-lighters installed within the alcoves of the railway sleeper shelving unit create a centre piece of the sleeper structure, while stainless steel bollard lights frame either end of the bench in the dining area. The paving is edged with in-ground up-lighters placed in front of each stainless steel planter to give balance to the space, while a submersible light installed within the water feature tank casts a gently undulating light across the back of the space. Low voltage spots cast a gentle glow across the back of the space and weatherproof wall-mounted infra-red heaters, one in the conversation pit and one on the boundary wall beside the bench seating, allow continued enjoyment of the garden on chilly nights.
Testimonial: "Many thanks, we are so thrilled with the entire garden. It is imaginative and bold but also practical and truly reflects our personalities! You have transformed an ordinary space into something quite magical."
If you dig this and would like to find out more about this or any of other of our designs, please stop by our web-site and have a look at our work.
Earth Designs is a bespoke London Garden Design and build company specialising in classic, funky and urban contemporary garden design.
Our Landscape and Garden build teams cover London, Essex and parts of South East England, while garden designs are available nationwide.
Please visit www.earthdesigns.co.uk to see our full portfolio. If you would like a garden designer in London or have an idea of what you want and are looking for a landscaper London to come and visit your garden, please get in touch.
Follow our Bespoke Garden Design and Build and Blog to see what we get up to week by week, our free design clinic as well as tips and products we recommend for your garden projects www.earthdesigns.co.uk/blog/.
Earth Designs is located in East London, but has built gardens in Essex , gardens in Hertfordshire Hertfordshire and all over the South East. Earth Designs was formed by Katrina Wells in Spring 2003 and has since gone from strength to strength to develop a considerable portfolio of garden projects. Katrina, who is our Senior Garden Designer, has travelled all over the UK designing gardens. However we can design worldwide either through our postal garden design service or by consultation with our senior garden designer. Recent worldwide projects have included garden designs in Romania. Katrina’s husband. Matt, heads up the build side of the company, creating a unique service for all our clients.
If you a not a UK resident, but would like an Earth Designs garden, Earth Designs has a worldwide design service through our Garden Design Postal Design Vouchers. If you are looking for an unique birthday present or original anniversary present and would like to buy one of our Garden Design Gift Vouchers for yourself or as a present please our sister site www.gardenpresents.co.uk. We do also design outside of the UK, please contact us for details.
Here is a scan that details a whole range of different proposed roads across north-west London and the Watford area. First of all, the map shows the existence of both the M25 and M16 at the same time - Ringway 4 was to carry the M25 name for it's southern and western sides, up to it's terminus to the north of Watford as shown here. The northern section which would have terminated further north and thus not met the M25 directly, would have likely been numbered something else, and may have not been a motorway at all. The M16 was the number given to Ringway 3, at the very least it's northern half, which from Potters Bar around to the Dartford Crossing later became part of the M25. It isn't yet known whether the southern section would have been M16 as well, but the projected route from the A1 down to the M1 is shown here. The A41(M) is also shown in the top left of the image, and the Stirling Corner Link is here too, a small stretch of road from the planned M1 Junction 3 to the A1 which was never actually built. Taken from a Geographia Atlas from the early 1970s.
The Czech Republics new assault rifle the CZ805 BREN
Caliber: 5.56x45 mm NATO, 7.62x39 M43 interchangeable; also 6.8x43 Rem SPC proposed in near future
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: 910 mm (butt extended)
Barrel length: 360 mm standard, other lengths available
Weight: 3.6 kg less magazine and accessories
Rate of fire: ~ 700 rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 20, 30 or 100 rounds
The CZ 805 assault rifle was first introduced to the public in 2009, as a possible future replacement for aged Sa. Vz. 58 assault rifles still in use by Czech armed forces. According to the recent news, early in 2010 the CZ 805 was selected as a next standard military rifle for Czech armed forces, with production contract issued to the famous Czech arms factory CZ-UB in the city of Uhersky Brod. It is quite possible that CZ 805 rifles also will be offered for export, either in military (select-fire) or in civilian (semi-automatic only) versions.
The CZ 805 (which is apparently dubbed as "CZ 805 BREN A1" in Czech sources) is a modular weapon of modern appearance. In its layout it is somewhat similar to the Belgian FN SCAR assault rifle (against which CZ 805 competed and won in Czech army trials), but similarity is not exact and there are significant design differences between these two weapon systems.
The CZ 805 assault rifle is of modular, multi-caliber design, with aluminum alloy upper receiver and polymer lower receiver / fire control unit. The magazine housing is a separate detachable unit, which can be replaced in the field in the course of caliber change. CZ 805 also features quick-change barrels, allowing to change calibers and barrel lengths according to the mission profile (in each caliber there there are short carbine barrel, standard barrel and long "marksman" or "squad automatic" barrel). The basic action uses fairy common piston-operated gas action with manual gas regulator, and a rotating bolt locking. For each proposed caliber, there is a separate bolt with appropriate dimensions.
Fire control unit includes ambidextrous safety / fire selector switch, which permits single shots, 2-round bursts and full automatic fire. Charging handle can be installed on either sideofthegun,depending on user preferences.
Feed is from detachable box magazines, which are inserted into detachable magazine housing. In standard configuration, the CZ 805 will use proprietary 5.56x45 caliber 30-round magazines made of translucent polymer. Other magazine housings will allow use of STANAG or HK G36 5.56mm magazines, as well as various 7.62x39 and 6.8x43 magazines.
CZ 805 assault rifle is fitted with integral Picatinny rail on the top of receiver, with additional rails running on the sides and the bottom of the forend. Rifle will be issued with folding iron sights, and will also accept a wide variety of additional sighting equipment (red-dot or telescope day sights, night sights, lasers etc). Rifle is equipped with side-folding buttstock, which is adjustable for length of pull, and can be completely removed if maximum compactness is required. Additional equipment also includes new, specially designed 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher CZ G 805 and also a new knife-bayonet.
The community board meeting took place in order to discuss the proposed mosque to be built next to ground zero. While the project is usually referred to as the “mosque at ground zero”, the project’s official name is the Cordoba Initiative. The Imam and the developers were in attendance to present the project, and many politicians (or rather their representatives) were on hand, along with many of those in favor or opposed.
First spoke the elected officials, who—in the typical New York political elitist fashion— slandered and insulted their opposition. Councilwoman Margaret Chin spoke before a single opponent of the mosque ever came up to the microphone to state their position, but that didn’t stop her from accusing those against it of “bigotry”.
And while Margaret Chin chose to offend the opposition to the mosque (most of whom present were families of 9-11 victims and first responders) in person, other local figures sent their cronies. A representative of Scott Stringer, President of the Borough of Manhattan, handed out a letter to everyone prior to the meeting in which he refers to the mosque as a “multi-faith community and cultural center” and claims that this “center has been the subject of bigoted attacks that contain a strain of religious and racial hatred more extreme than anything we have seen in NYC for some time.” I guess an attempt to kill hundreds of New Yorkers and tourists at Times Square by an Islamist Faisal Shahzad less than a month prior was not extreme enough for Stringer and, instead of jihadism, Stringer seems to have identified the enemy as a TEA Party leader whom he rips apart throughout this unsolicited letter. While the TEA Party’s opposition is referred to as a “bigoted agenda”, the mosque itself is referred to as a “vibrant and world-class facility in NYC which will promote tolerance and pluralism”. Of course he fails to provide any example of mosques in NYC or in the world that have EVER promoted tolerance or pluralism, but perhaps he didn’t think that any attendee would dare question his superior judgment in the matter. Please be sure to read his disgusting letter
After the political cronies spoke, Feisal Abdul Rauf', the Imam in charge of this “community center” was given time to present his proposal. He started his speech with “for many years I’ve had a dream…” (I wonder what Dr. King would have thought of a ‘grand wizard’ proposing to build a “community center” at the site of the bombed 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama). The Imam also claimed that this “community center” would promote multi-culturalism; he was so sure of it that his speech was sprinkled throughout with that deceiving phrase. But his presentation brought with it an unexpected turning point. Not because of anything he planned to share with us in his carefully prepared PC jargoned speech, but because of a question by one of the board members who wanted to know if the proposed “community center” would hold prayer. The Imam said “yes”, to which the board member replied, “then it is a house of worship, not a community center”.
Without any objection to that by the Imam or speakers that followed, the term “community center” began to very gradually disappear. But don’t think that anyone’s opinion actually changed as a result. The supporters of the project “formerly” known as a “community center” still believed that it was somehow related to diversity and that it would in no way be an insult to those who died due to Islamist ideology, nor would it serve as a monument of jihadist victory.
But neither the councilwoman nor the Imam were the most offensive or distasteful of the proponents of the mosque. Daisy Khan of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, who also happens to be Imam’s wife, blew their insults and lies out of the water. (I don’t recall her being introduced as Rauf’s wife at the meeting, but I can’t be sure.) She lectured and she yelled – yes, yelled – at the families of victims, the first responders, and her fellow New Yorkers. She yelled that she is “tired of bearing the cross [and will do so] no longer” because apparently she and the Muslim community were the real victims of the 9-11 attacks—not the families who lost their loved ones, not the cities that lost their monuments, and not the country that lost its feeling of security.
Without a single mosque destroyed and with very few anti-Muslim incidents, hearing from this woman about her supposed victimization in that auditorium was absolutely sickening. It didn’t help when for weeks after (and prior) she dominated the time on television appearing calm and together and claiming among other nonsense – I kid you not – that the reason they chose the ground zero site to build a mosque is to provide a “blow to the extremists”. I’m sure radical Muslims would just hate it if New York built a mosque on the ground where American buildings were destroyed and thousands of Americans were murdered by jihadists … right? READ HER RIDICULOUS QUOTE AGAIN. Now listen to it for yourself from the horse’s mouth because I wouldn’t have believed it either. (starts at 1:10) www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WbTv_gsx4&playnext_from=TL&...
Other supporters of the mosque included two priests and a rabbi (no, it isn’t a start to a joke – although I wish it was) of the leftist “co-exist” variety all of whom supported the mosque. And while there were some clergy present that (judging by applause and reactions) opposed the mosque, they did not come up to the microphone. The supporting clergy seemed to have gone to the same rhetoric school as the Imam, using terms like “multi-culturalism”, “tolerance”, “community relations and understanding”, and other jargon that had no actual relevance to the topic.
There was also a Caucasian woman with a baby who introduced herself as someone who had converted to Islam … in 2006, if I’m not mistaken. She lied about how difficult it is to find information and resources on Islam in NY. I say she lied not only because there are hundreds of mosques in the 5 boroughs, but also because as a recent convert she is a prime example of someone who was able to find and act on this information. Of course, she didn’t specify why ground zero is a better location than any other for this apparently “valuable to the city” information about the religion all 911 hijackers belonged to.
Now that I have gone on and on about the supporters of the mosque (aka “community center”) and the temple’s money changers, let me talk about the opponents of a mosque being build at ground zero ... Not a single one of them opposed a mosque being built; the prevailing request was simply “build it somewhere else”.
First opponent to speak was the celebrated publisher, editor, and columnist Pamela Geller. She was the one to point out what Cordoba means to the Muslim world. Cordoba is a city in Spain that was the first major city to fall to Muslim conquerors and become an Islamic caliphate and a symbol of Islamic conquest of the West. She also called the mosque “a shrine to the very ideology that inspired 9-11”. Sure seems a lot more plausible than Daisy’s explanation for why the mosque has to overlook ground zero.
A gentleman who lost his brother in WTC and represents the largest ‘families of victims of 9-11’ groups introduced some of those present who lost loved ones at ground zero. He protested the lectures and the labels that were bestowed on these families for their “legitimate, legal opposition to this Muslim ‘multi-cultural center’”. He pointed out that while there is proposed building of this mosque at ground zero, the committees have refused to allow monuments to the tragedy of 9-11, including the WTC sphere which was heavily damaged during the terrorist attack and has become an iconic symbol of the tragedy. At this time the sphere is temporarily housed at Battery Park. “If we should honor multi-culturalism and diversity at ground zero, we should honor and remember victims of 9-11,” he concluded.
Tim Brown, a former NYC firefighter who lost dozens of his friends and colleagues, fellow first responders, to the jihadist terrorist attack, has been a tireless voice for memories of victims and their loved ones. He questioned where the money for the mosque was coming from. He had received “5 different answers on 5 different occasions from them”, which included my favorite “we don’t have to tell you, talk to our lawyers”, as well as “three different organizations, but [the Imam] refused to name them” and “from American taxpayers”. Mr. Brown also pointed out that Cordoba Initiative has been very deceiving in other ways, such as removing the word “mosque” from their web site despite the fact that they explicitly wrote initially that there will be a mosque at the top of the building (overlooking ground zero).
Questions were also raised about the Imam Rauf, his public statements, and his pro-Sharia stance as described in his publications and interviews. His travels to countries that openly support terrorism and forced Islamization of the West were also questioned and may indicate where funding from the mosque could be coming from.
Follow up note: Listening to the Imam Rauf speak to various news organizations in the days following the meeting, he offered even more non-specific answers to where the money comes from, such as it comes from people who “want to see peace between Muslims and non-Muslims”. Again, nice politically savvy keywords… but no actual answer to a rather direct question he obviously knows the answer to. Trying to hide something, Faisal Abdul?
One of the many victim’s families present was a woman with a photo of her son who was murdered by the Islamic terrorists. She didn’t yell like Daisy, the Imam’s wife, and she did not dish out insults like Congresswoman Chin. Her voice trembled as she mentioned her son’s name and held his photo towards the committee, “this is my son”, she said, “this is firefighter George Kane.” She held back tears as she spoke. She said that “the location [of the mosque] is insensitive to families. It is also insensitive to the voiceless victims the possibility that anyone who supports Islamic extremism could walk on graves of the victims … [it is] an outrage.”
Another woman spoke with a similar shaking voice about her 23-year-old son who “was murdered on September 11th”. She also wasn’t a bigot, but wanted to know “why are you suggesting that it be two blocks from ground zero?”
Mrs. Kane and the others who spoke through tears and with photos of their murdered children in their trembling hands, made me think of what they were being asked to do. Nine years later, they were being asked to “move on” or “heal”, as mosque supporters were suggesting. I can’t even begin to imagine what that ignorant request could do to an eternally grieving mother.
A sweet elderly couple’s last conversation with their son was via cell phone while he was on a hijacked plane… just before he was murdered. They mentioned that there were 20 mosques that located around the area where they lived, and that they would be ok with another one being built close to them, but they also asked for “understanding and sensitivity” when it comes to building one near ground zero.
Yet from the comments of NYC politicians and supporters of the mosque, we know that understanding and sensitivity will not be shown to the victims’ families nor reflect the wishes of voting New Yorkers. They will instead be shown to others who are apparently deemed more – not even equally but more – crucial to the future of NYC and the memories of those who perished in the terrorist attacks.
Here are a few youtube links on regarding this meeting:
Pamela Geller's full 2 minute speech from the meeting
a firefighter and first responder Tim Brown speaks A MUST SEE
Metro-North Railroad to begin construction to replace two New Haven Line train bridge spans in Port Chester.
Credit: MTA Metro-North Railroad
The community board meeting took place in order to discuss the proposed mosque to be built next to ground zero. While the project is usually referred to as the “mosque at ground zero”, the project’s official name is the Cordoba Initiative. The Imam and the developers were in attendance to present the project, and many politicians (or rather their representatives) were on hand, along with many of those in favor or opposed.
First spoke the elected officials, who—in the typical New York political elitist fashion— slandered and insulted their opposition. Councilwoman Margaret Chin spoke before a single opponent of the mosque ever came up to the microphone to state their position, but that didn’t stop her from accusing those against it of “bigotry”.
And while Margaret Chin chose to offend the opposition to the mosque (most of whom present were families of 9-11 victims and first responders) in person, other local figures sent their cronies. A representative of Scott Stringer, President of the Borough of Manhattan, handed out a letter to everyone prior to the meeting in which he refers to the mosque as a “multi-faith community and cultural center” and claims that this “center has been the subject of bigoted attacks that contain a strain of religious and racial hatred more extreme than anything we have seen in NYC for some time.” I guess an attempt to kill hundreds of New Yorkers and tourists at Times Square by an Islamist Faisal Shahzad less than a month prior was not extreme enough for Stringer and, instead of jihadism, Stringer seems to have identified the enemy as a TEA Party leader whom he rips apart throughout this unsolicited letter. While the TEA Party’s opposition is referred to as a “bigoted agenda”, the mosque itself is referred to as a “vibrant and world-class facility in NYC which will promote tolerance and pluralism”. Of course he fails to provide any example of mosques in NYC or in the world that have EVER promoted tolerance or pluralism, but perhaps he didn’t think that any attendee would dare question his superior judgment in the matter. Please be sure to read his disgusting letter
After the political cronies spoke, Feisal Abdul Rauf', the Imam in charge of this “community center” was given time to present his proposal. He started his speech with “for many years I’ve had a dream…” (I wonder what Dr. King would have thought of a ‘grand wizard’ proposing to build a “community center” at the site of the bombed 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama). The Imam also claimed that this “community center” would promote multi-culturalism; he was so sure of it that his speech was sprinkled throughout with that deceiving phrase. But his presentation brought with it an unexpected turning point. Not because of anything he planned to share with us in his carefully prepared PC jargoned speech, but because of a question by one of the board members who wanted to know if the proposed “community center” would hold prayer. The Imam said “yes”, to which the board member replied, “then it is a house of worship, not a community center”.
Without any objection to that by the Imam or speakers that followed, the term “community center” began to very gradually disappear. But don’t think that anyone’s opinion actually changed as a result. The supporters of the project “formerly” known as a “community center” still believed that it was somehow related to diversity and that it would in no way be an insult to those who died due to Islamist ideology, nor would it serve as a monument of jihadist victory.
But neither the councilwoman nor the Imam were the most offensive or distasteful of the proponents of the mosque. Daisy Khan of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, who also happens to be Imam’s wife, blew their insults and lies out of the water. (I don’t recall her being introduced as Rauf’s wife at the meeting, but I can’t be sure.) She lectured and she yelled – yes, yelled – at the families of victims, the first responders, and her fellow New Yorkers. She yelled that she is “tired of bearing the cross [and will do so] no longer” because apparently she and the Muslim community were the real victims of the 9-11 attacks—not the families who lost their loved ones, not the cities that lost their monuments, and not the country that lost its feeling of security.
Without a single mosque destroyed and with very few anti-Muslim incidents, hearing from this woman about her supposed victimization in that auditorium was absolutely sickening. It didn’t help when for weeks after (and prior) she dominated the time on television appearing calm and together and claiming among other nonsense – I kid you not – that the reason they chose the ground zero site to build a mosque is to provide a “blow to the extremists”. I’m sure radical Muslims would just hate it if New York built a mosque on the ground where American buildings were destroyed and thousands of Americans were murdered by jihadists … right? READ HER RIDICULOUS QUOTE AGAIN. Now listen to it for yourself from the horse’s mouth because I wouldn’t have believed it either. (starts at 1:10) www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WbTv_gsx4&playnext_from=TL&...
Other supporters of the mosque included two priests and a rabbi (no, it isn’t a start to a joke – although I wish it was) of the leftist “co-exist” variety all of whom supported the mosque. And while there were some clergy present that (judging by applause and reactions) opposed the mosque, they did not come up to the microphone. The supporting clergy seemed to have gone to the same rhetoric school as the Imam, using terms like “multi-culturalism”, “tolerance”, “community relations and understanding”, and other jargon that had no actual relevance to the topic.
There was also a Caucasian woman with a baby who introduced herself as someone who had converted to Islam … in 2006, if I’m not mistaken. She lied about how difficult it is to find information and resources on Islam in NY. I say she lied not only because there are hundreds of mosques in the 5 boroughs, but also because as a recent convert she is a prime example of someone who was able to find and act on this information. Of course, she didn’t specify why ground zero is a better location than any other for this apparently “valuable to the city” information about the religion all 911 hijackers belonged to.
Now that I have gone on and on about the supporters of the mosque (aka “community center”) and the temple’s money changers, let me talk about the opponents of a mosque being build at ground zero ... Not a single one of them opposed a mosque being built; the prevailing request was simply “build it somewhere else”.
First opponent to speak was the celebrated publisher, editor, and columnist Pamela Geller. She was the one to point out what Cordoba means to the Muslim world. Cordoba is a city in Spain that was the first major city to fall to Muslim conquerors and become an Islamic caliphate and a symbol of Islamic conquest of the West. She also called the mosque “a shrine to the very ideology that inspired 9-11”. Sure seems a lot more plausible than Daisy’s explanation for why the mosque has to overlook ground zero.
A gentleman who lost his brother in WTC and represents the largest ‘families of victims of 9-11’ groups introduced some of those present who lost loved ones at ground zero. He protested the lectures and the labels that were bestowed on these families for their “legitimate, legal opposition to this Muslim ‘multi-cultural center’”. He pointed out that while there is proposed building of this mosque at ground zero, the committees have refused to allow monuments to the tragedy of 9-11, including the WTC sphere which was heavily damaged during the terrorist attack and has become an iconic symbol of the tragedy. At this time the sphere is temporarily housed at Battery Park. “If we should honor multi-culturalism and diversity at ground zero, we should honor and remember victims of 9-11,” he concluded.
Tim Brown, a former NYC firefighter who lost dozens of his friends and colleagues, fellow first responders, to the jihadist terrorist attack, has been a tireless voice for memories of victims and their loved ones. He questioned where the money for the mosque was coming from. He had received “5 different answers on 5 different occasions from them”, which included my favorite “we don’t have to tell you, talk to our lawyers”, as well as “three different organizations, but [the Imam] refused to name them” and “from American taxpayers”. Mr. Brown also pointed out that Cordoba Initiative has been very deceiving in other ways, such as removing the word “mosque” from their web site despite the fact that they explicitly wrote initially that there will be a mosque at the top of the building (overlooking ground zero).
Questions were also raised about the Imam Rauf, his public statements, and his pro-Sharia stance as described in his publications and interviews. His travels to countries that openly support terrorism and forced Islamization of the West were also questioned and may indicate where funding from the mosque could be coming from.
Follow up note: Listening to the Imam Rauf speak to various news organizations in the days following the meeting, he offered even more non-specific answers to where the money comes from, such as it comes from people who “want to see peace between Muslims and non-Muslims”. Again, nice politically savvy keywords… but no actual answer to a rather direct question he obviously knows the answer to. Trying to hide something, Faisal Abdul?
One of the many victim’s families present was a woman with a photo of her son who was murdered by the Islamic terrorists. She didn’t yell like Daisy, the Imam’s wife, and she did not dish out insults like Congresswoman Chin. Her voice trembled as she mentioned her son’s name and held his photo towards the committee, “this is my son”, she said, “this is firefighter George Kane.” She held back tears as she spoke. She said that “the location [of the mosque] is insensitive to families. It is also insensitive to the voiceless victims the possibility that anyone who supports Islamic extremism could walk on graves of the victims … [it is] an outrage.”
Another woman spoke with a similar shaking voice about her 23-year-old son who “was murdered on September 11th”. She also wasn’t a bigot, but wanted to know “why are you suggesting that it be two blocks from ground zero?”
Mrs. Kane and the others who spoke through tears and with photos of their murdered children in their trembling hands, made me think of what they were being asked to do. Nine years later, they were being asked to “move on” or “heal”, as mosque supporters were suggesting. I can’t even begin to imagine what that ignorant request could do to an eternally grieving mother.
A sweet elderly couple’s last conversation with their son was via cell phone while he was on a hijacked plane… just before he was murdered. They mentioned that there were 20 mosques that located around the area where they lived, and that they would be ok with another one being built close to them, but they also asked for “understanding and sensitivity” when it comes to building one near ground zero.
Yet from the comments of NYC politicians and supporters of the mosque, we know that understanding and sensitivity will not be shown to the victims’ families nor reflect the wishes of voting New Yorkers. They will instead be shown to others who are apparently deemed more – not even equally but more – crucial to the future of NYC and the memories of those who perished in the terrorist attacks.
Here are a few youtube links on regarding this meeting:
Pamela Geller's full 2 minute speech from the meeting
a firefighter and first responder Tim Brown speaks A MUST SEE
Proposed concept for stair railing system- this would look great in all gloss-
WHITE powdercoating.....
Earth Designs Garden Design and Build were asked to created a landscape and propose garden design in Leyton, London*. Here are the details of the project
The Kitchen Garden in Leyron, London E10
BRIEF:
This site was an open corner plot in an end of terrace house. Its exposed aspect meant that it suffered from a lack of shade and was adversely affected by strong wind. An awkward shape, it had fairly low, shabby, trellis-capped walls on two sides and thus suffered from lack of privacy.
The side wall of the house enclosed the third side of the garden, and an area of uneven concrete, which the client stipulated should be kept but made more attractive, bordered the fourth.
The client has an allergy to insect bites, so stated that he did not want a water feature, which would attract insect life, included in the design. There was also an area containing a coal bunker, which the client and Earth Designs agreed should remain as a ‘working area’.
SOLUTION:
The design was styled as a contemporary cottage garden – a variation on a ‘Pottager’s Garden’, featuring herbs with the potential to incorporate vegetables within the raised flowerbeds. The beds, running along the house and boundary walls, were constructed with used railway sleepers and built at odd angles to add personality to the space.
Within these beds, a planting palette of scented orange, purple, cream and green foliage was carefully selected to give year round interest and texture. Two seating areas were included in the design, one for dining and one for contemplation, situated in separate areas to catch the sun at different times of the day.
The dining area, featuring a small table and bench seat constructed from railway sleepers, was given increased privacy with the addition of a hinged trellis closing off its exposed side. The other seating area featured a corner deck, large enough to hold two sun loungers at full spread.
The middle of the space featured a triangular raised bed in which a semi-mature tree was planted, offering shade and shelter from the elements. The main area, enclosed by the raised beds, was carpeted with a combination of slate tiles, sunken railway sleepers and pea shingle, amongst which clumps of lawn chamomile and creeping thyme were planted.
The existing garden walls were raised in height, rendered and painted white, to provide an attractive backdrop to the raised beds while significantly increasing the privacy
of the space.
The existing concreted area was overlaid with slate tiles, to provide a hard, practical, yet attractive surface. An archway constructed from railway sleepers was used to demark the existing ‘working area’ from the rest of the garden. This archway was placed so that it would also offer support for an existing honeysuckle.
TESTIMONIAL:
“It is common these days to talk of the garden as another room, an extension of the house, bringing the garden into the home, and the home into the garden etc, etc…
Earth Designs didn’t do that. They gave me a sanctuary. From a pretty vague and basic brief, (I’d like a tree, I’d like to have scented flowers, it’s a windy garden, it’s overlooked, it needs to be low maintenance….) they created a calm yet excitingly varied space in which I can escape from the world to somewhere tranquil, or entertain intimately or on a large scale.
They worked like Trojans, often putting in 12 hour days. The quality of the work, and choice of planting and hard landscaping is impeccable. Their aftercare service is terrific - if I have a query or a problem, they deal with it. They are, in short, a good bunch.
They didn’t only give me a garden, they made a dream come alive, and I thank them for it.”
If you dig this and would like to find out more about this or any of other of our designs, please stop by our web-site and have a look at our work.
Earth Designs is a bespoke London Garden Design and build company specialising in classic, funky and urban contemporary garden design.
Our Landscape and Garden build teams cover London, Essex and parts of South East England, while garden designs are available nationwide.
Please visit www.earthdesigns.co.uk to see our full portfolio. If you would like a garden designer in London or have an idea of what you want and are looking for a landscaper London to come and visit your garden, please get in touch.
Follow our Bespoke Garden Design and Build and Blog to see what we get up to week by week, our free design clinic as well as tips and products we recommend for your garden projects www.earthdesigns.co.uk/blog/.
Earth Designs is located in East London, but has built gardens in Essex , gardens in Hertfordshire Hertfordshire and all over the South East. Earth Designs was formed by Katrina Wells in Spring 2003 and has since gone from strength to strength to develop a considerable portfolio of garden projects. Katrina, who is our Senior Garden Designer, has travelled all over the UK designing gardens. However we can design worldwide either through our postal garden design service or by consultation with our senior garden designer. Recent worldwide projects have included garden designs in Romania. Katrina’s husband. Matt, heads up the build side of the company, creating a unique service for all our clients.
If you a not a UK resident, but would like an Earth Designs garden, Earth Designs has a worldwide design service through our Garden Design Postal Design Vouchers. If you are looking for an unique birthday present or original anniversary present and would like to buy one of our Garden Design Gift Vouchers for yourself or as a present please our sister site www.gardenpresents.co.uk. We do also design outside of the UK, please contact us for details.
The top plate shows the initial proposals for the single-runway layout. The bottom plate was the approved single-runway layout. (Source: Henley Lo)
Proposed Demolition
NCDC agenda
April 21, 2014
- The former Housing Mart (Pictured above)
Henry Grimball was the principal architect for the structure.
'Grimball said the housing mart building, now under construction, will reflect architectural characteristics of New Orleans, such as balconies, exterior stairways and wide roof overhangs." He was a modernist and preservationist - "unalterably opposed" to the Riverfront Expressway. Grimball was associated with Louisiana Landmarks, served as the VCC architectural committee chairman, and was architect for the restoration planning of the Olivier House. He was honored by the regional AIA for his deisgn of the Marina. Grimball designed Mildred Osborne Elementary at 6701 Curran, which has since been demolished. He was the architect of new construction at Jackson Barracks in 1977 and designed UNO Library 1979.
View the agenda here:
#FR#moniteur de ski indépendant de Courchevel. Votre entraîneur personnel vous propose un service personnalisé, en se concentrant sur vos préférences personnelles et vos capacités. Soins adaptés à votre programme d'entraînement.#FR#
#T_FR#moniteur de ski a Courchevel#T_FR#
#EN#Personal Ski instructor at Courchevel. Your private instructor can give you one-to-one advice and can pay detailed attention to your own previous experience and your goals. In this way it is possible to plan a holiday training programme geared specially to your needs. #EN#
#T_EN#Ski instructor at Courchevel#T_EN#
#PT#Instrutor de esqui sobre pista de Courchevel: Seu instrutor privado pode dar-lhe um-para-um conselho e pode prestar atenção detalhada à sua própria experiência anterior e seus objetivos. Desta forma, é possível planejar um programa de treinamento de férias voltado especialmente para as suas necessidades. #PT#
#T_PT#Instrutor de esqui de Courchevel#T_PT#
#UK#Ваш личный инструктор обеспечит для Вас индивидуальное обслуживание, уделив особое внимание Вашим личным предпочтениям и возможностям. Специальная адаптированная с учетом Ваших потребностей программа подготовки#UK#
#T_UK#Личный инструктор лыжного Куршaвеле#T_UK#
#RU# Инструктор (если Вы едете в первый раз), но в первый же день поможет Вам уже съехать со склона и почувствовать себя великим лыжником : ) Кроме этого, Вы можете на него/нее расчитывать в любой помощи, организация проката лыж, приобретение пассов и даже рекомендации хороших ресторанов для ужина. Личный инструктор в Вашем распоряжении весь день!#RU#
#T_RU#Лыжный инструктор в Куршевеле#T_RU#
Florenz - Kathedrale
seen from Piazzale Michelangelo
gesehen vom seen Piazzale Michelangelo
Florence Cathedral (Italian: Duomo di Firenze), formally the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Flower (Italian: Cattedrale di Santa Maria del Fiore [katteˈdraːle di ˈsanta maˈriːa del ˈfjoːre]), is the cathedral of Florence, Italy. It was begun in 1296 in the Gothic style to a design of Arnolfo di Cambio and was structurally completed by 1436, with the dome engineered by Filippo Brunelleschi. The exterior of the basilica is faced with polychrome marble panels in various shades of green and pink, bordered by white, and has an elaborate 19th-century Gothic Revival façade by Emilio De Fabris.
The cathedral complex, in Piazza del Duomo, includes the Baptistery and Giotto's Campanile. These three buildings are part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site covering the historic centre of Florence and are a major tourist attraction of Tuscany. The basilica is one of Italy's largest churches, and until the development of new structural materials in the modern era, the dome was the largest in the world. It remains the largest brick dome ever constructed.
The cathedral is the mother church of the Archdiocese of Florence, whose archbishop is Giuseppe Betori.
History
Santa Maria del Fiore was built on the site of Florence's second cathedral dedicated to Saint Reparata; the first was the Basilica di San Lorenzo di Firenze, the first building of which was consecrated as a church in 393 by St. Ambrose of Milan.The ancient structure, founded in the early 5th century and having undergone many repairs, was crumbling with age, according to the 14th-century Nuova Cronica of Giovanni Villani, and was no longer large enough to serve the growing population of the city. Other major Tuscan cities had undertaken ambitious reconstructions of their cathedrals during the Late Medieval period, such as Pisa and particularly Siena where the enormous proposed extensions were never completed.
City council approved the design of Arnolfo di Cambio for the new church in 1294. Di Cambio was also architect of the church of Santa Croce and the Palazzo Vecchio. He designed three wide naves ending under the octagonal dome, with the middle nave covering the area of Santa Reparata. The first stone was laid on 9 September 1296, by Cardinal Valeriana, the first papal legate ever sent to Florence. The building of this vast project was to last 140 years; Arnolfo's plan for the eastern end, although maintained in concept, was greatly expanded in size.
After Arnolfo died in 1302, work on the cathedral slowed for almost 50 years. When the relics of Saint Zenobius were discovered in 1330 in Santa Reparata, the project gained a new impetus. In 1331, the Arte della Lana, the guild of wool merchants, took over patronage for the construction of the cathedral and in 1334 appointed Giotto to oversee the work. Assisted by Andrea Pisano, Giotto continued di Cambio's design. His major accomplishment was the building of the campanile. When Giotto died on 8 January 1337, Andrea Pisano continued the building until work was halted due to the Black Death in 1348.
In 1349, work resumed on the cathedral under a series of architects, starting with Francesco Talenti, who finished the campanile and enlarged the overall project to include the apse and the side chapels. In 1359, Talenti was succeeded by Giovanni di Lapo Ghini (1360–1369) who divided the centre nave in four square bays. Other architects were Alberto Arnoldi, Giovanni d'Ambrogio, Neri di Fioravanti and Andrea Orcagna. By 1375, the old church Santa Reparata was pulled down. The nave was finished by 1380, and only the dome remained incomplete until 1418.
On 19 August 1418, the Arte della Lana announced an architectural design competition for erecting Neri's dome. The two main competitors were two master goldsmiths, Lorenzo Ghiberti and Filippo Brunelleschi, the latter of whom was supported by Cosimo de Medici. Ghiberti had been the winner of a competition for a pair of bronze doors for the Baptistery in 1401 and lifelong competition between the two remained sharp. Brunelleschi won and received the commission.
Ghiberti, appointed coadjutor, drew a salary equal to Brunelleschi's and, though neither was awarded the announced prize of 200 florins, was promised equal credit, although he spent most of his time on other projects. When Brunelleschi became ill, or feigned illness, the project was briefly in the hands of Ghiberti. But Ghiberti soon had to admit that the whole project was beyond him. In 1423, Brunelleschi was back in charge and took over sole responsibility.
Work on the dome began in 1420 and finished in 1436. The cathedral was consecrated by Pope Eugene IV on 25 March 1436, (the first day of the year according to the Florentine calendar). It was the first 'octagonal' dome in history to be built without a temporary wooden supporting frame. It was one of the most impressive projects of the Renaissance. During the consecration in 1436, Guillaume Dufay's motet Nuper rosarum flores was performed.
The decoration of the exterior of the cathedral, begun in the 14th century, was not completed until 1887, when the polychrome marble façade was completed with the design of Emilio De Fabris. The floor of the church was relaid in marble tiles in the 16th century.
The exterior walls are faced in alternate vertical and horizontal bands of polychrome marble from Carrara (white), Prato (green), Siena (red), Lavenza and a few other places. These marble bands had to repeat the already existing bands on the walls of the earlier adjacent baptistery the Battistero di San Giovanni and Giotto's Bell Tower. There are two side doors: the Doors of the Canonici (south side) and the Door of the Mandorla (north side) with sculptures by Nanni di Banco, Donatello, and Jacopo della Quercia. The six side windows, notable for their delicate tracery and ornaments, are separated by pilasters. Only the four windows closest to the transept admit light; the other two are merely ornamental. The clerestory windows are round, a common feature in Italian Gothic.
Exterior
Plan and structure
The cathedral of Florence is built as a basilica, having a wide central nave of four square bays, with an aisle on either side. The chancel and transepts are of identical polygonal plan, separated by two smaller polygonal chapels. The whole plan forms a Latin cross. The nave and aisles are separated by wide pointed Gothic arches resting on composite piers.
The dimensions of the building are enormous: building area 8,300 m2 (89,340 sq ft), length 153 m (502 ft), width 38 m (125 ft), width at the crossing 90 m (300 ft). The height of the arches in the aisles is 23 m (75 ft). The height of the dome is 114.5 m (375.7 ft). It has the fifth tallest dome in the world.
Planned sculpture for the exterior
The Overseers of the Office of Works of Florence Cathedral the Arte della Lana, had plans to commission a series of twelve large Old Testament sculptures for the buttresses of the cathedral. Donatello, then in his early twenties, was commissioned to carve a statue of David in 1408, to top one of the buttresses of Florence Cathedral, though it was never placed there. Nanni di Banco was commissioned to carve a marble statue of Isaiah, at the same scale, in the same year. One of the statues was lifted into place in 1409, but was found to be too small to be easily visible from the ground and was taken down; both statues then languished in the workshop of the opera for several years. In 1410 Donatello made the first of the statues, a figure of Joshua in terracotta. In 1409–1411 Donatello made a statue of Saint John the Evangelist which until 1588 was in a niche of the old cathedral façade. Between 1415 and 1426, Donatello created five statues for the campanile of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, also known as the Duomo. These works are the Beardless Prophet; Bearded Prophet (both from 1415); the Sacrifice of Isaac (1421); Habbakuk (1423–25); and Jeremiah (1423–26); which follow the classical models for orators and are characterized by strong portrait details. A figure of Hercules, also in terracotta, was commissioned from the Florentine sculptor Agostino di Duccio in 1463 and was made perhaps under Donatello's direction. A statue of David by Michelangelo was completed 1501–1504 although it could not be placed on the buttress because of its six-ton weight. In 2010 a fiberglass replica of "David" was placed for one day on the Florence cathedral.
Dome
After a hundred years of construction and by the beginning of the 15th century, the structure was still missing its dome. The basic features of the dome had been designed by Arnolfo di Cambio in 1296. His brick model, 4.6 m (15.1 ft) high, 9.2 m (30.2 ft) long, was standing in a side aisle of the unfinished building, and had long been sacrosanct. It called for an octagonal dome higher and wider than any that had ever been built, with no external buttresses to keep it from spreading and falling under its own weight.
The commitment to reject traditional Gothic buttresses had been made when Neri di Fioravanti's model was chosen over a competing one by Giovanni di Lapo Ghini. That architectural choice, in 1367, was one of the first events of the Italian Renaissance, marking a break with the Medieval Gothic style and a return to the classic Mediterranean dome. Italian architects regarded Gothic flying buttresses as ugly makeshifts. Furthermore, the use of buttresses was forbidden in Florence, as the style was favored by central Italy's traditional enemies to the north. Neri's model depicted a massive inner dome, open at the top to admit light, like Rome's Pantheon, partly supported by the inner dome, but enclosed in a thinner outer shell, to keep out the weather. It was to stand on an unbuttressed octagonal drum. Neri's dome would need an internal defense against spreading (hoop stress), but none had yet been designed.
The building of such a masonry dome posed many technical problems. Brunelleschi looked to the great dome of the Pantheon in Rome for solutions. The dome of the Pantheon is a single shell of concrete, the formula for which had long since been forgotten. The Pantheon had employed structural centring to support the concrete dome while it cured. This could not be the solution in the case of a dome this size and would put the church out of use. For the height and breadth of the dome designed by Neri, starting 52 m (171 ft) above the floor and spanning 44 m (144 ft), there was not enough timber in Tuscany to build the scaffolding and forms. Brunelleschi chose to follow such design and employed a double shell, made of sandstone and marble. Brunelleschi would have to build the dome out of brick, due to its light weight compared to stone and being easier to form, and with nothing under it during construction. To illustrate his proposed structural plan, he constructed a wooden and brick model with the help of Donatello and Nanni di Banco, a model which is still displayed in the Museo dell'Opera del Duomo. The model served as a guide for the craftsmen, but was intentionally incomplete, so as to ensure Brunelleschi's control over the construction.
Brunelleschi's solutions were ingenious. The spreading problem was solved by a set of four internal horizontal stone and iron chains, serving as barrel hoops, embedded within the inner dome: one at the top, one at the bottom, with the remaining two evenly spaced between them. A fifth chain, made of wood, was placed between the first and second of the stone chains. Since the dome was octagonal rather than round, a simple chain, squeezing the dome like a barrel hoop, would have put all its pressure on the eight corners of the dome. The chains needed to be rigid octagons, stiff enough to hold their shape, so as not to deform the dome as they held it together.
Each of Brunelleschi's stone chains was built like an octagonal railroad track with parallel rails and cross ties, all made of sandstone beams 43 cm (17 in) in diameter and no more than 2.3 m (7.5 ft) long. The rails were connected end-to-end with lead-glazed iron splices. The cross ties and rails were notched together and then covered with the bricks and mortar of the inner dome. The cross ties of the bottom chain can be seen protruding from the drum at the base of the dome. The others are hidden. Each stone chain was supposed to be reinforced with a standard iron chain made of interlocking links, but a magnetic survey conducted in the 1970s failed to detect any evidence of iron chains, which if they exist are deeply embedded in the thick masonry walls. Brunelleschi also included vertical "ribs" set on the corners of the octagon, curving towards the center point. The ribs, 4 m (13 ft) deep, are supported by 16 concealed ribs radiating from center.The ribs had slits to take beams that supported platforms, thus allowing the work to progress upward without the need for scaffolding.
A circular masonry dome can be built without supports, called centering, because each course of bricks is a horizontal arch that resists compression. In Florence, the octagonal inner dome was thick enough for an imaginary circle to be embedded in it at each level, a feature that would hold the dome up eventually, but could not hold the bricks in place while the mortar was still wet. Brunelleschi used a herringbone brick pattern to transfer the weight of the freshly laid bricks to the nearest vertical ribs of the non-circular dome.
The outer dome was not thick enough to contain embedded horizontal circles, being only 60 cm (2 ft) thick at the base and 30 cm (1 ft) thick at the top. To create such circles, Brunelleschi thickened the outer dome at the inside of its corners at nine different elevations, creating nine masonry rings, which can be observed today from the space between the two domes. To counteract hoop stress, the outer dome relies entirely on its attachment to the inner dome and has no embedded chains.
A modern understanding of physical laws and the mathematical tools for calculating stresses were centuries in the future. Brunelleschi, like all cathedral builders, had to rely on intuition and whatever he could learn from the large scale models he built. To lift 37,000 tons of material, including over 4 million bricks, he invented hoisting machines and lewissons for hoisting large stones. These specially designed machines and his structural innovations were Brunelleschi's chief contribution to architecture. Although he was executing an aesthetic plan made half a century earlier, it is his name, rather than Neri's, that is commonly associated with the dome.
Brunelleschi's ability to crown the dome with a lantern was questioned and he had to undergo another competition, even though there had been evidence that Brunelleschi had been working on a design for a lantern for the upper part of the dome. The evidence is shown in the curvature, which was made steeper than the original model. He was declared the winner over his competitors Lorenzo Ghiberti and Antonio Ciaccheri. His design (now on display in the Museum Opera del Duomo) was for an octagonal lantern with eight radiating buttresses and eight high arched windows. Construction of the lantern was begun a few months before his death in 1446. Then, for 15 years, little progress was possible, due to alterations by several architects. The lantern was finally completed by Brunelleschi's friend Michelozzo in 1461. The conical roof was crowned with a gilt copper ball and cross, containing holy relics, by Verrocchio in 1469. This brings the total height of the dome and lantern to 114.5 m (376 ft). This copper ball was struck by lightning on 17 July 1600 and fell down. It was replaced by an even larger one two years later.
The commission for this gilt copper ball [atop the lantern] went to the sculptor Andrea del Verrocchio, in whose workshop there was at this time a young apprentice named Leonardo da Vinci. Fascinated by Filippo's [Brunelleschi's] machines, which Verrocchio used to hoist the ball, Leonardo made a series of sketches of them and, as a result, is often given credit for their invention.
Leonardo might have also participated in the design of the bronze ball, as stated in the G manuscript of Paris "Remember the way we soldered the ball of Santa Maria del Fiore".
The decorations of the drum gallery by Baccio d'Agnolo were never finished after being disapproved by no one less than Michelangelo.
A huge statue of Brunelleschi now sits outside the Palazzo dei Canonici in the Piazza del Duomo, looking thoughtfully up towards his greatest achievement, the dome that would forever dominate the panorama of Florence. It is still the largest masonry dome in the world.
The building of the cathedral had started in 1296 with the design of Arnolfo di Cambio and was completed in 1469 with the placing of Verrochio's copper ball atop the lantern. But the façade was still unfinished and would remain so until the 19th century.
Facade
The original façade, designed by Arnolfo di Cambio and usually attributed to Giotto, was actually begun twenty years after Giotto's death. A mid-15th-century pen-and-ink drawing of this so-called Giotto's façade is visible in the Codex Rustici, and in the drawing of Bernardino Poccetti in 1587, both on display in the Museum of the Opera del Duomo. This façade was the collective work of several artists, among them Andrea Orcagna and Taddeo Gaddi. This original façade was completed in only its lower portion and then left unfinished. It was dismantled in 1587–1588 by the Medici court architect Bernardo Buontalenti, ordered by Grand Duke Francesco I de' Medici, as it appeared totally outmoded in Renaissance times. Some of the original sculptures are on display in the Museum Opera del Duomo, behind the cathedral. Others are now in the Berlin Museum and in the Louvre.
The competition for a new façade turned into a huge corruption scandal. The wooden model for the façade of Buontalenti is on display in the Museum Opera del Duomo. A few new designs had been proposed in later years, but the models (of Giovanni Antonio Dosio, Giovanni de' Medici with Alessandro Pieroni and Giambologna) were not accepted. The façade was then left bare until the 19th century.
In 1864, a competition held to design a new façade was won by Emilio De Fabris (1808–1883) in 1871. Work began in 1876 and was completed in 1887. This neo-gothic façade in white, green and red marble forms a harmonious entity with the cathedral, Giotto's bell tower and the Baptistery, but some think it is excessively decorated.
The whole façade is dedicated to the Mother of Christ.
Cracking of the dome
The unreinforced masonry that Brunelleschi used to construct the dome is weak in tension which leads to cracking when tensile stresses exceed the limited masonry tensile strength. The material is especially susceptible to damage from seismic loading due to its heterogeneity and many surfaces between different materials (stones to mortar connection).
Cracking of the dome was observed even before its construction was completed. It is possible that the first cracks were caused by a strong earthquake in 1453.[
The first written evidence about the presence of cracks appears in a report by Gherardo Silvani report dated 18 September 1639 which refers to "peli" ("hairs"). In 1694 Gianbattista Nelli and Vincenzo Viviani surveyed the cracks with Nelli recording that there were two major cracks with a maximum width of 29 mm (1.1 in). They believed that the cracks were caused by the weight of the dome, and the resulting the horizontal thrusts on the pillars. A commission, headed by Vincenzo Viviani carried out investigations in 1695 and came to the conclusion that the cracking was due to the dead weight of the buildings, it was proposed that the dome be strengthened by installing four large iron belts; three on the outside of the dome between the bugling area of the dome and the circular windows, while the fourth would be installed internally in the second walkway between the two shells. This was similar to what had been done on the dome of St. Peter's in Rome. After a long debate, a decision was made to leave the dome as it was.
The first most complete survey of the cracks was published in 1757 by the Jesuit Leonardo Ximenes (1716–1786). In his document he described 13 different crack typologies. In 1934, Pier Luigi Nervi, who was head of a special commission established by the Opera del Duomo to study the cracking observed that the cracks opened and closed with the seasons. In the winter, the dome's stone and bricks would contract causing the cracks to widen while over the summer the materials would expand and the cracks would close up. While modern buildings by design incorporate expansion joints, the cathedral's dome does not include any and so subsequently developed its own expansion joints in the form of these cracks which allowed the structure to "breathe". To date they have not caused any catastrophic damage to the dome.
In 1955 the Opera del Duomo installed 22 mechanical deformometers, which were read four times a year to record the variations in the width of the major cracks in the inner dome. At the same time the dome's internal and external temperatures were also recorded. This remained in service until 2009.
In 1975 a commission was appointed by the Italian government to safeguard the dome. In 1978 a government culture agency decided to restore the frescoes. Brunelleschi left forty eight 600 mm (24 in) holes in the base of the dome. They are open on the inside and covered by the outer skin of the dome. It has long been assumed that the holes simply served as mounts for the scaffold used when frescoes were painted on the inside of the dome. While the holes had been able to support the scaffolding used for the creation of the frescos on the interior of the dome they were not strong enough for the network of modern metal scaffolding necessary to provide access for the restoration work undertaken on the frescos between 1979 and 1995. To strengthen the scaffolding, the private company contracted to build scaffolding for the work was allowed in 1982 to fill the holes with concrete so that steel beams could be anchored in them.
In 1985 local architect Lando Bartoli noticed that additional cracks were forming around the sealed holes. It was theorized at the time that in summer the four major masses separated by the "A" cracks expanded into the fissures, but now, at the base of the dome, the masses come up against the unyielding concrete that now fills the 48 holes acts as a fulcrum which causes the energy that was once dissipated with the closing of the fissures and into the holes to be transferred into the upper areas of the dome. However analysis by Andrea Chiarugi, Michele Fanelli and Giuseppetti (published in 1983) found that the principal source of the cracks was a dead-weight effect due to the geometry of the dome, its weight (estimated to be 25,000 tons) and the insufficient resistance of the ring beam, while thermal variations, has caused fatigue loading and thus expanding of the structure. This is a well-known collapse mechanism typical of domed structures: a lowering of the top of the structure under its own weight with significant horizontal thrusts on the bearing elements.
In 1985 a commission established by the Italian Ministry of Cultural and Monumental Heritage accepted this theory. The debate about the filling of the scaffolding holes was finally settled in 1987 when it was demonstrated that closing the 48 holes had had no impact on the expansion and contraction of the dome. A survey completed in 1984 counted a total of 493 cracks of various sizes, sorted into categories identified by the letters "A" through "D". These are as follows:
Type A. These are sub-vertical major cracks that start from the ring beam and continue upwards for approximately two-thirds of the height of the dome; they pass through both the internal and external layer of the even webs and their range in thickness from 55 mm (2.2 in) to 60 mm (2.4 in) (webs 4 and 6) and 25 mm (0.98 in) to 30 mm (1.2 in) (webs 2 and 8). The dome has eight webs numbered counter clockwise from 1, which faces the main nave of the cathedral. These effectively divide the dome into quarters and never completely close in summer. There is a theory that the plaster used to patch the cracks over the years and crumbling building materials have jammed the fissures.
Type B. These sub-vertical minor cracks are located near the circular windows.
Type C. These are sub-vertical minor cracks that are present around the eight edges of the dome.
Type D. These are four sub-vertical minor cracks in the internal part of the odd webs. They do not pass through the width of the dome.
All have formed in a symmetrical pattern.
The development of the Type "A" cracks means that the dome now permanently behaves as four drifting half-arches linked below the upper oculus. The abutments of these half-arches are constituted by the pillars, the chapels and the nave of the church. The differences in the cracking patterns between even and odd webs is believed to be due to variations in the stiffness of the supporting ring beam structure under the dome as it is supported by four heavy pillars which line up with the even webs while the odd webs are located over four arches which connect the pillars.
In 1987 a second and more comprehensive digital system (which automatically collects data every six hours) was installed by ISMES (in cooperation with the "Soprintendenza", the local branch of the Ministry of Culture, which is responsible for the conservation of all historical monuments in Florence) in 1987. It consists of 166 instruments, among which are 60 thermometers measuring the masonry and air temperature at various locations, 72 inductive type displacement transducers (deformometers) at various levels on the main cracks of the inner and outer domes; eight plumb-lines at the centre of each web, which measure the relative displacements between pillars and tambour; eight livellometers and two piezometers, one near the web 4 and the other below the nave which register the variation of the underground water level. A linear regression analysis of the recorded data has shown that the major cracks are widening by approximately 3 mm (0.12 in) per century. Another source quotes a movement of 5.5mm.
Using software that had been used to model the structures of large dam a computer model of the dome was developed in 1980 in a collaboration between Italian National Agency for Electric Power and Structural and Hydraulic Research Centre (CRIS) by a group of researcher leaded by Michele Fanelli and Gabriella Giuseppetti in cooperation with the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Florence, under the supervision of Andrea Chiarugi. Because of limited computational resources and for reasons of symmetry only a quarter of the dome was modelled. The resulting finite elements analysis confirmed that the main cracks was essentially being created by self-weight of the dome. Since then series of numerical models of increasing complexity have been developed. To assist in monitoring of the dome an extensive photogrammetric and topographical survey of the entire dome was commissioned in 1992 by the "Soprintendenza". The results of this survey were then used to further develop the finite elements model of the dome.
(Wikipedia)
Die Kathedrale Santa Maria del Fiore (italienisch Cattedrale metropolitana di Santa Maria del Fiore) in Florenz ist die Bischofskirche des Erzbistums Florenz und somit Metropolitankirche der Kirchenprovinz Florenz. Sie wurde von Papst Eugen IV. am 24. März 1436 geweiht und trägt den Titel einer Basilica minor. Das Kirchenschiff fasst circa 4.000–5.000 Personen. Ihre gewaltige Kuppel, das Hauptwerk Brunelleschis, gilt als technische Meisterleistung der frühen Renaissance.
Dimensionen
Der Florentiner Dom ist, bezogen auf die Länge des Längsschiffs, nach dem Petersdom im Vatikan, St Paul’s Cathedral in London und dem Mailänder Dom die viertgrößte Kirche in Europa (nach der bebauten Fläche rangiert allerdings noch die Kathedrale von Sevilla in Spanien an dritter Stelle). Seine Abmessungen: 153 m Länge, 38 m Breite, Breite des Kuppelfundaments 90 m. Die Seitenschiffe haben eine Gewölbehöhe von 23 m, das Mittelschiff ist um etwa 12 Meter höher. Die lichte Höhe der Kuppel beträgt vom Boden bis zur Laterne 90 m. Außen ist die Kuppel mit Laterne mehr als 114 m hoch.
Baugeschichte
Bis ins 13. Jahrhundert hatten den Bewohnern der Stadt das Baptisterium San Giovanni sowie einige kleine Kirchen zur Repräsentation genügt. Erst 1296 entschloss man sich zum Bau eines Doms nach Plänen von Arnolfo di Cambio. Der Bau sollte Ausmaße haben, wie sie die Toskana nie zuvor gesehen hatte. Der Entschluss kam nicht aus einem religiösen Impuls, sondern aus dem Wunsch nach einem weithin sichtbaren Monument, nicht zuletzt in Konkurrenz zu Venedig, Pisa und zum 1229 begonnenen Dombau in Siena.
Baubeginn
Noch im gleichen Jahre wurde mit der Errichtung der Westfassade begonnen. Die ursprüngliche Bischofskirche, Santa Reparata, wurde dabei zunächst von dem Neubau umgeben und weiter liturgisch genutzt. Nach dem Tod Arnolfos kamen die Arbeiten zum Erliegen, da die Ressourcen zum Bau der dritten Stadtmauer und zur Errichtung des Palazzo della Signoria genutzt wurden. Von der Fassade war nach Arnolfos Entwürfen bis dahin nur der untere Teil vollendet.
Der Campanile Giottos
Erst die spätere Berufung Giottos brachte neue Impulse. Doch Giotto, schon 68 Jahre alt, richtete seine ganze Energie auf den Campanile, der in kürzerer Zeit zu vollenden war. So wollte er Florenz wenigstens mit dem Campanile ein alles überragendes Wahrzeichen schenken.
Die Turmfundamente waren bereits 1298 zu Beginn der Bauarbeiten an der neuen Kathedrale unter Arnolfo di Cambio gelegt worden. Die für die italienische Gotik ungewöhnliche Position des Glockenturms – in einer Linie mit der Westfassade – wird zum einen als Indiz für die besondere Betonung der Vertikalen als Zentrum der Bischöflichen Insel gewertet, andererseits wollte man die Sichtachse auf die geplante große Kuppel freihalten.
Giotto di Bondone entwarf einen Campanile, der eine pyramidenförmige Spitze mit einer Höhe von 50 florentinischen Braccia (Armlängen), also etwa 30 Metern gehabt hätte; insgesamt wäre er 110–115 Meter hoch geworden. Bei Giottos Tod im Jahr 1337 war erst das erste Geschoss fertiggestellt. Andrea Pisano und Francesco Talenti beendeten den Bau 1359 mit einigen Änderungen. Der Turm bekam ein niedriges Pyramidendach und wurde nur 85 m hoch.
Im Turm sind insgesamt zwölf Kirchenglocken untergebracht. Eine Glocke befindet sich abgestellt auf dem Boden des Glockengeschosses. Sie ist die 1516 von Lodovico di Guglielmo gegossene 2500 Kilogramm schwere Apostolica. Zudem hängen auf allen vier Seiten, jeweils zwischen Glockenstube und Fenster vier kleinere Glocken (Beona, Maria Anna, Campana Piccola, Campana Più Piccola), die nicht geläutet werden können. Die übrigen sieben Glocken bilden das Hauptgeläut, das seit 2000/2001 über einen neuen elektrischen Läuteantrieb verfügt.
Wiederaufnahme der Bauarbeiten am Dom
Ab 1330 übernahm die Wollweberzunft die Verantwortung für den Dombau. Neue Baumeister modifizierten die Pläne immer wieder, bis sie 1368 gebilligt und das danach entstandene Ziegelmodell (Maßstab 1:10) für verbindlich erklärt wurden. Der Bau konnte nun schneller vorangetrieben werden. Schon 1379 wurde das Langhaus für den Gottesdienst in Gebrauch genommen.
Fassade
Die unter Arnolfo di Cambio begonnene Fassade wurde schon 1588 als unzeitgemäß empfunden und abgerissen, um Platz für eine neue Fassadengestaltung zu schaffen, für die die Mittel dann allerdings nicht ausreichten. Die heutige Westfassade ist eine neogotische Vervollständigung des späten 19. Jahrhunderts, die den Stil des Langhauses, die Gestaltung in dreifarbigem Marmor, fortsetzt. Sie wurde nach Entwürfen von Emilio de Fabris und Guglielmo Calderini (Obergeschoss) bis 1887 vollendet.
Kuppel
Brunelleschis Kuppel
1417 legte Brunelleschi sein erstes Kuppelmodell vor, nachdem vorher beschlossen worden war, eine noch prächtigere und größere Kuppel zu erstellen, als das erste Modell vorgesehen hatte. Der Bau der 107 Meter hohen Kuppel mit einem Durchmesser von 45 Metern dauerte 16 Jahre (1418 bis 1434). Von Anfang an trug die aus zwei Schalen bestehende Konstruktion sich selbst und wurde ohne Lehrgerüst errichtet. Aufgrund ihrer Einzigartigkeit wird sie noch heute als Höhepunkt der Renaissance gesehen. Der Dom wurde nach der Fertigstellung der Kuppel am 25. März 1436 in Anwesenheit von Donatello, Brunelleschi, Ghiberti, Michelozzo und Alberti durch Papst Eugen IV. geweiht. Für die Ausführung der Glasfenster wurde 1436 der Glasmaler Francesco Livi aus Lübeck nach Florenz berufen. Die Laterne wurde nach einem Entwurf Brunelleschis von 1446 bis 1461, zuletzt unter der Aufsicht von Michelozzo, erbaut. Bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts gab es immer wieder kleinere Arbeiten am Dom.
Ausmalung der Kuppel
Die Innenbemalung der Kuppel war nach früherer einhelliger Meinung der Kunsthistoriker missglückt. Kein Geringerer als Giorgio Vasari, der Vater der Kunstgeschichtsschreibung und der Schöpfer des gleichnamigen Korridors über den Ponte Vecchio, hatte 1572 dieses Fresko begonnen, das 1579 von Federico Zuccari vollendet wurde. Es ist in seinen Ausmaßen riesig und gilt nach der Fläche als der größte Fresken-Zyklus zu einem christlichen Thema. Hunderte von Kolossalfiguren gruppieren sich auf insgesamt 4000 m² um den Weltenrichter, den man in der unteren Mitte mühsam erkennen kann. Vasaris Traum soll es gewesen sein, Michelangelos Jüngstes Gericht in der Sixtinischen Kapelle zu übertreffen.
Das Riesenwerk ist nicht unproblematisch. Denn es ist so weit vom Boden entfernt, dass man kaum ein Detail hinreichend erkennen kann – der Kuppelraum ist normalerweise dunkler als auf den Fotos –, und vor allem: Das Fresko Vasaris lässt die Kuppel nicht höher erscheinen, sondern niedriger. Das Kuppelfresko wurde seit 1979 restauriert und ist 1994 wieder enthüllt worden, wobei die beiden Kunsthistorikerinnen Cristina Acidini und Cristina Danti bisher ungewürdigte künstlerische Qualitäten dokumentiert haben.
Vasari war schon krank, als er 1572 im Alter von 61 Jahren das Gerüst zur Ausmalung der Kuppel bestieg und starb bereits zwei Jahre danach 1574 lange vor der Vollendung des Freskos. Federico Zuccari übermalte und modernisierte teilweise Vasaris Malerei. Dabei unterliefen ihm auch einige Fehler. So bekam beispielsweise ein Esel die massigen Beine eines Bären, der seinerseits mit Hufen ausgestattet wurde, was vom Boden der Kathedrale aus jedoch nicht sichtbar ist.
Einzelne Aspekte zum Florentiner Kuppelbau
Vorgeschichte
Die Kuppel des Domes von Florenz ist nicht die Bekrönung der Vierung eines lateinischen Kreuzes, also einer Kreuzung von Langhaus und Querhaus, sondern einer Drei-Konchen-Anlage, somit also ein Zentralbau, der erste der Renaissance. Zumindest hieß es so lange Zeit in der Fachliteratur. Aber dieser Zentralbau ist eine Idee der Gotik und seine Durchführung wurde mit gotischen Mitteln erreicht. Man sagt also besser: Dieser gotische Plan kam den Tendenzen der Renaissance entgegen.
Die Bewunderung für das antike römische Pantheon und die architektonische Tradition hatten sich vereint, um die Kuppel zum idealen und zentralen Bestandteil der Kirche zu machen. Es scheint, dass man auch in jenen Fällen, in denen man keinen Zentralbau durchführen konnte, weil – wie hier am Florentiner Dom – ein Langhaus bereits vorgegeben war, sich als Ersatz dafür im Ostbau wenigstens die Illusion eines Zentralbaus mit der Kuppel als wichtigstem Bestandteil hat verschaffen wollen.
Dabei gab es eine prinzipielle Schwierigkeit in der Renaissance bei der Verbindung des Zentralbauideals mit rein liturgischen Erfordernissen. Sollte ein Zentralbau eine Kuppel erhalten, dann konnte er nicht allzu groß werden, weil die Konstruktion der Kuppel das schwierigste von allem war. Deshalb wurde das Ideal des reinen Zentralbaus meistens bei kleineren Kirchen erfüllt.
In großen Kirchen sollten aber auch viele Menschen zusammenkommen, und das widersprach den technischen Grenzen des Zentralbaus. Deshalb wurden häufig Kompromisse gebildet, indem man an einen zentralbauähnlichen Ostteil ein Langhaus anschloss. Jetzt konnten zwar viele Gläubige im Innenraum zusammengefasst werden, aber ein idealer Zentralbau war das nicht, wie man am Grundriss sehen kann.
Besonders dramatisch waren später diese Auseinandersetzungen beim Neubau von St. Peter in Rom. Auch hier siegte im Endeffekt die politische Wirkung eines solchen bedeutenden Baues über das architektonische Ideal Michelangelos. Und die Politik spielte auch hier in Florenz eine Rolle.
Die Kuppel als Träger der Staatsidee
Von jeher war Architektur in den italienischen Stadtstaaten dazu ausersehen, Träger der Staatsideen zu werden. Und die Kuppel des Florentiner Doms hier war der deutlich sichtbare Ausdruck eines neuen Machtanspruchs einer Stadt, die mit 50.000 Einwohnern so viele Bewohner hatte wie London. Durch Brunelleschi wurde die Kuppel zu einer neuen Pathosformel erhoben – und das merkt man bis hin zum Kapitol in Washington von 1857. Im Mittelalter war der Turm oder die Turmgruppe das höchste architektonische Zeichen städtischer Majestät. Jetzt in der Neuzeit, in der Renaissance, wurde die Kuppel das Symbol staatlicher Macht.
Hier spielt sicher auch eine Rolle, dass zur damaligen Zeit Florenz mit Kunstwerken deutlich weniger ausgestattet war als seine italienischen Konkurrenten. Nach den Zeiten der Protorenaissance im 11. Jahrhundert gab es seltsamerweise eine lange Pause in der Entwicklung der Kunst. Erst 1246 mit der Dominikanerkirche Santa Maria Novella wurde wieder eine neue Periode in der Kunstgeschichte der Stadt eröffnet.
Im ganzen 12. Jahrhundert und noch im frühen 13. Jahrhundert, als in Pisa bereits der Dom erweitert wurde, der Campanile, das Baptisterium und der Camposanto erbaut wurden, als man in Lucca, in Pistoia, in Prato und später auch in Arezzo und Siena Dome und Kirchen errichtete, entstand in Florenz kein Bauwerk gleichen Ranges. Während sich Pisa und Lucca zu Zentren der Bildhauerkunst und der Malerei entfalteten, ist für Florenz kaum eine Skulptur und kein Gemälde bezeugt. In dieser fast 150 Jahre dauernden Pause schuf Florenz stattdessen die wirtschaftlichen und politischen Voraussetzungen für seine spätere Vormachtstellung, die dann durch den Bau des Domes und vor allem durch die dominierende Kuppel neuen, majestätischen Ausdruck erhalten sollte. Also: Die Kuppel des Doms hatte für Florenz wortwörtlich überragende Bedeutung. Hier musste mit einem Schlag ein langer künstlerischer Rückstand übersprungen werden. Florenz hatte gleichsam keine Wahl. Die Kuppel musste gelingen.
Das Interessante daran ist, dass möglicherweise bereits Arnolfo di Cambio, der 1296 mit dem Bau begonnen hatte, eine solche Kuppel vorgesehen hatte. Inspiriert war diese Idee sicher damals schon vom Baptisterium und von den gigantischen Kuppelbauten der römischen Antike, vor allem auch hier vom Pantheon in Rom und von der Hagia Sophia in Byzanz. Als weiteres Vorbild darf sicher die Kuppel des Pisaner Domes angenommen werden und die des Doms von Siena, einer Stadt, zu der Florenz in besonderer Konkurrenz stand. Aber die Verbindung dieser Idee einer so gigantischen Kuppel mit einem gotischen Langhaus war neu.
Die Probleme eines Kuppelbaus
Der Plan zu einer riesigen Kuppel war auch 1367 vorherrschend, als nach langer Bauunterbrechung eine Kommission der Baumeister und Maler die Ausdehnung der Vierung selbstbewusst auf 42 Meter erhöhte und eine Gewölbehöhe der noch zu bauenden Kuppel von 83 Metern vorsah] Damit sollte die Florentiner Kuppel nicht nur die breiteste, sondern auch die höchste jemals errichtete Kuppel werden. Man hatte dabei sicher das Pantheon in Rom vor Augen, dessen Kuppeldurchmesser 42,70 Meter beträgt, also fast identisch mit den Florentiner Plänen.
Die aus diesen gewaltigen Ausmaßen resultierenden Schwierigkeiten erkannte man erst später. Denn man wusste nicht, wie man ein solch riesiges Gewölbe von 42 Metern Durchmesser über dem achteckigen Grundriss errichten konnte. Es erwies sich nämlich beispielsweise als unmöglich, die Gerüstbalken zu beschaffen, die für den Bau einer solchen Wölbung benötigt wurden. Denn man war zuvor – 1410–1413 – auf die kühne Idee gekommen, auf das 42 Meter hohe oktogonale Grundgeschoss noch ein Tambourgeschoß von knapp zehn Metern Höhe und 4½ Metern Dicke aufzusetzen, so dass die Kuppel erst in der unglaublichen Höhe von 52 Metern ansetzte, also in einer Höhe, die über den höchsten Gewölben der französischen gotischen Kathedralen lag – das höchste gotische Gewölbe hat die Kathedrale von Beauvais mit 48 Metern.
Übrigens erhielt die Kirche erst jetzt ihren heutigen Namen Santa Maria del Fiore. Bis dahin hieß sie wie die Vorgängerkirche Santa Reparata.
Und damit niemand auf die Idee kam, diesen neuen, kühnen Plan von 1367 zugunsten älterer, einfacherer Lösungen zu verlassen und damit den neuen Machtanspruch von Florenz zu reduzieren, vernichtete man alle älteren Dokumente, die sich mit dem Dombau befassten. Man hat also gleichsam alle Brücken hinter sich abgebrochen. Entweder diese neue Kuppel mit bisher noch nie erreichter Höhe – oder gar keine. Daher ist nur unzulänglich bekannt, wie sich Arnolfo di Cambio und seine frühen Nachfolger den Dom eigentlich vorgestellt hatten.
Die Konkurrenzsituation
Damals, in der 2. Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts herrschte eine scharfe Konkurrenz zwischen den großen norditalienischen Städten in Bezug auf ihre zentralen großen Kirchenbauten. In Florenz wurden teilweise über acht Prozent der gesamten Staatseinkünfte für den Bau des Domes aufgewandt.
1388 wurde in Bologna der Dom San Petronio begonnen, der den im Bau befindlichen Florentiner Dom noch übertreffen sollte, aber nie vollendet wurde. Zwei Jahre zuvor, 1386, war der Mailänder Dom begonnen worden, der nicht nur die italienischen, sondern alle Kathedralen des Abendlandes übertreffen sollte – allerdings ohne große Türme und ohne Kuppel. Die Kuppelwölbung war das große Problem und sie blieb es bis in unsere Zeit hinein, daher auch ihre große Bedeutung für die Repräsentation. Noch in der Nikolaikirche in Potsdam in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, im Kapitol von Washington 1857 und in den Großmacht-Fantasien des NS-Architekten Albert Speer für das Neue Berlin der 40er Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts wirkte diese Idee nach.
1414 war in Florenz der Bau wieder ins Stocken geraten. Als vorerst letztes Glied wurde der zehn Meter hohe achteckige Tambour mit seinen runden Lichtöffnungen von 3,5 Meter Durchmesser errichtet. Die oktogonale Basis als Auflager für die Dachkonstruktion war damit vorgegeben.
Der Wettbewerb
Das Problem wurde über einen Wettbewerb im Jahr 1418 gelöst. Man schrieb am 19. August einen Wettbewerb aus, den Brunelleschi nach diversen Widerständen mit einem Rohentwurf gewann.
Die revolutionäre Idee Brunelleschis bestand darin, das Baugerüst gar nicht auf dem Boden aufsetzen zu lassen, sondern als Klettergerüst innerhalb der noch zu bauenden Kuppel zu verankern. Die Gutachterkommission lehnte seinen Vorschlag zunächst mehrmals ab. Brunelleschi bestand aber auf seinem Plan, teilweise so beharrlich, dass man ihn mehrmals aus den Sitzungen der Gutachterkommission hinaustragen musste. Außerdem war Brunelleschi nicht bei einem Baumeister in die Lehre gegangen, sondern bei einem Goldschmied, gehörte also nicht zur Gilde der Steinmetze, sondern derjenigen der Seidenweber an, die sich mit den Goldschmieden zusammengeschlossen hatten.
Erst als auf Seiten der Stadt keine brauchbare Alternative zu Brunelleschis Plan gefunden wurde, ließ man sich doch auf dessen Idee ein. Brunelleschi wurde nach der Annahme seines Rohentwurfes gebeten, einen genauen Plan auszuarbeiten. Ihm wurde zwar die Bauleitung übertragen, aber als unerfahrenem Baumeister wurde ihm – zur Vorsicht – Lorenzo Ghiberti an die Seite gestellt, was ihn sehr geärgert haben muss. Beide sollen sich zeitlebens wenig verstanden haben, nachdem 1401 Brunelleschi im Wettbewerb um die zweite Bronzetür des Baptisteriums Ghiberti unterlegen war. Trotzdem arbeiteten sie 18 Jahre lang an der Kuppel des Florentiner Domes zusammen, anfangs mit gleichem Gehalt. Um Ghibertis Inkompetenz bloßzustellen, soll Brunelleschi eine Krankheit fingiert haben, deretwegen die Bauarbeiten ins Stocken kamen.
Der Baubeginn der Kuppel
Der Baubeginn der Kuppel fand am 7. August 1420 in 52 Metern Höhe statt. Im gleichen Jahr war Brunelleschi mit einer weiteren genialen Idee aufgetreten. Er übernahm ein Bauprinzip aus der nordeuropäischen Gotik, die Rippenwölbung. Er verlegte Rippen an jeder Ecke des Oktogons und jeweils zwei zusätzliche im Innern jeder Gewölbekappe, also insgesamt 24, die miteinander durch waagerechte Querbalken verbunden waren. Die äußeren sind die weithin sichtbaren acht großen Marmorrippen mit einem Maß von 4,4 × 3,5 Metern. Jedes der acht Segmente der Kuppelschale ist an seiner Basis 17 Meter breit, 3,50 Meter dick und vollwandig aus massivem Kalksandstein geschichtet.
Durch diese insgesamt 24 Rippen entstand ein Skelettsystem, das mit zwei Ziegelschalen, einer inneren und einer äußeren, ausgefugt wurde. Die Schalen aus Ziegeln wurden in einzelnen Ringen von unten nach oben aufgemauert; die Kuppel wurde ohne Lehrgerüst errichtet. Das Deckenloch wurde zuerst wie im Pantheon in Rom offen gelassen. Später wurde die Laterne aufgesetzt.
Um einen Begriff davon zu bekommen, um welche Dimensionen an Hölzern es sich hier handelte: Für die Halbkuppel der südlichen Apsis, die im Jahr 1418 mit einem solchen Lehrgerüst konstruiert wurde, benötigte man 32 Baumstämme, die in Bohlen von insgesamt 280 Metern Länge und 135 Balken zersägt wurden. Die Halbkuppel ist aber weitaus kleiner im Vergleich zur Vierungskuppel, für die nach einer Schätzung zwanzig Mal so viel Holz benötigt wurde.
Das waren bis dahin kaum vorstellbare und schwerlich finanzierbare Dimensionen, und auch die technische Realisierbarkeit blieb weiterhin fraglich. Brunelleschi, der sich in antiker Architektur auskannte, nahm die alte Idee der Doppelschaligkeit auf und erfand ganz neue Techniken für die einzelnen Arbeitsschritte.
Zugringe aus Stein
Eine doppelschalige Kuppelkonstruktion entsprach der antiken Tradition. Auch das Baptisterium besitzt in Ansätzen eine solche doppelte Schale. Die Idee stammt aus dem mittelalterlichen Persien und stellte das typische Merkmal islamischer Moscheen dar. Trotz der Doppelschaligkeit blieben bauliche Schwierigkeiten.
Die Kuppel musste – auch als Rippenkonstruktion – zusätzlich abgestützt werden, genauso wie in der gotischen Architektur Nordeuropas, wo diese Idee herkam. Aber in Italien gibt es außer beim Mailänder Dom kein äußeres, stützendes Strebewerk wie in Frankreich oder Deutschland. Die riesige Kuppel in Florenz kann seitlich nicht abgestützt werden, da sie in zu großer Höhe thront. Um den horizontalen Schub des Gewölbes zu neutralisieren und nur noch Vertikalkräfte in die Tambourwände einzuleiten, erfand Brunelleschi „ein System so genannter Steinketten, um die beiden Gewölbeschalen zusammenzuhalten. Sie setzen an den Rippen an und sind durch Metallklammern verbunden, so dass sie Zugspannung aufnehmen können. Ohne sie würden die Rippen unter der Gesteinslast nach außen gedrückt“ und bersten.
Die Kuppel: Gotik oder Renaissance?
Die Kuppelkonstruktion hatte nachhaltige Konsequenzen für die Architektur der gesamten Renaissance. Deswegen setzte die Kunstgeschichte den Beginn der Renaissance lange Zeit auf diesen Kuppelbau von 1420 bis 1436.
Gegen diese Sichtweise ist aber einiges einzuwenden. Die Kuppel war unzweifelhaft eine Glanzleistung, die von niemandem übertroffen worden ist, auch nicht von Michelangelo später am Petersdom in Rom. Aber in diesem Fall war Brunelleschi in erster Linie als Ingenieur gefordert, die in der Planung bereits festgelegte Vierungskuppel zu erbauen. „Das ganze Werk hat bezeichnenderweise ein spitzbogiges, gotisches Profil, denn es ist nach dem gotischen Prinzip der tragenden Rippen erbaut. Selbst wenn Brunelleschi die Kuppel des Pantheon studiert hat, um seine Technik zu vervollkommnen, haben die beiden Werke doch nichts miteinander gemein: die Kuppel des Pantheon ist eine echte Halbkugel, […], die von den riesigen Mauern getragen wird. […] Die Florentiner Kuppel ist ein ins Gigantische gesteigertes Spitzbogengewölbe, das als Kuppel getarnt ist. Nur in den untergeordneten Bauelementen erscheint der Stil Brunelleschis – und damit Renaissancekunst.“ Auch das Motiv des Kapellenkranzes, der sich um die Vierung herumlegt, kommt aus der nordeuropäischen Architektur, ist also Gotik (oder sogar Romanik) und keine Renaissance.
Das erste wirkliche Renaissance-Bauwerk Brunelleschis ist die nicht weit entfernte Kirche von San Lorenzo.
Es ist wahrscheinlich nicht so, dass sich Brunelleschi von Anfang an über alle Details der Konstruktion im Klaren war. Auf viele Ideen kam er erst während der 16-jährigen Bauzeit. Und der obere spätere Teil der Kuppel war der schwierigere, weil hier die Wölbung wesentlich stärker ist. Genaue Informationen über Brunelleschis Pläne und Phantasien sind nicht bekannt, weil er in dieser Hinsicht schweigsam war. Er befürchtete, dass andere ihm seine Ideen stehlen könnten. Deshalb informierte er nur seine nächsten Mitarbeiter über seine Pläne – und das auch nur spät. Brunelleschi ist in Sichtweite des Domes aufgewachsen, kannte von Kindesbeinen an die Probleme, die seine Vorgänger mit der Wölbung hatten, informierte sich jahrelang auch in Rom über antike Architektur und hatte mit Sicherheit diverse Pläne im Kopf, wie eine solche Kuppel zu konstruieren sei. Aber er wusste, dass er der einzige war, der so etwas konnte, und behielt sein Wissen möglichst bei sich. Wenn er für sich selbst Pläne aufzeichnete, bediente er sich einer Geheimschrift, die niemand anderer lesen konnte.
Eisenkette
So gibt es beispielsweise seit ewigen Zeiten Gerüchte über eine Eisenkette, die Brunelleschi angeblich zusätzlich zu den bekannten Steinketten um den Sockel der Kuppel hat legen lassen. Eine magnetische Untersuchung, die in den 1970er Jahren durchgeführt wurde, erbrachte keinen Beweis, dass diese Ketten tatsächlich existieren.
Holzkette
Was es aber außer den vier Steinketten wirklich gibt, ist eine 1424 hinzugefügte Holzkette 7½ Meter über der untersten Steinkette – bestehend aus Balken aus Kastanienholz von sechs Metern Länge und einem Querschnitt von 30 × 30 Zentimetern. Dieses Holz musste gefunden und sorgfältig mit einem speziellen Verfahren verarbeitet werden, was mehrere Jahre in Anspruch nahm. Dass man außer an Stein- auch an Holzketten dachte, hat damit zu tun, dass man eine solche Holzkonstruktion für widerstandsfähiger bei Erdbeben hielt. Bei der Hagia Sophia in Konstantinopel war man so vorgegangen und bei einigen anderen Bauten in den gefährdeten Gebieten beispielsweise in Persien. Und tatsächlich erlitt die cupola bei den Erdbeben von 1510, 1675 und 1895 keine Schäden. Die Holzkette musste übrigens im 18. Jahrhundert ausgetauscht werden, weil das Holz zu verrotten begann.
Baumaschinen
Zu Brunelleschis Glanzleistungen zählen unter anderem auch die Maschinen, die er entworfen hat, um mit ihnen die Steine in die Höhe zu ziehen. Hier waren Konstruktionen notwendig, die zur damaligen Zeit noch nicht existierten. Die Materialaufzüge und Kräne, die Filippo entwarf, wurden zu den meistbewunderten mechanischen Geräten der Renaissance. Das Seil für den Lastenaufzug wurde in Pisa bestellt, einer Hochburg des Schiffbaus. Aber auch die dortigen Fachleute sahen sich einer neuen Aufgabe gegenüber, denn es wurde das längste und schwerste Seil benötigt, das jemals angefertigt worden war: 180 Meter lang, mehr als sieben Zentimeter dick und mit einem Gewicht von nahezu einer halben Tonne. Dieser Aufzug bewegte täglich ca. 50 Mal die Steine in die Höhe, also ungefähr eine Fuhre alle zehn Minuten.
Bevor die einzelnen Steine in der Kuppel eingesetzt wurden, mussten sie natürlich genau zugehauen werden. Die Schablonen dafür wurden auf einem Grundstück hergestellt, das Brunelleschi im Sommer 1420 flussabwärts auf einem Uferbereich des Arno auf einer Fläche von 800 m² präpariert hatte. Dort wurde ein Plan der Kuppel im Verhältnis 1:1 in den Sand geritzt. Bei den gotischen Kathedralen Nordeuropas war man ähnlich vorgegangen. Diese Schablonen von über 2½ Metern Größe wurden anschließend am Mauerwerk der inneren Kuppelschale befestigt und dienten als Richtmaß.
Ziegel
Bei der Herstellung der Ziegel ging man ebenfalls von Schablonen aus, da nicht nur einheitliche Maße benutzt wurden, sondern auch außergewöhnliche – dreieckige Formen, Ziegel mit Verzahnungen oder mit hervorstehendem Rand, Ziegel, die genau in die Ecken passten etc. Aber bis es überhaupt so weit war, musste ein langer Weg zurückgelegt werden.
Die Brennöfen befanden sich nicht in der Stadt, sondern auf dem Land in der Nähe der Tongruben. Es war natürlich etwas anderes, ob man Ziegel brauchte für ein kleines Haus, die man im Bedarfsfalle leicht ersetzen konnte, oder ob es sich um Ziegel handelte für die Riesenkuppel von Florenz, wo ein kleiner Fehler massive Konsequenzen haben könnte. Jedenfalls gab es umfangreiche Regeln dafür, wie und wo und wann der Ton gewonnen werden sollte, wie lange er vor dem Brennen trocknen sollte – das konnte bis zu zwei Jahren dauern –, wie der Mörtel beschaffen sein sollte usw.
Der geknetete Ton wurde in entsprechenden Holzformen an der Luft getrocknet und vorgehärtet. Danach erfolgte das Brennen, das mehrere Tage dauerte. Da die Temperatur im Ofen um 1000 Grad Celsius betrug, ließ man die Ziegel zwei Wochen abkühlen, damit sie bruchfester wurden, bevor man sie zur Baustelle transportierte. Ein Brennofen konnte im Durchschnitt 20.000 Ziegel aufnehmen; wurde er alle drei Wochen befeuert, ergab dies eine jährliche Kapazität von mehr als 300.000 Ziegeln. Doch selbst bei dieser Leistung hätte es mit nur einem Brennofen mehr als 13 Jahre gedauert, die für den Bau der Kuppel erforderlichen vier Millionen Ziegel herzustellen.
Das Tempo der acht Maurermannschaften wurde durch das Abbinden des Mörtels im zuletzt gemauerten Horizontalring auf weniger als einen Ring pro Woche begrenzt. Die Kuppel wuchs somit jeden Monat um ungefähr 30 Zentimeter in die Höhe.
Trotz der schwierigen Arbeitsbedingungen soll während der 16-jährigen Bauzeit der Kuppel nur ein einziger Arbeiter ums Leben gekommen sein.
Loggia
Am Ansatz der Kuppel wurde 1508–12 versucht, eine Loggia anzubringen, die den gesamten Ostbau plastisch aufgelockert hätte und die auch zu Brunelleschis Plan gehörte. Aber deren Gestaltung ist zu zierlich geraten und – der Überlieferung nach – soll Michelangelo sich sehr abschätzig über diese Idee geäußert haben – sie sehe aus „wie ein Grillenkäfig“ –, weshalb der Plan nicht vollendet wurde.Quelle?
Risse
Insgesamt wiegt allein die Kuppel ca. 37.000 Tonnen und hat bis heute gehalten, trotz der insgesamt 1.500 Haarrisse, die mittlerweile aufgetreten sind. Das Phänomen der Risse ist an sich nicht neu. Angeblich sollen schon um 1500, also kurz nach Fertigstellung des Bauwerks, solche Risse aufgetreten sein. Jetzt scheinen die Risse so zahlreich zu werden, dass man überlegt, Maßnahmen zu ihrer Beseitigung zu ergreifen.
Man weiß nicht, wie Brunelleschi selber dieses Problem gesehen hat, denn er hat keinerlei Aufzeichnungen hinterlassen. Michelangelo hat bei der Konstruktion der Kuppel des Petersdomes in Rom eine schwere Eisenkette um deren Sockelzone vorgesehen. Als Grund für die jetzt zunehmend auftretenden Risse in Florenz werden von fachlicher Seite die normalen Temperaturschwankungen angegeben, die im Laufe der Jahrhunderte dem Mauerwerk langsam zugesetzt hätten. Eine Lösung des Problems ist trotz zahlreicher Kommissionen offenbar noch nicht in Sicht, deren erste bereits 1934 angetreten war. Aktuell wird die Kuppel durch ständiges Deformationsmonitoring überwacht, um kleinste Veränderungen sofort nachvollziehen zu können.
Andererseits gilt: „Da in der Regel schon beim Ausschalen des Gewölbes solche Spannungen auftreten und erste Risse provozieren, ist der gerissene Zustand als der normale anzusehen und das jeweilige Rißbild im Gewölbe Zeichen einer letztlich individuellen Statik.“
Treppensystem
Brunelleschi baute die Kuppel auf einem hohen Tambour in den besagten zwei Schalen, wobei die innere Schale die dickere ist. Die äußere dient lediglich der Bedachung. Zwischen beiden Schalen liegt ein Treppensystem, das über 463 Stufen begehbar ist und auf die Laterne an der Kuppelspitze in 106 Meter Höhe führt.
Nachwirkungen des Florentiner Kuppelbaus
Dieser gewaltige Kirchenbau, dessen Konzeption bereits 1367 festgelegt war, sollte Ausdruck des Stolzes einer Stadt sein, die damals ein außerordentliches Maß an Macht und Reichtum erworben hatte. Florenz zählte gegen Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts mit ungefähr 100.000 Einwohnern zu den größten Städten der damaligen Welt.
Von vergleichbarer Größe ist die ebenfalls doppelschalige Kuppel des Petersdoms (1590) mit 42,3 Metern Durchmesser, das größte freitragende Ziegelbauwerk der Erde, und das Pantheon (118) mit der größten in unbewehrtem Beton gegossenen Kuppel von 43,2 Metern, beide in Rom. Einen größeren Durchmesser hatte mit 108 Metern erst die zur Weltausstellung 1873 gebaute Rotunde in Wien aus Stahl, die 1937 einem Brand zum Opfer fiel.
(Wikipedia)
Artist rendering of the casino level for the proposed Sahara Boardwalk Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City. This project did not end up being built.
Digital Publisher
University of Nevada, Las Vegas Libraries
Access and Ordering Information
Contact UNLV Digital Collections and provide digital ID number below
Digital Collection Name
Dreaming the Skyline: Resort Architecture and the New Urban Space
See this item at UNLV's Digital Collections
Digital ID sky000002
The community board meeting took place in order to discuss the proposed mosque to be built next to ground zero. While the project is usually referred to as the “mosque at ground zero”, the project’s official name is the Cordoba Initiative. The Imam and the developers were in attendance to present the project, and many politicians (or rather their representatives) were on hand, along with many of those in favor or opposed.
First spoke the elected officials, who—in the typical New York political elitist fashion— slandered and insulted their opposition. Councilwoman Margaret Chin spoke before a single opponent of the mosque ever came up to the microphone to state their position, but that didn’t stop her from accusing those against it of “bigotry”.
And while Margaret Chin chose to offend the opposition to the mosque (most of whom present were families of 9-11 victims and first responders) in person, other local figures sent their cronies. A representative of Scott Stringer, President of the Borough of Manhattan, handed out a letter to everyone prior to the meeting in which he refers to the mosque as a “multi-faith community and cultural center” and claims that this “center has been the subject of bigoted attacks that contain a strain of religious and racial hatred more extreme than anything we have seen in NYC for some time.” I guess an attempt to kill hundreds of New Yorkers and tourists at Times Square by an Islamist Faisal Shahzad less than a month prior was not extreme enough for Stringer and, instead of jihadism, Stringer seems to have identified the enemy as a TEA Party leader whom he rips apart throughout this unsolicited letter. While the TEA Party’s opposition is referred to as a “bigoted agenda”, the mosque itself is referred to as a “vibrant and world-class facility in NYC which will promote tolerance and pluralism”. Of course he fails to provide any example of mosques in NYC or in the world that have EVER promoted tolerance or pluralism, but perhaps he didn’t think that any attendee would dare question his superior judgment in the matter. Please be sure to read his disgusting letter
After the political cronies spoke, Feisal Abdul Rauf', the Imam in charge of this “community center” was given time to present his proposal. He started his speech with “for many years I’ve had a dream…” (I wonder what Dr. King would have thought of a ‘grand wizard’ proposing to build a “community center” at the site of the bombed 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama). The Imam also claimed that this “community center” would promote multi-culturalism; he was so sure of it that his speech was sprinkled throughout with that deceiving phrase. But his presentation brought with it an unexpected turning point. Not because of anything he planned to share with us in his carefully prepared PC jargoned speech, but because of a question by one of the board members who wanted to know if the proposed “community center” would hold prayer. The Imam said “yes”, to which the board member replied, “then it is a house of worship, not a community center”.
Without any objection to that by the Imam or speakers that followed, the term “community center” began to very gradually disappear. But don’t think that anyone’s opinion actually changed as a result. The supporters of the project “formerly” known as a “community center” still believed that it was somehow related to diversity and that it would in no way be an insult to those who died due to Islamist ideology, nor would it serve as a monument of jihadist victory.
But neither the councilwoman nor the Imam were the most offensive or distasteful of the proponents of the mosque. Daisy Khan of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, who also happens to be Imam’s wife, blew their insults and lies out of the water. (I don’t recall her being introduced as Rauf’s wife at the meeting, but I can’t be sure.) She lectured and she yelled – yes, yelled – at the families of victims, the first responders, and her fellow New Yorkers. She yelled that she is “tired of bearing the cross [and will do so] no longer” because apparently she and the Muslim community were the real victims of the 9-11 attacks—not the families who lost their loved ones, not the cities that lost their monuments, and not the country that lost its feeling of security.
Without a single mosque destroyed and with very few anti-Muslim incidents, hearing from this woman about her supposed victimization in that auditorium was absolutely sickening. It didn’t help when for weeks after (and prior) she dominated the time on television appearing calm and together and claiming among other nonsense – I kid you not – that the reason they chose the ground zero site to build a mosque is to provide a “blow to the extremists”. I’m sure radical Muslims would just hate it if New York built a mosque on the ground where American buildings were destroyed and thousands of Americans were murdered by jihadists … right? READ HER RIDICULOUS QUOTE AGAIN. Now listen to it for yourself from the horse’s mouth because I wouldn’t have believed it either. (starts at 1:10) www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WbTv_gsx4&playnext_from=TL&...
Other supporters of the mosque included two priests and a rabbi (no, it isn’t a start to a joke – although I wish it was) of the leftist “co-exist” variety all of whom supported the mosque. And while there were some clergy present that (judging by applause and reactions) opposed the mosque, they did not come up to the microphone. The supporting clergy seemed to have gone to the same rhetoric school as the Imam, using terms like “multi-culturalism”, “tolerance”, “community relations and understanding”, and other jargon that had no actual relevance to the topic.
There was also a Caucasian woman with a baby who introduced herself as someone who had converted to Islam … in 2006, if I’m not mistaken. She lied about how difficult it is to find information and resources on Islam in NY. I say she lied not only because there are hundreds of mosques in the 5 boroughs, but also because as a recent convert she is a prime example of someone who was able to find and act on this information. Of course, she didn’t specify why ground zero is a better location than any other for this apparently “valuable to the city” information about the religion all 911 hijackers belonged to.
Now that I have gone on and on about the supporters of the mosque (aka “community center”) and the temple’s money changers, let me talk about the opponents of a mosque being build at ground zero ... Not a single one of them opposed a mosque being built; the prevailing request was simply “build it somewhere else”.
First opponent to speak was the celebrated publisher, editor, and columnist Pamela Geller. She was the one to point out what Cordoba means to the Muslim world. Cordoba is a city in Spain that was the first major city to fall to Muslim conquerors and become an Islamic caliphate and a symbol of Islamic conquest of the West. She also called the mosque “a shrine to the very ideology that inspired 9-11”. Sure seems a lot more plausible than Daisy’s explanation for why the mosque has to overlook ground zero.
A gentleman who lost his brother in WTC and represents the largest ‘families of victims of 9-11’ groups introduced some of those present who lost loved ones at ground zero. He protested the lectures and the labels that were bestowed on these families for their “legitimate, legal opposition to this Muslim ‘multi-cultural center’”. He pointed out that while there is proposed building of this mosque at ground zero, the committees have refused to allow monuments to the tragedy of 9-11, including the WTC sphere which was heavily damaged during the terrorist attack and has become an iconic symbol of the tragedy. At this time the sphere is temporarily housed at Battery Park. “If we should honor multi-culturalism and diversity at ground zero, we should honor and remember victims of 9-11,” he concluded.
Tim Brown, a former NYC firefighter who lost dozens of his friends and colleagues, fellow first responders, to the jihadist terrorist attack, has been a tireless voice for memories of victims and their loved ones. He questioned where the money for the mosque was coming from. He had received “5 different answers on 5 different occasions from them”, which included my favorite “we don’t have to tell you, talk to our lawyers”, as well as “three different organizations, but [the Imam] refused to name them” and “from American taxpayers”. Mr. Brown also pointed out that Cordoba Initiative has been very deceiving in other ways, such as removing the word “mosque” from their web site despite the fact that they explicitly wrote initially that there will be a mosque at the top of the building (overlooking ground zero).
Questions were also raised about the Imam Rauf, his public statements, and his pro-Sharia stance as described in his publications and interviews. His travels to countries that openly support terrorism and forced Islamization of the West were also questioned and may indicate where funding from the mosque could be coming from.
Follow up note: Listening to the Imam Rauf speak to various news organizations in the days following the meeting, he offered even more non-specific answers to where the money comes from, such as it comes from people who “want to see peace between Muslims and non-Muslims”. Again, nice politically savvy keywords… but no actual answer to a rather direct question he obviously knows the answer to. Trying to hide something, Faisal Abdul?
One of the many victim’s families present was a woman with a photo of her son who was murdered by the Islamic terrorists. She didn’t yell like Daisy, the Imam’s wife, and she did not dish out insults like Congresswoman Chin. Her voice trembled as she mentioned her son’s name and held his photo towards the committee, “this is my son”, she said, “this is firefighter George Kane.” She held back tears as she spoke. She said that “the location [of the mosque] is insensitive to families. It is also insensitive to the voiceless victims the possibility that anyone who supports Islamic extremism could walk on graves of the victims … [it is] an outrage.”
Another woman spoke with a similar shaking voice about her 23-year-old son who “was murdered on September 11th”. She also wasn’t a bigot, but wanted to know “why are you suggesting that it be two blocks from ground zero?”
Mrs. Kane and the others who spoke through tears and with photos of their murdered children in their trembling hands, made me think of what they were being asked to do. Nine years later, they were being asked to “move on” or “heal”, as mosque supporters were suggesting. I can’t even begin to imagine what that ignorant request could do to an eternally grieving mother.
A sweet elderly couple’s last conversation with their son was via cell phone while he was on a hijacked plane… just before he was murdered. They mentioned that there were 20 mosques that located around the area where they lived, and that they would be ok with another one being built close to them, but they also asked for “understanding and sensitivity” when it comes to building one near ground zero.
Yet from the comments of NYC politicians and supporters of the mosque, we know that understanding and sensitivity will not be shown to the victims’ families nor reflect the wishes of voting New Yorkers. They will instead be shown to others who are apparently deemed more – not even equally but more – crucial to the future of NYC and the memories of those who perished in the terrorist attacks.
Here are a few youtube links on regarding this meeting:
Pamela Geller's full 2 minute speech from the meeting
a firefighter and first responder Tim Brown speaks A MUST SEE
The Chennakeshava Temple, (Kannada: ಶ್ರೀ ಚೆನ್ನಕೇಶವ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನ) originally called Vijayanarayana Temple (Kannada: ವಿಜಯನಾರಾಯಣ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನ), was built on the banks of the Yagachi River in Belur, by the Hoysala Empire King Vishnuvardhana. Belur, which was an early Hoysala capital is in the Hassan district of Karnataka state, India. It is 40 km from Hassan city and 220 km from Bangalore. Chennakesava (lit, "handsome Kesava") is a form of the Hindu god Vishnu. Belur is well known for its marvelous temples built during the rule of the Hoysala dynasty, making it and nearby Halebidu favored tourist destinations in Karnataka state. These temple complexes have been proposed to be listed under UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
HISTORY
The temple was commissioned by King Vishnuvardhana in 1117 AD. Scholars are divided about the reasons for the construction of the temple. The military successes of Vishnuvardhana is considered a probable reason. Some scholars believe Vishnuvardhana commissioned the temple to surpass his overlord, King Vikramaditya VI of the Western Chalukya Empire (who ruled from Basavakalyan), after his initial military victories against the Chalukyas. According to another theory, Vishnuvardhana was celebrating his famous victory against the Chola dynasty of Tamil country in the battle of Talakad (1116 AD), which resulted in the annexation of Gangavadi (modern southern Karnataka) by the Hoysalas. Another theory points to Vishnuvardhana's conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism (a sect of Hinduism) after coming under the influence of saint Ramanujacharya, considering this is a predominantly Vaishnava temple in sculptural iconography. The Hoysalas employed many noted architects and artisans who developed a new architectural tradition, which art critic Adam Hardy called the Karnata Dravida tradition. In all 118 inscriptions have been recovered from the temple complex, covering the period 1117 AD to the 18th century, giving historians details of the artists employed, grants made to the temple and renovations committed during later times.
TEMPLE COMPLEX
The main entrance to the complex is crowned by a Rayagopura (superstructure over entrance) built during the days of the Vijayanagar empire. Within the complex, the Chennakesava temple is at the centre, facing east, and is flanked by the Kappe Channigraya temple on its right, and a small Sowmyanayaki (form of the goddess Lakshmi) temple set slightly back. On its left, also set slightly back is the Ranganayaki (Andal) temple. Two main sthambha (pillar) exist here. The pillar facing the main temple, the Garuda (eagle) sthambha was erected in the Vijayanagar period while the pillar on the right, the Deepa sthambha (pillar with lamp) dates from the Hoysala period. This is the first great Hoysala temple, though according to the art critic and historian Settar, the artistic idiom and signature is still Western Chalukyan. Hence, the over-decoration which is seen in later Hoysala temples (including the Hoysaleswara temple at Halebidu and the Keshava temple at Somanathapura) is not visible here. According to Settar, during later years, the Hoysala art took an inclination towards craftsmanship, with a weakness for minutia. The Chennakesava temple has three entrances and their doorways have decorated sculptures called dvarapalaka (doorkeepers) on either side. While the Kappe Channigraya temple is smaller than the Chennakesava temple, it is architecturally significant, though it lacks any sculptural features. The Kappe Chennigraya temple became a dvikuta (two shrined temple) with the later addition of a shrine to its original plan. The original shrine has a star-shaped plan while the additional shrine is a simple square. The image inside is also that of Kesava ( a form of the god Krishna) and was commissioned by Shantala Devi, the noted queen of King Vishnuvardhana.
TEMPLE PLAN
The building material used in the Chennakesava temple is chloritic schist, more commonly known as (soapstone) or potstone, and is essentially a simple Hoysala plan built with extraordinary detail. What differentiates this temple from other Hoysala temples of the same plan is the unusually large size of the basic parts of the temple. The temple is a ekakuta vimana design (single shrine) of 10.5 m by 10.5 m size. A large vestibule connects the shrine to the mandapa (hall) which is one of the main attractions of the temple. The mandapa has 60 "bays" (compartments). The superstructure (tower or Sikhara) on top of the vimana has been lost over time. The temple is built on a jagati (platform for circumabulation). There is one flight of steps leading to the jagati and another flight of steps to the mantapa. The jagati provides the devotee the opportunity to do a pradakshina (circumambulation) around the temple before entering it. The jagati carefully follows the staggered square design of the mantapa and the star shape of the shrine. The mantapa here was originally an open one. A visitor would have been able to see the ornate pillars of the open mantapa from the platform. According to art critic Gerard Foekema, the mantapa is perhaps the most magnificent one in all of medieval India. The open mantapa was converted into a closed one after about fifty years, during the Hoysala rule. This was done by erecting walls with pierced window screens. The window screens are on top of 2 m high walls. There are twenty eight such windows, with star-shaped perforations and bands of foliage, figures and mythological subjects. On one such screen, King Vishnuvardhana and his queen Shanatala Devi are depicted. Another icon depicts the king in a standing posture.
SHRINE
The vimana (shrine) is at the back of the mantapa. Each side of the vimana measures 10.5 m and has five vertical sections. Each vertical section comprises a large double storeyed niche in the centre and two heavy pillar-like sections on either side. The two pillar-like sections adjoining the niche are rotated about their vertical axis to produce a star-shaped plan for the shrine. The pillar-like section and the niche bear many ornate sculptures, belonging to an earlier style. There are some sixty large sculptures of deities from both Vaishnava and Shaiva faiths. From the shape of the vimana it has been inferred that the tower above it would have been of the Bhumija style when it existed and not the regular star shaped tower that followed the shape of the vimana. The Bhumija towers, which are intact on the miniature shrines at the entrance of the hall are actually a type of nagara (North Indian) tower, being curvilinear in shape. This shape of tower is quite uncommon in pure dravidian architecture. The shrine has a life size (about 6 ft) image of Keshava (a form of Vishnu) with four hands. Each hand holds an attribute; the discus (chakra), the mace (gadha), the lotus-flower (padma) and the conch (Shanka), in clockwise direction. The entrance to the shrine is flanked by life size sculptures of door guardians (dvarapalaka).
PILLARS & SCULPTURES
The pillars inside the hall are an attraction and the most popular one is the Narasimha pillar which at one time could have revolved on its ball bearings. According to the historian Kamath, there is a rich diversity about the pillar styles here. While all the forty eight pillars are unique and the many ceiling sections are well decorated, nothing surpasses the finish of the four central pillars and the ceiling they support. These pillars may have been hand chiseled while the others were lathe turned. All of these four pillars bear madanikas (Salabhanjika–celestial damsels). There are 42 of them in the temple complex, one each on the four central pillars inside the hall and the remaining 38 are outside, between the eaves on the outer walls of the hall. They are also called shilabalika and represent the ideal female form. They are depicted in various forms, such as dancers, musicians and drummers, and are rarely erotic in nature. Some madanikas that usually are popular with tourists are the Darpana Sundari (lit,"beauty with mirror"), "The lady with the parrot", "The huntress" and Bhasma mohini. Other interesting sculptures inside the mantapa are Sthamba buttalika (pillar with an image in frieze) which is more in the Chola style indicating that the Hoysalas may have employed Chola craftsman along with locals. These images have less decor than regular Hoysala sculptures, the mohini pillar being an example.
At the base of the outer walls are friezes of charging elephants (six hundred and fifty of them) which symbolize stability and strength, above which are lions which symbolize courage, and further up are horses which symbolize speed. Above the horses are panels with floral designs signifying beauty above which are sculptures with depictions from the Hindu epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. According to Kamath, this style of articulation is called horizontal treatment with friezes. Hoysala artisans preferred to be discreet about eroticism, mingling miniature erotic sculptures in not so conspicuous places such as recesses and niches. Sculptures depict daily life in a broad sense.
The doorways to the mantapa have on both sides an image of "Sala" slaying a lion. Historian Kamath claims this is a tiger. Though Sala is known to be the founder of the Hoysala empire in popular legend, there is no support for this theory from scholars such as D.M. Durrett, B.R. Joshi and Hayavadhana Rao. Normally this image is placed on the sukanasi (tower over the vestibule) adjoining the main tower. Legend has it that Sala killed the lion (or tiger) which was about to pounce on a meditating saint who sought Sala's help. Some historians speculate that the legend may have gained importance after King Vishnuvardhana's victory over the Chola dynasty in the battle of Talakad, the tiger being the royal emblem of the Cholas.
Other important sculptures here are the Narasimha (a form of Vishnu) image in the south western corner, Gajasurasamhara (Hindu god Shiva slaying demon in form of elephant) on the western side, the winged Garuda, a consort of the god Vishnu standing facing the temple, dancing Kali (a form of Durga), a seated Ganesha (son of Shiva), a boy with an umbrella and a king (the Vamana Avatar or incarnation of Vishnu), Ravana shaking Mount Kailash, Durga slaying demon Mahishasura, standing Brahma, Varaha (avatar of Vishnu), Shiva dancing on demon (Andhakasura), Bhairava (avatar of Shiva), Pandava prince Arjuna shooting a fish seeing its reflection, and the Sun god Surya. The sculptural style of the wall images bear similarities with wall sculptures in contemporary temples of northern Karnataka and adjacent Maharashtra.
ARTISTS
The Hoysala artists, unlike other medieval artists, preferred to sign their work in the form of inscriptions. In doing so, they sometimes revealed details about themselves, their families, guilds and place of origin. Stone inscriptions and copper plate inscriptions provide more information about them. Ruvari Mallitamma was a prolific artist to whom more than 40 sculptures are attributed. Dasoja and his son Chavana who were from Balligavi in modern Shimoga district made important contributions. Chavana is credited with the work on five madanikas and Dasoja accomplished four of them. Malliyanna and Nagoja created birds and animals in their sculptures. Artists such as Chikkahampa and Malloja are credited with some of the sculptures in the mantapa.
WIKIPEDIA
Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg. Proposed Supply Routes From Natalie Lake and Shoal Lake [map]. Scale not given. In: Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg. The Water Supply Study, Report. Metro Winnipeg Water Requirements to 2020. Winnipeg: Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg, Waterworks and Waste Disposal Division, 1964, Figure 8-1.
Shows Shoal Lake Aqueduct, proposed Natalie Lake Aqueduct, proposed Shoal Lake Aqueduct.
The community board meeting took place in order to discuss the proposed mosque to be built next to ground zero. While the project is usually referred to as the “mosque at ground zero”, the project’s official name is the Cordoba Initiative. The Imam and the developers were in attendance to present the project, and many politicians (or rather their representatives) were on hand, along with many of those in favor or opposed.
First spoke the elected officials, who—in the typical New York political elitist fashion— slandered and insulted their opposition. Councilwoman Margaret Chin spoke before a single opponent of the mosque ever came up to the microphone to state their position, but that didn’t stop her from accusing those against it of “bigotry”.
And while Margaret Chin chose to offend the opposition to the mosque (most of whom present were families of 9-11 victims and first responders) in person, other local figures sent their cronies. A representative of Scott Stringer, President of the Borough of Manhattan, handed out a letter to everyone prior to the meeting in which he refers to the mosque as a “multi-faith community and cultural center” and claims that this “center has been the subject of bigoted attacks that contain a strain of religious and racial hatred more extreme than anything we have seen in NYC for some time.” I guess an attempt to kill hundreds of New Yorkers and tourists at Times Square by an Islamist Faisal Shahzad less than a month prior was not extreme enough for Stringer and, instead of jihadism, Stringer seems to have identified the enemy as a TEA Party leader whom he rips apart throughout this unsolicited letter. While the TEA Party’s opposition is referred to as a “bigoted agenda”, the mosque itself is referred to as a “vibrant and world-class facility in NYC which will promote tolerance and pluralism”. Of course he fails to provide any example of mosques in NYC or in the world that have EVER promoted tolerance or pluralism, but perhaps he didn’t think that any attendee would dare question his superior judgment in the matter. Please be sure to read his disgusting letter
After the political cronies spoke, Feisal Abdul Rauf', the Imam in charge of this “community center” was given time to present his proposal. He started his speech with “for many years I’ve had a dream…” (I wonder what Dr. King would have thought of a ‘grand wizard’ proposing to build a “community center” at the site of the bombed 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama). The Imam also claimed that this “community center” would promote multi-culturalism; he was so sure of it that his speech was sprinkled throughout with that deceiving phrase. But his presentation brought with it an unexpected turning point. Not because of anything he planned to share with us in his carefully prepared PC jargoned speech, but because of a question by one of the board members who wanted to know if the proposed “community center” would hold prayer. The Imam said “yes”, to which the board member replied, “then it is a house of worship, not a community center”.
Without any objection to that by the Imam or speakers that followed, the term “community center” began to very gradually disappear. But don’t think that anyone’s opinion actually changed as a result. The supporters of the project “formerly” known as a “community center” still believed that it was somehow related to diversity and that it would in no way be an insult to those who died due to Islamist ideology, nor would it serve as a monument of jihadist victory.
But neither the councilwoman nor the Imam were the most offensive or distasteful of the proponents of the mosque. Daisy Khan of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, who also happens to be Imam’s wife, blew their insults and lies out of the water. (I don’t recall her being introduced as Rauf’s wife at the meeting, but I can’t be sure.) She lectured and she yelled – yes, yelled – at the families of victims, the first responders, and her fellow New Yorkers. She yelled that she is “tired of bearing the cross [and will do so] no longer” because apparently she and the Muslim community were the real victims of the 9-11 attacks—not the families who lost their loved ones, not the cities that lost their monuments, and not the country that lost its feeling of security.
Without a single mosque destroyed and with very few anti-Muslim incidents, hearing from this woman about her supposed victimization in that auditorium was absolutely sickening. It didn’t help when for weeks after (and prior) she dominated the time on television appearing calm and together and claiming among other nonsense – I kid you not – that the reason they chose the ground zero site to build a mosque is to provide a “blow to the extremists”. I’m sure radical Muslims would just hate it if New York built a mosque on the ground where American buildings were destroyed and thousands of Americans were murdered by jihadists … right? READ HER RIDICULOUS QUOTE AGAIN. Now listen to it for yourself from the horse’s mouth because I wouldn’t have believed it either. (starts at 1:10) www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WbTv_gsx4&playnext_from=TL&...
Other supporters of the mosque included two priests and a rabbi (no, it isn’t a start to a joke – although I wish it was) of the leftist “co-exist” variety all of whom supported the mosque. And while there were some clergy present that (judging by applause and reactions) opposed the mosque, they did not come up to the microphone. The supporting clergy seemed to have gone to the same rhetoric school as the Imam, using terms like “multi-culturalism”, “tolerance”, “community relations and understanding”, and other jargon that had no actual relevance to the topic.
There was also a Caucasian woman with a baby who introduced herself as someone who had converted to Islam … in 2006, if I’m not mistaken. She lied about how difficult it is to find information and resources on Islam in NY. I say she lied not only because there are hundreds of mosques in the 5 boroughs, but also because as a recent convert she is a prime example of someone who was able to find and act on this information. Of course, she didn’t specify why ground zero is a better location than any other for this apparently “valuable to the city” information about the religion all 911 hijackers belonged to.
Now that I have gone on and on about the supporters of the mosque (aka “community center”) and the temple’s money changers, let me talk about the opponents of a mosque being build at ground zero ... Not a single one of them opposed a mosque being built; the prevailing request was simply “build it somewhere else”.
First opponent to speak was the celebrated publisher, editor, and columnist Pamela Geller. She was the one to point out what Cordoba means to the Muslim world. Cordoba is a city in Spain that was the first major city to fall to Muslim conquerors and become an Islamic caliphate and a symbol of Islamic conquest of the West. She also called the mosque “a shrine to the very ideology that inspired 9-11”. Sure seems a lot more plausible than Daisy’s explanation for why the mosque has to overlook ground zero.
A gentleman who lost his brother in WTC and represents the largest ‘families of victims of 9-11’ groups introduced some of those present who lost loved ones at ground zero. He protested the lectures and the labels that were bestowed on these families for their “legitimate, legal opposition to this Muslim ‘multi-cultural center’”. He pointed out that while there is proposed building of this mosque at ground zero, the committees have refused to allow monuments to the tragedy of 9-11, including the WTC sphere which was heavily damaged during the terrorist attack and has become an iconic symbol of the tragedy. At this time the sphere is temporarily housed at Battery Park. “If we should honor multi-culturalism and diversity at ground zero, we should honor and remember victims of 9-11,” he concluded.
Tim Brown, a former NYC firefighter who lost dozens of his friends and colleagues, fellow first responders, to the jihadist terrorist attack, has been a tireless voice for memories of victims and their loved ones. He questioned where the money for the mosque was coming from. He had received “5 different answers on 5 different occasions from them”, which included my favorite “we don’t have to tell you, talk to our lawyers”, as well as “three different organizations, but [the Imam] refused to name them” and “from American taxpayers”. Mr. Brown also pointed out that Cordoba Initiative has been very deceiving in other ways, such as removing the word “mosque” from their web site despite the fact that they explicitly wrote initially that there will be a mosque at the top of the building (overlooking ground zero).
Questions were also raised about the Imam Rauf, his public statements, and his pro-Sharia stance as described in his publications and interviews. His travels to countries that openly support terrorism and forced Islamization of the West were also questioned and may indicate where funding from the mosque could be coming from.
Follow up note: Listening to the Imam Rauf speak to various news organizations in the days following the meeting, he offered even more non-specific answers to where the money comes from, such as it comes from people who “want to see peace between Muslims and non-Muslims”. Again, nice politically savvy keywords… but no actual answer to a rather direct question he obviously knows the answer to. Trying to hide something, Faisal Abdul?
One of the many victim’s families present was a woman with a photo of her son who was murdered by the Islamic terrorists. She didn’t yell like Daisy, the Imam’s wife, and she did not dish out insults like Congresswoman Chin. Her voice trembled as she mentioned her son’s name and held his photo towards the committee, “this is my son”, she said, “this is firefighter George Kane.” She held back tears as she spoke. She said that “the location [of the mosque] is insensitive to families. It is also insensitive to the voiceless victims the possibility that anyone who supports Islamic extremism could walk on graves of the victims … [it is] an outrage.”
Another woman spoke with a similar shaking voice about her 23-year-old son who “was murdered on September 11th”. She also wasn’t a bigot, but wanted to know “why are you suggesting that it be two blocks from ground zero?”
Mrs. Kane and the others who spoke through tears and with photos of their murdered children in their trembling hands, made me think of what they were being asked to do. Nine years later, they were being asked to “move on” or “heal”, as mosque supporters were suggesting. I can’t even begin to imagine what that ignorant request could do to an eternally grieving mother.
A sweet elderly couple’s last conversation with their son was via cell phone while he was on a hijacked plane… just before he was murdered. They mentioned that there were 20 mosques that located around the area where they lived, and that they would be ok with another one being built close to them, but they also asked for “understanding and sensitivity” when it comes to building one near ground zero.
Yet from the comments of NYC politicians and supporters of the mosque, we know that understanding and sensitivity will not be shown to the victims’ families nor reflect the wishes of voting New Yorkers. They will instead be shown to others who are apparently deemed more – not even equally but more – crucial to the future of NYC and the memories of those who perished in the terrorist attacks.
Here are a few youtube links on regarding this meeting:
Pamela Geller's full 2 minute speech from the meeting
a firefighter and first responder Tim Brown speaks A MUST SEE
MAP #: M2265
SERIES:Newcastle and suburbs subdivision plans.
TITLE: Proposed subdivision of Evans Estate, Swansea.
SCALE: 2 chains to an inch
This image can be used for study and personal research purposes. If you wish to reproduce this image for any other purpose you must obtain permission by contacting the University of Newcastle's Cultural Collections.
If you have any further information about this image, please contact us or leave a comment in the box below.
This map shows some of the routes that had been proposed for a highway through western Canada to Alaska. It also provides a descriptive paragraph of Carcross YT. Type L to enlarge the view.
Bill expected to be sent to Carcross to work as a civilian on the second phase of construction of the Alaska Highway. He was flown into Whitehorse on June 13, 1943. Carcross lies between Whitehorse YT and Skagway, Alaska. Using his pen, he indicated the approximate location of his camp on this map.
This document and more than one hundred letters written by Bill to his wife Helen from Yukon Territories in 1943 are under the care of the Yukon Archives in Whitehorse: www.yukonmuseums.ca/museum/y_archive/y_archive.html
A proposed expansion into the Far East and other overseas markets by Williams Bros. Brewery has been highlighted by Scottish ministers as a real opportunity for the Scottish economy.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Cabinet Secretary for Food and Drink Richard Lochhead toured the company’s Alloa plant where its craft beers including Caesar Augustus, March of the Penguins and Good Times are brewed and bottled.
Johnston, J. T. Proposed Scheme of Development at Du Bonnet Falls [map]. 1:835. In: J. T. Johnston. Report on the Winnipeg River Power and Storage Investigations, Water Resources Paper no. 3 vol. I. Ottawa: Dept. of the Interior, Dominion Water Power Branch, 1914, plate 48.
Based on Field Surveys made under the direction of D.L. McLean, Chief Eng., Man. Hyd. & Power Surveys Oct. 25, 1913.
The community board meeting took place in order to discuss the proposed mosque to be built next to ground zero. While the project is usually referred to as the “mosque at ground zero”, the project’s official name is the Cordoba Initiative. The Imam and the developers were in attendance to present the project, and many politicians (or rather their representatives) were on hand, along with many of those in favor or opposed.
First spoke the elected officials, who—in the typical New York political elitist fashion— slandered and insulted their opposition. Councilwoman Margaret Chin spoke before a single opponent of the mosque ever came up to the microphone to state their position, but that didn’t stop her from accusing those against it of “bigotry”.
And while Margaret Chin chose to offend the opposition to the mosque (most of whom present were families of 9-11 victims and first responders) in person, other local figures sent their cronies. A representative of Scott Stringer, President of the Borough of Manhattan, handed out a letter to everyone prior to the meeting in which he refers to the mosque as a “multi-faith community and cultural center” and claims that this “center has been the subject of bigoted attacks that contain a strain of religious and racial hatred more extreme than anything we have seen in NYC for some time.” I guess an attempt to kill hundreds of New Yorkers and tourists at Times Square by an Islamist Faisal Shahzad less than a month prior was not extreme enough for Stringer and, instead of jihadism, Stringer seems to have identified the enemy as a TEA Party leader whom he rips apart throughout this unsolicited letter. While the TEA Party’s opposition is referred to as a “bigoted agenda”, the mosque itself is referred to as a “vibrant and world-class facility in NYC which will promote tolerance and pluralism”. Of course he fails to provide any example of mosques in NYC or in the world that have EVER promoted tolerance or pluralism, but perhaps he didn’t think that any attendee would dare question his superior judgment in the matter. Please be sure to read his disgusting letter
After the political cronies spoke, Feisal Abdul Rauf', the Imam in charge of this “community center” was given time to present his proposal. He started his speech with “for many years I’ve had a dream…” (I wonder what Dr. King would have thought of a ‘grand wizard’ proposing to build a “community center” at the site of the bombed 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama). The Imam also claimed that this “community center” would promote multi-culturalism; he was so sure of it that his speech was sprinkled throughout with that deceiving phrase. But his presentation brought with it an unexpected turning point. Not because of anything he planned to share with us in his carefully prepared PC jargoned speech, but because of a question by one of the board members who wanted to know if the proposed “community center” would hold prayer. The Imam said “yes”, to which the board member replied, “then it is a house of worship, not a community center”.
Without any objection to that by the Imam or speakers that followed, the term “community center” began to very gradually disappear. But don’t think that anyone’s opinion actually changed as a result. The supporters of the project “formerly” known as a “community center” still believed that it was somehow related to diversity and that it would in no way be an insult to those who died due to Islamist ideology, nor would it serve as a monument of jihadist victory.
But neither the councilwoman nor the Imam were the most offensive or distasteful of the proponents of the mosque. Daisy Khan of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, who also happens to be Imam’s wife, blew their insults and lies out of the water. (I don’t recall her being introduced as Rauf’s wife at the meeting, but I can’t be sure.) She lectured and she yelled – yes, yelled – at the families of victims, the first responders, and her fellow New Yorkers. She yelled that she is “tired of bearing the cross [and will do so] no longer” because apparently she and the Muslim community were the real victims of the 9-11 attacks—not the families who lost their loved ones, not the cities that lost their monuments, and not the country that lost its feeling of security.
Without a single mosque destroyed and with very few anti-Muslim incidents, hearing from this woman about her supposed victimization in that auditorium was absolutely sickening. It didn’t help when for weeks after (and prior) she dominated the time on television appearing calm and together and claiming among other nonsense – I kid you not – that the reason they chose the ground zero site to build a mosque is to provide a “blow to the extremists”. I’m sure radical Muslims would just hate it if New York built a mosque on the ground where American buildings were destroyed and thousands of Americans were murdered by jihadists … right? READ HER RIDICULOUS QUOTE AGAIN. Now listen to it for yourself from the horse’s mouth because I wouldn’t have believed it either. (starts at 1:10) www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WbTv_gsx4&playnext_from=TL&...
Other supporters of the mosque included two priests and a rabbi (no, it isn’t a start to a joke – although I wish it was) of the leftist “co-exist” variety all of whom supported the mosque. And while there were some clergy present that (judging by applause and reactions) opposed the mosque, they did not come up to the microphone. The supporting clergy seemed to have gone to the same rhetoric school as the Imam, using terms like “multi-culturalism”, “tolerance”, “community relations and understanding”, and other jargon that had no actual relevance to the topic.
There was also a Caucasian woman with a baby who introduced herself as someone who had converted to Islam … in 2006, if I’m not mistaken. She lied about how difficult it is to find information and resources on Islam in NY. I say she lied not only because there are hundreds of mosques in the 5 boroughs, but also because as a recent convert she is a prime example of someone who was able to find and act on this information. Of course, she didn’t specify why ground zero is a better location than any other for this apparently “valuable to the city” information about the religion all 911 hijackers belonged to.
Now that I have gone on and on about the supporters of the mosque (aka “community center”) and the temple’s money changers, let me talk about the opponents of a mosque being build at ground zero ... Not a single one of them opposed a mosque being built; the prevailing request was simply “build it somewhere else”.
First opponent to speak was the celebrated publisher, editor, and columnist Pamela Geller. She was the one to point out what Cordoba means to the Muslim world. Cordoba is a city in Spain that was the first major city to fall to Muslim conquerors and become an Islamic caliphate and a symbol of Islamic conquest of the West. She also called the mosque “a shrine to the very ideology that inspired 9-11”. Sure seems a lot more plausible than Daisy’s explanation for why the mosque has to overlook ground zero.
A gentleman who lost his brother in WTC and represents the largest ‘families of victims of 9-11’ groups introduced some of those present who lost loved ones at ground zero. He protested the lectures and the labels that were bestowed on these families for their “legitimate, legal opposition to this Muslim ‘multi-cultural center’”. He pointed out that while there is proposed building of this mosque at ground zero, the committees have refused to allow monuments to the tragedy of 9-11, including the WTC sphere which was heavily damaged during the terrorist attack and has become an iconic symbol of the tragedy. At this time the sphere is temporarily housed at Battery Park. “If we should honor multi-culturalism and diversity at ground zero, we should honor and remember victims of 9-11,” he concluded.
Tim Brown, a former NYC firefighter who lost dozens of his friends and colleagues, fellow first responders, to the jihadist terrorist attack, has been a tireless voice for memories of victims and their loved ones. He questioned where the money for the mosque was coming from. He had received “5 different answers on 5 different occasions from them”, which included my favorite “we don’t have to tell you, talk to our lawyers”, as well as “three different organizations, but [the Imam] refused to name them” and “from American taxpayers”. Mr. Brown also pointed out that Cordoba Initiative has been very deceiving in other ways, such as removing the word “mosque” from their web site despite the fact that they explicitly wrote initially that there will be a mosque at the top of the building (overlooking ground zero).
Questions were also raised about the Imam Rauf, his public statements, and his pro-Sharia stance as described in his publications and interviews. His travels to countries that openly support terrorism and forced Islamization of the West were also questioned and may indicate where funding from the mosque could be coming from.
Follow up note: Listening to the Imam Rauf speak to various news organizations in the days following the meeting, he offered even more non-specific answers to where the money comes from, such as it comes from people who “want to see peace between Muslims and non-Muslims”. Again, nice politically savvy keywords… but no actual answer to a rather direct question he obviously knows the answer to. Trying to hide something, Faisal Abdul?
One of the many victim’s families present was a woman with a photo of her son who was murdered by the Islamic terrorists. She didn’t yell like Daisy, the Imam’s wife, and she did not dish out insults like Congresswoman Chin. Her voice trembled as she mentioned her son’s name and held his photo towards the committee, “this is my son”, she said, “this is firefighter George Kane.” She held back tears as she spoke. She said that “the location [of the mosque] is insensitive to families. It is also insensitive to the voiceless victims the possibility that anyone who supports Islamic extremism could walk on graves of the victims … [it is] an outrage.”
Another woman spoke with a similar shaking voice about her 23-year-old son who “was murdered on September 11th”. She also wasn’t a bigot, but wanted to know “why are you suggesting that it be two blocks from ground zero?”
Mrs. Kane and the others who spoke through tears and with photos of their murdered children in their trembling hands, made me think of what they were being asked to do. Nine years later, they were being asked to “move on” or “heal”, as mosque supporters were suggesting. I can’t even begin to imagine what that ignorant request could do to an eternally grieving mother.
A sweet elderly couple’s last conversation with their son was via cell phone while he was on a hijacked plane… just before he was murdered. They mentioned that there were 20 mosques that located around the area where they lived, and that they would be ok with another one being built close to them, but they also asked for “understanding and sensitivity” when it comes to building one near ground zero.
Yet from the comments of NYC politicians and supporters of the mosque, we know that understanding and sensitivity will not be shown to the victims’ families nor reflect the wishes of voting New Yorkers. They will instead be shown to others who are apparently deemed more – not even equally but more – crucial to the future of NYC and the memories of those who perished in the terrorist attacks.
Here are a few youtube links on regarding this meeting:
Pamela Geller's full 2 minute speech from the meeting
a firefighter and first responder Tim Brown speaks A MUST SEE
Proposed legislation in Virginia:
-Background checks.
-Limit on # of handgun purchases per month.
-Communities can ban guns from specific events/venues.
-Police can take guns from those deemed a risk to others.
The community board meeting took place in order to discuss the proposed mosque to be built next to ground zero. While the project is usually referred to as the “mosque at ground zero”, the project’s official name is the Cordoba Initiative. The Imam and the developers were in attendance to present the project, and many politicians (or rather their representatives) were on hand, along with many of those in favor or opposed.
First spoke the elected officials, who—in the typical New York political elitist fashion— slandered and insulted their opposition. Councilwoman Margaret Chin spoke before a single opponent of the mosque ever came up to the microphone to state their position, but that didn’t stop her from accusing those against it of “bigotry”.
And while Margaret Chin chose to offend the opposition to the mosque (most of whom present were families of 9-11 victims and first responders) in person, other local figures sent their cronies. A representative of Scott Stringer, President of the Borough of Manhattan, handed out a letter to everyone prior to the meeting in which he refers to the mosque as a “multi-faith community and cultural center” and claims that this “center has been the subject of bigoted attacks that contain a strain of religious and racial hatred more extreme than anything we have seen in NYC for some time.” I guess an attempt to kill hundreds of New Yorkers and tourists at Times Square by an Islamist Faisal Shahzad less than a month prior was not extreme enough for Stringer and, instead of jihadism, Stringer seems to have identified the enemy as a TEA Party leader whom he rips apart throughout this unsolicited letter. While the TEA Party’s opposition is referred to as a “bigoted agenda”, the mosque itself is referred to as a “vibrant and world-class facility in NYC which will promote tolerance and pluralism”. Of course he fails to provide any example of mosques in NYC or in the world that have EVER promoted tolerance or pluralism, but perhaps he didn’t think that any attendee would dare question his superior judgment in the matter. Please be sure to read his disgusting letter
After the political cronies spoke, Feisal Abdul Rauf', the Imam in charge of this “community center” was given time to present his proposal. He started his speech with “for many years I’ve had a dream…” (I wonder what Dr. King would have thought of a ‘grand wizard’ proposing to build a “community center” at the site of the bombed 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama). The Imam also claimed that this “community center” would promote multi-culturalism; he was so sure of it that his speech was sprinkled throughout with that deceiving phrase. But his presentation brought with it an unexpected turning point. Not because of anything he planned to share with us in his carefully prepared PC jargoned speech, but because of a question by one of the board members who wanted to know if the proposed “community center” would hold prayer. The Imam said “yes”, to which the board member replied, “then it is a house of worship, not a community center”.
Without any objection to that by the Imam or speakers that followed, the term “community center” began to very gradually disappear. But don’t think that anyone’s opinion actually changed as a result. The supporters of the project “formerly” known as a “community center” still believed that it was somehow related to diversity and that it would in no way be an insult to those who died due to Islamist ideology, nor would it serve as a monument of jihadist victory.
But neither the councilwoman nor the Imam were the most offensive or distasteful of the proponents of the mosque. Daisy Khan of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, who also happens to be Imam’s wife, blew their insults and lies out of the water. (I don’t recall her being introduced as Rauf’s wife at the meeting, but I can’t be sure.) She lectured and she yelled – yes, yelled – at the families of victims, the first responders, and her fellow New Yorkers. She yelled that she is “tired of bearing the cross [and will do so] no longer” because apparently she and the Muslim community were the real victims of the 9-11 attacks—not the families who lost their loved ones, not the cities that lost their monuments, and not the country that lost its feeling of security.
Without a single mosque destroyed and with very few anti-Muslim incidents, hearing from this woman about her supposed victimization in that auditorium was absolutely sickening. It didn’t help when for weeks after (and prior) she dominated the time on television appearing calm and together and claiming among other nonsense – I kid you not – that the reason they chose the ground zero site to build a mosque is to provide a “blow to the extremists”. I’m sure radical Muslims would just hate it if New York built a mosque on the ground where American buildings were destroyed and thousands of Americans were murdered by jihadists … right? READ HER RIDICULOUS QUOTE AGAIN. Now listen to it for yourself from the horse’s mouth because I wouldn’t have believed it either. (starts at 1:10) www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7WbTv_gsx4&playnext_from=TL&...
Other supporters of the mosque included two priests and a rabbi (no, it isn’t a start to a joke – although I wish it was) of the leftist “co-exist” variety all of whom supported the mosque. And while there were some clergy present that (judging by applause and reactions) opposed the mosque, they did not come up to the microphone. The supporting clergy seemed to have gone to the same rhetoric school as the Imam, using terms like “multi-culturalism”, “tolerance”, “community relations and understanding”, and other jargon that had no actual relevance to the topic.
There was also a Caucasian woman with a baby who introduced herself as someone who had converted to Islam … in 2006, if I’m not mistaken. She lied about how difficult it is to find information and resources on Islam in NY. I say she lied not only because there are hundreds of mosques in the 5 boroughs, but also because as a recent convert she is a prime example of someone who was able to find and act on this information. Of course, she didn’t specify why ground zero is a better location than any other for this apparently “valuable to the city” information about the religion all 911 hijackers belonged to.
Now that I have gone on and on about the supporters of the mosque (aka “community center”) and the temple’s money changers, let me talk about the opponents of a mosque being build at ground zero ... Not a single one of them opposed a mosque being built; the prevailing request was simply “build it somewhere else”.
First opponent to speak was the celebrated publisher, editor, and columnist Pamela Geller. She was the one to point out what Cordoba means to the Muslim world. Cordoba is a city in Spain that was the first major city to fall to Muslim conquerors and become an Islamic caliphate and a symbol of Islamic conquest of the West. She also called the mosque “a shrine to the very ideology that inspired 9-11”. Sure seems a lot more plausible than Daisy’s explanation for why the mosque has to overlook ground zero.
A gentleman who lost his brother in WTC and represents the largest ‘families of victims of 9-11’ groups introduced some of those present who lost loved ones at ground zero. He protested the lectures and the labels that were bestowed on these families for their “legitimate, legal opposition to this Muslim ‘multi-cultural center’”. He pointed out that while there is proposed building of this mosque at ground zero, the committees have refused to allow monuments to the tragedy of 9-11, including the WTC sphere which was heavily damaged during the terrorist attack and has become an iconic symbol of the tragedy. At this time the sphere is temporarily housed at Battery Park. “If we should honor multi-culturalism and diversity at ground zero, we should honor and remember victims of 9-11,” he concluded.
Tim Brown, a former NYC firefighter who lost dozens of his friends and colleagues, fellow first responders, to the jihadist terrorist attack, has been a tireless voice for memories of victims and their loved ones. He questioned where the money for the mosque was coming from. He had received “5 different answers on 5 different occasions from them”, which included my favorite “we don’t have to tell you, talk to our lawyers”, as well as “three different organizations, but [the Imam] refused to name them” and “from American taxpayers”. Mr. Brown also pointed out that Cordoba Initiative has been very deceiving in other ways, such as removing the word “mosque” from their web site despite the fact that they explicitly wrote initially that there will be a mosque at the top of the building (overlooking ground zero).
Questions were also raised about the Imam Rauf, his public statements, and his pro-Sharia stance as described in his publications and interviews. His travels to countries that openly support terrorism and forced Islamization of the West were also questioned and may indicate where funding from the mosque could be coming from.
Follow up note: Listening to the Imam Rauf speak to various news organizations in the days following the meeting, he offered even more non-specific answers to where the money comes from, such as it comes from people who “want to see peace between Muslims and non-Muslims”. Again, nice politically savvy keywords… but no actual answer to a rather direct question he obviously knows the answer to. Trying to hide something, Faisal Abdul?
One of the many victim’s families present was a woman with a photo of her son who was murdered by the Islamic terrorists. She didn’t yell like Daisy, the Imam’s wife, and she did not dish out insults like Congresswoman Chin. Her voice trembled as she mentioned her son’s name and held his photo towards the committee, “this is my son”, she said, “this is firefighter George Kane.” She held back tears as she spoke. She said that “the location [of the mosque] is insensitive to families. It is also insensitive to the voiceless victims the possibility that anyone who supports Islamic extremism could walk on graves of the victims … [it is] an outrage.”
Another woman spoke with a similar shaking voice about her 23-year-old son who “was murdered on September 11th”. She also wasn’t a bigot, but wanted to know “why are you suggesting that it be two blocks from ground zero?”
Mrs. Kane and the others who spoke through tears and with photos of their murdered children in their trembling hands, made me think of what they were being asked to do. Nine years later, they were being asked to “move on” or “heal”, as mosque supporters were suggesting. I can’t even begin to imagine what that ignorant request could do to an eternally grieving mother.
A sweet elderly couple’s last conversation with their son was via cell phone while he was on a hijacked plane… just before he was murdered. They mentioned that there were 20 mosques that located around the area where they lived, and that they would be ok with another one being built close to them, but they also asked for “understanding and sensitivity” when it comes to building one near ground zero.
Yet from the comments of NYC politicians and supporters of the mosque, we know that understanding and sensitivity will not be shown to the victims’ families nor reflect the wishes of voting New Yorkers. They will instead be shown to others who are apparently deemed more – not even equally but more – crucial to the future of NYC and the memories of those who perished in the terrorist attacks.
Here are a few youtube links on regarding this meeting:
Pamela Geller's full 2 minute speech from the meeting
a firefighter and first responder Tim Brown speaks A MUST SEE