january portfolio_low comp

7/30/2019 January Portfolio_low Comp

1/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI

UNIT 15 TIME MACHINES


2/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


The main thing I was looking at in this project

was the way in which the director monopolisedthe eld of view as the train travelled. In the

chronogram I tried to show how there was an

element of repetition and overlap.

I was also interested in the seated position of

the viewer in relation to what could be seen by

the viewer.

The director used a graph and arbitatry objects

such as oranges, forks and wooden spoons to

map out the video before it was designed.

Star Guitar is the second single from The

Chemical Brothers 2002 album Come with

Us. The song reached number eight in the UK

Singles Chart, number two on the American

dance chart and number one in the UK DanceChart. Wikipedia

Its Gondry & co guring out how Star Guitar

should actually work. It starts with sketches -

which are themselves mesmerizing - but ends

with a ridiculous mock-up of the lm laid out in

a school playground using sneakers, oranges,

video cassettes and broomsticks. Brilliant to

watch. BEN MALBON

P R O J E C T 1

S T A R G U I T A R S P A C E T I M E A N A L Y S I S

sitting position


3/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI



4/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


00:05 00:10 00:15 00:20 00:25 00:30 00:35 00:40 00:45 00:50 00:55 01:00 01:05 01:10 01:15 01:20 01:25 01:30

Chemical Brothers Star Guitar Music Video Chronogram shows the relation of space and time

Star Guitar Michel Gondry

This music video uses repetition as a device. The scenes seem to move in a loop and followthe pattern and beat of the music. I have tried to show this in the diagram by adding a graphwhich Gondry used to plan his work. He used oranges, forks and wooden spoons to modelthe movement of the train before creating the nal nished work. This diagram should be readdownwards. It has the graph layout which then corresponds with the placement of screenshots

from the lm on a time line. The other aspect is the way in which this relates to the sound wavesat the bottom of the page.

soundwaves of the music video

screenshots from the music video

time line from beginning of video to 01:30 minutes

graph showing repetition of the scenes as shown belowthe colours correspond to each scene


5/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


Abstraction of Sight: The Eye: Instrument of Intrusion

The mapping of time and space is key to this project. During ajourney on the DLR, it was noted that the movement of the trainscaused a transition for the passenger. It was a smooth transitionone that moves from one station to another with acute accuracyand according to the tube map available at the stations. I wantedto take this map and cut it up and stitch the pathway of the DLRand the stations in a random order and then see how this affectsthe passenger. Does the transition actually make a difference?

Focus on forms in the distance is another key aspect, one is not

limited by their eld of vision as they would be in transit on foot.You are free to experience the sensory data without restrictions.This allows a merging of the public and private spaces. Not onlycan you experience the visual you can also engage in soundinformation without the barriers of geological or social protocols.

When we jump from one visual setting to another does thisregister a signicant event in the mind? There is the idea thatthese spaces disappear or are lost in time and space. Is thereis disjoint in the eye, memory and sensory information? Themind sees no division between public and private, these notionsare dislocated in the movement of the DLR train carriage on therailway line. An image is then formed through the displacementand fragmentation of the spaces. This leaves the question ofwhat the spaces between the fragmented spaces actually areand do? This leads to the lm, which gives a sense of the mindspace in between the movement, thus putting time at the forefrontas it remains the constant. How would the brain react to this?It is (almost) as if two different spaces, one sealed, the otherpermeable compete to occupy the same moment in time. The

author seems to indicate a complete merger of the inside andoutside space, which in relation to the DLR is divided by the thin,transparent layer of glass that separates the passenger fromfully engaging with the physical environment in a tactile way.This is not only practical but also necessary for the way in whichpeople engage in the activity of travelling on the DLR. It is almostas if a certain space was shattered and it did not disappear thespeed of the DLR could be said to shatter through the differenttime spaces causing a psychological reaction.

Crossing the barrier from the public to the private is done bymovement (the movement of the feet or other transportationmechanism), eyesight (when spaces are not screened off) orby sound (this could indicate private conversations on the trainsor train operative jargon that should be private but due to theconnement of the space it is actually public). The daydreamcan be a signicant private space, which is then interruptedby other sounds that cross this barrier and therefore becomepublic. This daydream could then be broken up by something

quite dramatic, it can cause the mind to snap out of it andthen forced to interact in the public realm. There is never a realmoment of calm or silence due to these constraints.

Architecture is appreciated in a state of distraction againlinks to the idea of sensory information and sensory receptorsin the brain cause the experience of a journey on the DLR tobe understood in Architectural space. In this project the visualreceptors and senses are most signicant. The eye (mind) thenbecomes the instrument of intrusion, more than just a camerabut also a gateway to th


6/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


P R O J E C T 2

D O C K L A N D S L I G H T R A I L W A Y


7/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI



8/32


9/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


P R O J E C T 3

R O Y A L A L B E R T D O C K S


10/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI

UNIT 15 TIME MACHINES1997S I T E A N A L Y S I S


11/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


1981/1982

1985/1986

1983/1984

1995/1996

1982/1982

1990/1991

The LDDC

What was the LDDC?THE Corporation was an urban development corporation,

the second to be established by the then Secretary of Statefor the Environment, Michael Heseltine, under s.136 of theLocal Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Its object

was to secure the regeneration of the London Docklands Ur-ban Development Area (UDA) comprising 8 square milesof East London in the Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham

and Southwark. This was a response to a huge decline in theeconomy of the area brought about by the progressive clo-

sure of the docks (and dock related activity) from the 1960sonwards. Years later, in his book Life in the Jungle*, MichaelHeseltine wrote:

I had found myself in in small plane, heading in that direc-tion by way of the Londons East End. My indignation at

what was happening on the South Bank was as nothing com-

pared to my reaction to the immense tracts of dereliction Inow observed. The rotting docks - long since abandoned

for deep-water harbours able to take modern container shipsdownstream - the crumbling infrastructure that had once sup-

ported their thriving industry and vast expanses of pollutedland left behind by modern technology and enhanced envi-ronmentalism. The place was a tip: 6,000 acres of forgotten

wasteland

There had been attempts by the local authorities to deal with

this. These are described in an LDDC monograph InitiatingUrban Change published in 1997 - see below. These effortswere perceived by the Government to be much too slow and

there was a need for resources on a scale which it would onlymake available through a focussed agency of its own. LDDC

was wholly nanced by grant from the Government and theincome generated by the disposal of land for housing, indus-trial and commercial development.

(* Hodder and Stoughton, 2000, ISBN 0 340 73915 0 - seepages 130,153, 200, 211-214, 380, 397-398 and 515. Among

LDDC veterans Michael Heseltine is regarded as the father of

the Corporation)

Powers

Although its inuence in the area was undoubtedly very

strong, LDDCs powers were limited:

It had powers to acquire land by agreement or compulsory

purchase and, in the case of the large amount of land in thepublic sector, there were powers for it to be vested in the Cor-

poration by the Secretary of State. This ensured a supply ofland for development.

It took over from the London Boroughs their planning (but nottheir plan making) powers. This was response to the Govern-ments perception that the Boroughs had been too restrictive

in exercising their development control and other powers be-cause their plans for the area were outmoded and inappro-

priate.

It had powers, and the resources, to provide new (or refurbishthe existing) infrastructure.

Apart from planning all other public services (housing, educa-

tion, health etc) remained rmly in the hands of the Boroughsand other public agencies although the Corporation could anddid provide funds for their development and improvement.

The Corporations lack of remit in this respect was often mis-understood by those who felt the LDDC should do more torevitalise these services for the benet of local people.

H I S T O R I C A L C O N T E X T


12/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI




13/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


The Future

IN most of the LDDCs area the Corporation work was sufciently complete, and the momentum of regeneration such, that there was no need for a specialised agency to take over its role. The Boroughs and other local agencies were left to

carry on the work. In the Royal Docks, however, the Corporations there was a good deal of outstanding work. This was taken over by another agency of the central government, English Partnerships, working in collaboration with the London

Borough of Newham to whom the LDDCs planning powers were restored. The joint team established for this purpose operated from ofces on the north side of the Royal Albert Dock just opposite the Airport.

In July 2000, the interests, assets and liabilities of English Partnerships in the London region transferred to the new London Development Agency (LDA). The LDA joined the nine other Regional Development Agencies which were set up in

1999 but unlike the others, the LDA is answerable to the Mayor of London, and is one of four bodies for which the Mayor is responsible (the others being the Metropolitan Police, Fire Authority and Transport for London). Recent and new de-

velopments in the Royal Docks are the subject of another article on this site



14/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


How well did LDDC succeed?

OPINIONS vary about how well the Corporation succeeded in its regeneration task and the extent to which its

work was a benet to the original inhabitants of its area. Another Regeneration Research Report (Number 16 - see

below) published by DETR in 1998 has this to say:-

The LDDC has successfully tackled the widespread multiple market failure which prevailed in the London Dock-

lands in 1981. Failures in land, ho using and commercial property markets have been a ddressed and labour market

failures have been alleviated by a combination of training projects, improvements in accessibility in and out of

Docklands and the creation of new local jobs.

When all projects are completed the total public sector cost of regenerating Docklands will be of the order of

3,900 million, 48% incurred by the LDDC, 25% by London Transport and 27% by the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone.

Almost half the public sector cost of regenerating Docklands was devoted to transport infrastructure.

Private sector investment in Docklands, at 8,700 million by March 1998, has been substantial and will continueto increase well into the next century.

The LDDC has generated a wide range of economic, environmental and social benets. Prominent amongst these

are over 24,000 housing units and over 80,000 gross jobs within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Housing

tenure is substantially more varied, employment is three times higher, the number of rms has increased vefold

and the new stock of housing will accommodate an additional 45,000 population.

With respect to value-for-money, the evaluation concluded that every 1M of public sector cost generated net

additional benets in the UDA of 23 jobs, 8500 sq m of ofce oorspace, 7.8 housing units plus many other diverse

and intermediate benets. Since almost all the costs have been incurred and some of the benets have still to

materialise, this cost-benet ratio should be more favourable by a third when the end state position is reached in

2010 or 2015.

In spite of vociferous comments to the contrary over the life of the Corporation, the LDDC generated substantial

benets specically for local communities and residents. The amount of new social housing is higher than it would

have been in the absence of the Corporation.

In the wider local economy, the net impact of LDDC activities is lower, but even so, the LDDC generated an ad-ditional 23,000 jobs in Central London by increasing the supply of high grade ofce accommodation which led to a

more competitive nancial centre.



15/32

From: Mrs M Phillips

23 October 2011

Dear Newham Borough Council,

Please could you inform me as to what has happened to the public

space as described below that was situated at The Royal Albert

Dock, commissoned by LDDC at a cost of 2.5 million that now seems to

have dispappeared.

Royal Albert Piazza

* Landscape Institute Award 1997

Client: LDDC

Designer: LDC Ltd

ROYAL ALBERT DOCK, LONDONUrban renewal, infrastructure planning and plaza design.

LDC were responsible for the design and project management of this

new public open space.

This scheme was awarded the Landscape Institutes Biennial Design

Award for Outstanding Professional Achievement.

Contract value 2.5 million.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs M Phillips

Newham Borough Council

3 January 2012

Dear Mrs Phillips

Thank you for your email. I am unable to locate the request you are

referring to.

Can you please forward me a copy of the original request. Did you

receive an acknowledgement?

Many Thanks,

Rebecca

From: Mrs M Phillips

4 January 2012

Dear Newham Borough Council,

No I am not referring to Excel. The piazza was situated in the

Royal Albert Dock and it was popular with people wanting to watch

the planes.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs M Phillips

Newham Borough Council

6 January 2012

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your further email.

Having consulted colleagues in the Royal Docks regeneration team,

we have still been unable to locate ofcer knowledge of this piazza

site in the Royal Albert dock area.

We have noted that the design plans are from 1997 and these were

originally commissioned by the LDDC (whom as you will be aware

are no longer in existence.)

Kind regards

Information Governance Team

London Borough of Newham

Date: 03.02.2012

Dear Mrs Phillips,

In clarifying the location of the Royal Albert Piazza, it was identi-

ed it was contained within

the planning application for the redevelopment of the Royal Al-

bert Dock Northside in 1994 under Planning Application 94/0721.

At that time the London Docklands Development Corpora-

tion, where responsible for the

development of the Royal Albert area and as you have identi-

ed commissioned the

landscaping of the north side of the dock, including the Royal Al-

bert piazza.

In 1997 further development of the area was ap-

proved as part of the Royals Business Park

development by the LDDC.

From the plans and the associated report and following plan-

ning approval, it is evident that

the construction of the ofce build-

ing took place on the site of the Albert Square/Piazza.

Today this ofce building is known as Newham Dockside.

Dr. Graeme Betts

Adults, Community and Leisure

Executive Director for

Directorate

Adults, Community and

Complaints, MembersLeisure

Where did this proposed landscape, 2.5million investment and

the LDDC disappear to?

P O L I T I C A L C O N T E X T


16/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


1981

1980 1983 1986

Local Government Planning and Land

Act 1980 (LGPLA 1980) authorises

Secretary of State for the Environment

to establish Urban Development

Corporations (UDCs) by Order.

ecision announced to set up UDC for

London Docklands.

Shadow Chairman (Nigel Broackes),

Vice Chairman (Bob Mellish) and Chief

Executive (Reg Ward) appointed.

Staff from the Department of the

Environment and the Docklands

Development Organisation staff

seconded to help in setting up new

UDC.

The draft Area and Constitution Order

published - 27th November 1980

Early decision taken not to ll any more

docks

Parliament nally approves the the London

Docklands Development Corporation (Area and

Constitution) Order 1980 (S.I. 1981/936).

2nd July, The LDDC comes into being,The

LDDCs area embraces 5100 acres of three

Lodnon Boroughs.

Orders vesting in LDDC derelict land in

Docklands formerly owned by the local

authorities, PLA and other public bodies take

effect and 657 acres are transferred to the

Corporation.

History and Influence of

the London DocklandsDevelopment Corporation

1980 - 19981984- Work starts on the origi-

nal Docklands Light Railway

January => LDDC publishes draft

development Framework for the Royal

Docks

February => The Guardian announc-

es plans for printing works on the Isle

of Dogs

June => Airport proposal approved

by Government after inquiry and High

Court challenge

September => Parliament asked to

approve 50m extension of Docklands

Light Railway to Beckton.

October => LDDC Board approves

1.5bn Master Plan for Canary Wharf

submitted by consortium of American

banks. Work starts on negotiating the

Master Building agreement.

Bill approved to

extend Docklands

Light Railway to Bank

Canary Wharf Master

Building Agreement signed

Original Docklands Light

Railway completed


17/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


1989 1992 1995 1998

Work begins on rst building

contract at Canary Wharf and

on the extension of the Dock-

lands Light Railway to Bank

Development brief for issued

Surrey Quay Phase II

New 24m Connaught

Crossing opened in the

Royal Docks

February: New LDDC development framework

published for the Royal Docks.

LDDC commissions Docklands social services review

First tenants move into the Winsor Park Housing Estate,

Beckton

March: Michael Pickard takes over as LDDC Chairman.

Princess Diana re-launches London City Airport with a

longer runway suitable for jet aircraft

April: The Docklands Enterprise Zone expires.

LDDC takes over control of Docklands L ight Railway

May: Canary Wharf developer is put into administration

following slump in UK property market - creditor banks

take control

1993- LDDC abandons

abortive scheme for the

Londondome Arena on

the north side of the

Royal Victoria Dock and

launches new plan for

Exhibition Centre.

1994

January: Prime Minister John Major inaugurates work on

the 2.6bn Jubilee Line Extension.

HRH Prince of Wales lends support for the plan to build

an urban village at West Silvetown

March: 258m Beckton Extension of Docklands Light

Railway completed.

Work starts on social housing project in the proposed

urban village at West Silvertown

May: LDDC agrees 7.2m contribution towards the

cost of Olympic standard Rowing Course in the Royal

Albert Dock

October: LDDC withdraws from Bermondsey Riverside

December: LDDC launches social care grants scheme

31st March: LDDC leaves 8m with

the Royal Docks Trust (London) to

secure projects in the Royal Docks.

LDDC withdraws from the Royal

Docks and ceases operations

Derelict Land 1981

Current Land Use 1997



18/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


Te askHE 1980 Act requires an urban development corporation to securethe regeneration o its area, by bringing land and buildings into eec-tive use, encouraging the development o existing and new industryand commerce, creating an attractive environment and ensuring thathousing and social acilities are available to encourage people to live andwork in the area.

Against such a brie the task acing the Corporation in 1981 was daunt-ing. A Regeneration Research Report (No 12 - see below) published in1997 by the Department o the Environment, ransport and the Regions(DER) analysed the problems o the Docklands as ollows:

Te area experienced catastrophic job losses over a short period otime, as the Docks closed. Between 1978 and 1983, over 12,000 jobswere lost. Te skills o the local population, directed at blue collar work,were inappropriate or many o the growth areas o the London econo-my.

A high proportion o land was held by public bodies who had neitherthe will nor t he capital to make it available or redevelopment. Relativelylittle land was in private holdings. Tus the supply o land was con-strained by a pattern o ownership which was not market sensitive.

Te extent o dereliction in parts o Docklands was so severe that thecosts o development would be very high and uncertain, lowering the

attractiveness o the area to investors. External intervention was neededto meet extra-ordinary land reclamation costs and to improve developerconfdence more generally.

:

.

:

. .

:

. .H I S T O R I C A L C O N T E X T


19/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


:

. .

:

.

:

. .

:

. .

:

. .

:

. .

Many development sites were poorly served by the local infrastructure - the provision of which would be essential for these sites to be developed. Poor strategic links between Docklands and the rest of Lon -don, the country and internationally, would have created additional costs for employers thus depressing the potential returns on investment.

The market alone was unlikely to provide the environmental improvements (including landscaping, refurbishment of the dock estate or restoration of prominent landmarks) or the provision of infrastructure

and amenities that were essential if Docklands was to cast off its run-down image and become an attractive place in which to live and conduct business.

There were certain gaps in available information that were hindering the operation of markets - for example, the almost complete absence of private house-building in the area for years meant that housing

developers had no idea on the potential return for new-build, thus magnifying the risk to developers and deterring investment.

This combination of factors made it difcult for the market, without external intervention, to reverse the steep cycle of decline experienced by Docklands before the establishment of LDDC.



20/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


S I T E A N A L Y S I S


21/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI




22/32


23/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


I N T E R V E N T I O N P R O P O S A L

Peter Zumthor


24/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


Peter Zumthor

Carlo Scarpa

Daniel LiebskindTadao Ando

Brother Klaus Field Chapel

(2007), Photo by Pietro Savorelli

Terms Vals (1996), Photo by

Helene Binet

Carlo Scarpa, Brion-Vega

cemetery, 1970-72

Castelvecchio Museum

Jewish Museum,

Berlin

Daniel Libeskind

Kidosaki

Water Temple - Shingonshu

Honpukuji


25/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI

UNIT 15 TIME MACHINESS I T E A N A L Y S I S


26/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


(Grafton Architects) - Architecture as New Geography

http://goo.gl/MeyXV

Exploring the aesthetic, structural and environmentalpotential of brick and concrete, Graftons work reveals a

particular interest in how daylight can shape built forms

and highlights the contrast between heavy and light-

weight components.

I N T E R V E N T I O N R E S E A R C H


27/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI




28/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


roof geometry

pathway

water edge

existing landscape

restaurant/cafe

museum shop

circulation route

vertical circulation

exhibition space


M U S E U M O F M E L A C H O L Y

H I S T O R I C A L E X H I B I T I O N

S P A C E


29/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI


D A Y L I G H T S T U D Y

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL

AUGUST

DECEMBER

JULY

NOVEMBER

JUNE

OCTOBER

MAY

SEPTEMBER


30/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI




31/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI




32/32

JANUARY PORTFOLIO

TOMI OWOLABI

january portfolio_low comp

Documents