Loft Transformation / Studio Appelo

first_img Projects ArchDaily Year:  The Netherlands photographs:  Matthieu van EkPhotographs:  Matthieu van EkSave this picture!© Matthieu van EkRecommended ProductsHeatingFocusFireplaces – AgorafocusLightsVibiaCeiling Lights – BIGPorcelain StonewareGrespaniaPorcelain Tiles- CoverlamPorcelain StonewareCeramiche KeopeCeramic Tiles – BackText description provided by the architects. Located in the eastern part of the old city center of Amsterdam, two old overhead doors used to hide an almost square space with a courtyard in the back. This “Eastern Islands” neighborhood has a rich history of old shipping wharfs on the waters’ edge, and which today still retains a warm village-like character.Save this picture!New Lay outThe conversion from car-garage to a family living space, makes an innovative use of this industrial plot. An open floor plan creates a modern Y-shaped living area, with sympathy to the heritage of the original building.Save this picture!© Matthieu van EkThe plot is divided into three zones: kitchen, living & library, and the children’s living areas. The kitchen and living spaces are located on the lighter, busier street side of the house, while the children and adjacent bedrooms are in the more private space at the rear.Save this picture!© Matthieu van EkThe peaceful courtyard at the rear provides a welcome retreat from city life, which is easily accessed through glass doors. Save this picture!© Matthieu van EkIn addition to the spatial principle, the limited budget was an important part of the design process. Most of the construction elements added have been smartly designed to allow resources to be concentrated on the kitchen and new facades.Save this picture!© Matthieu van EkResult is a kitchen which is dominated by a six meter long marble work-top, together with a total of ninety original steel “blass grune” window frames. Untreated concrete floors, textured plaster work and steel door and window frames provide a sympathetic reference to the industrial history of this now modern living space.Project gallerySee allShow lessInaugural Chicago Architecture Biennial Reveals Official List of 2015 ParticipantsArchitecture NewsZaha Hadid Architects Win Danjiang Bridge Competition in TaiwanArchitecture NewsProject locationAddress:Hoogte Kadijk, 1018 Amsterdam, The NetherlandsLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address. Share 2015 Architects: Studio Appelo Area Area of this architecture project “COPY” ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/771788/loft-transformation-studio-appelo Clipboard CopyLoft, Interior Design•Amsterdam, The Netherlands ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/771788/loft-transformation-studio-appelo Clipboard Area:  115 m² Area:  115 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project 2015 Photographs Loft Transformation / Studio Appelo Loft Transformation / Studio AppeloSave this projectSaveLoft Transformation / Studio Appelo CopyAbout this officeStudio AppeloOfficeFollowProductConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousingLoftInterior DesignAmsterdamThe NetherlandsPublished on August 14, 2015Cite: “Loft Transformation / Studio Appelo” 14 Aug 2015. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021. ISSN 0719-8884Browse the CatalogSinkshansgroheBathroom Mixers – MetrisVinyl Walls3MVinyl Finish – DI-NOC™ Cross HairlinePartitionsSkyfoldVertically Folding Operable Walls – Mirage®SinksThe Splash LabTrough Sink – Monolith A SeriesSkylightsVELUX CommercialModular Skylights in Helmkehof Cultural CenterBathroom AccessoriesBradley Corporation USAWashroom AccessoriesConcrete FloorsSikaDecorative Floor CoatingsMetal PanelsSherwin-Williams Coil CoatingsFluropon® Coating in Thaden SchoolWood Boards / HPL PanelsInvestwoodViroc Nature for Partition WallsMineral / Organic PaintsKEIMMineral Wood Stain – Lignosil®-VeranoDoorsdormakabaEntrance Doors – MAGNEOSinksECOPIXELWashbasin – Light Basin LTBMore products »Save世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否翻译成中文现有为你所在地区特制的网站?想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?Take me there »✖You’ve started following your first account!Did you know?You’ll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream Save this picture!© Matthieu van Ek+ 20 Share “COPY” Year:  Loftlast_img read more

Read More »

Lest We Forget

first_imgColumnsLest We Forget Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Senior Advocate31 Jan 2021 11:12 PMShare This – xOn the 26th Day of January 71 years ago, a free people gave unto themselves a charter of national aspirations, imagined and nurtured in the crucible of a long and arduous struggle for freedom. A Republic, representing a confluence of cultures spanning diverse currents of history was established, setting aspirational benchmarks for political, social and economic justice in free India….Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginOn the 26th Day of January 71 years ago, a free people gave unto themselves a charter of national aspirations, imagined and nurtured in the crucible of a long and arduous struggle for freedom. A Republic, representing a confluence of cultures spanning diverse currents of history was established, setting aspirational benchmarks for political, social and economic justice in free India. Our founding moment, that represented a transformation of subjects into citizens, was about the shaping of democracy anchored in freedom and justice for all as understood in the ‘tapestry of history’. The ideal of ‘Poorna Swaraj’ unfolded by the Indian National Congress in 1929 envisioned a society in which all could live in harmony and happiness Despite challenges that have threatened the nation’s unity since Independence, we have held our own to prevail against all odds. Bound together by blood and bonding, a common civilizational heritage and shared sense of destiny, we have emerged as a powerful voice in the comity of nations for the shaping of a new global order. As the world’s largest democracy predicted to be the third largest economy by 2050, we can be justly proud of our significant achievements as a nation. These include a successful conduct of the world’s largest electoral exercise, the largest digital individual identification program and the largest vaccination program anywhere in the world. The enviable success of our Space and Nuclear programs does us proud as a nation. The pageantry and grandeur of the Republic Day parade mirrors the confidence of a nation on the move. But lest we forget, this is only a part of the story. The robust economic growth in past years notwithstanding, India ranks 144th out of the 153 countries in the United Nation’s World Happiness Report for 2020. It stands at number 51 in the Economic Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index of 2019 and is at 129th position out of the 189 countries reviewed in the United Nation’s Human Development Index report of 2020. We spend barely 2% of our GDP at 2.6% trillion dollars for securing the health of 1.3 billion people. The richest 1% own 53% of the national wealth while the poorer half shares only 4.3% of the country’s wealth amongst themselves. The rise of political extremism, domestic terrorism, escalating ethnic and caste related violence, a pervading sense of hopelessness, bitterness, rage and alienation of vast sections of our people point to a society under strain and in distress. Rising social and economic inequities interrogate the Constitution’s promise. A frontal assault on multi-culturism negates our commitment to a common cultural heritage. Falling standards of moral rectitude in the conduct of politics, loss of inclusiveness and public contestation, the drowning of conscientious disagreements under a fusillade of abuse, criminalization of dissent and a political universe of lies in which leaders feel liberated from the truth, question the resilience of our democracy. The persecution of political opponents, laws constraining liberties, a disturbed constitutional equilibrium of power and responsibility between the three branches of government and a demonstrated disdain for the discipline of federalism and constitutional principle have denuded our democracy of its moral legitimacy. The unprecedented farmers’ agitation is a resounding loss of confidence in the processes of governance and a deafening reminder of the tyranny of laws. Distressing incidents of violence on the Republic Day draw attention to the volatility inherent in mass protest movements and the limits of the State’s police powers in responding to aggravated sensitivities. The Government’s unwise resort to oppressive and selective enforcement of draconian laws fails the test of proportionality and democratic restraint. The increasing dysfunctionality of Parliament and the failure of responsive accountability on the part of other democratic institutions is an ominous signal of a weakened democracy. The flawed functioning of our constitutional institutions is a reminder of the French statesman Chateaubriand’s caution “that every institution goes through three stages: utility, privilege and abuse.” Are we in the third stage in the life of our liberatarian institutions and must we suffer a Government that wears the “badge of lost innocence”, is the question. Imagined scandals and invented injuries coalesce into a self perpetuating falsehood and produce an environment in which justice is reduced to an optical illusion. A polity that invokes moral relativism to blunt the testing measure of power and promotes the triumph of power over principle, passion over reason and mediocrity over merit is an affront to the vision and memory of our founding fathers. As we celebrate the 72nd Republic Day, history, as our collective burden, beckons us to vigorously assert and energize ourselves in the advancement of constitutional goals. We must resolve not to ‘lock the agitation in our hearts’ and strive to establish “constitutional morality as a national sentiment”. As citizens, we must reject a willingness to be deceived, for “lies don’t work unless they are believed”. Nor can we be seduced by the trappings of authority and temptations of uncontrolled ambition. Let us not discount, as we do today, the value of soaring idealism that has inspired the birth of our Republic and which must define its politics. We must, therefore, support leadership that is not “wrapped up in itself”. Let us resolve to sustain our plurality and travel together so that we may travel far. And we must heed President Joe Biden’s timely advice in his inaugural speech that ‘disagreement need not lead to dis-union’ and that we must ‘open our souls, instead of hardening our hearts’. Only then can we hope to secure the divine benediction prayed for by Gurudev Tagore, for our nation “Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high… Where words come out from the depth of truth… Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action…” Let me conclude with the hopeful felicity of Seamus Heaney: “…But then once in a lifetime the longed-for tidal wave, Of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme…”(Author is a Former Union Minister for Law & Justice And Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Views expressed herein are personal)Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Read More »

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT RULING CONCERNING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

first_imgTennessee v. Garner Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” Supreme Court of the United States Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg Full case nameTennessee v. Edward Garner, et al. LANDMARK SUPREME COURT RULING CONCERNING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE U.S. Const. amend. IV MajorityWhite, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailShare Laws applied Prior historyOn certiorari from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1Facts and procedural history2Majority opinion3Dissent4See also5External links Chief JusticeWarren E. Burgercenter_img Argued October 30, 1984Decided March 27, 1985 Holding Court membership Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. DissentO’Connor, joined by Burger, Rehnquist Associate JusticesWilliam J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall · Harry BlackmunLewis F. Powell, Jr. · William RehnquistJohn P. Stevens · Sandra Day O’Connor Tennessee v. GarnerFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Contents Case opinions Facts And Procedural HistoryAt about 10:45p.m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis police officers Leslie Wright and Elton Hymon were dispatched to answer a burglary call next door. Officer Hymon went behind the house as his partner radioed back to the station. Hymon witnessed someone running across the yard. The fleeing suspect, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-foot-high (1.8 m) chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner’s face and hands, and was reasonably sure that Garner was unarmed. The police testified that they believed Garner was 17 or 18 years old; Garner was in fact 15 years old. After Hymon ordered Garner to halt, Garner began to climb the fence. Believing that Garner would certainly flee if he made it over the fence, Hymon shot him. The bullet struck Garner in the back of the head, and he died shortly after anambulance took him to a nearby hospital. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the burglarized house were found on his person.Hymon acted according to a Tennessee state statute and official Memphis Police Department policy authorizing deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute provided that “if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.”Garner’s father then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the City of Memphis, its mayor, the Memphis Police Department, its director, and Officer Hymon as defendants. The District Court found the statute, and Hymon’s actions, to be constitutional. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a “seizure” for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.Majority OpinionJustice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit’s determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion.The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect’s interest in his own survival.White examined the common law rule on this matter and its rationale. At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon. At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were punishable by death, and the difference between felonies and misdemeanors was relatively large. In modern American law, neither of these circumstances existed. Furthermore, the common law rule developed at a time before modern firearms, and most law enforcement officers did not carry handguns. The context in which the common law rule evolved was no longer valid. White further noted that many jurisdictions had already done away with it, and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public.On the basis of the facts found by the district court, Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous. The Court ordered the case remanded for a determination on the liability of the other defendants.DissentIn her dissent, Justice O’Connor highlighted the fact that police officers must often make swift, spur-of-the-moment decisions while on patrol, and argued that the majority did not properly consider this aspect of the case. Moreover, burglary is a serious crime which often leads to rape and murder, and the Tennessee statute represents the state legislature‘s judgment that such crimes may require the use of deadly force in order to protect the public against those who commit such crimes. She also disagreed that a suspect’s interest in his own life necessarily allows the right to flee from the scene of a crime when pursued, thereby escaping due process. Citations471 U.S. 1 (more)105 S. Ct. 1694; 85 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 195; 53 U.S.L.W. 4410last_img read more

Read More »

Former stars lock horns at Thurles

first_imgMikael D’Haguenet and Mourad both feature for Willie Mullins in the Thurles Racecourse Hurdle on Thursday. The first-named looked set to make his mark in championship company after landing the 2009 Neptune Novices’ Hurdle and while he has won his share of races since, he has failed to hit the expected heights. He finished two lengths adrift of Hurricane Fly in the Morgiana when last seen, with that stablemate subsequently relinquishing his Champion Hurdle crown last week. Multiple Graded winner Mourad has had just two runs since June 2012 and failed to beat a runner on his most recent appearance in the Limestone Lad Hurdle. Mullins will be hoping to get off to a winning start with Local Celebrity in the Templemore Beginners Chase. The 10-year-old fell in a race won by Trifolium back in November and has been given plenty of time to get over that mishap. An Dearthair Og broke his duck in no uncertain terms at Wexford on Monday and Henry de Bromhead turns him out again quickly under a penalty in the Jimmy Neville Memorial Handicap Chase. Sarah Battle also makes a swift reappearance, having managed to place only fifth when sent off favourite at Limerick last weekend. She tries her luck again in the Clonoulty Handicap Hurdle. Gold Cup-winning trainer Jim Culloty fields Prince Of Lombardy in the Devil’s Bit Maiden Hurdle, while Archie Meade, who was pulled up in the Thyestes Chase, tackles an easier assignment in the Cashel Beginners Chase. center_img Press Associationlast_img read more

Read More »