Page 79 of 382 FirstFirst ... 296975767778798081828389129179 ... LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,185 of 5720

Thread: Murcia: Business Center Metropolis Empire

  1. #1171
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    Certainly, congrats to Albacete and Valencia city. Are historic days to them. We all must be happy with the eve's , the next step will be Murcia, Cartagena and Almería. I hope live enough years to see it...

    -----------------------------------------------------------
    NOTE (SPA): En fin, ahora mejor que perder el tiempo en disputas inútiles sobre el pasado y la estación de Nueva Condomina, sería más positivo centrarse en ver cómo se consigue financiar y poner en marcha el tema del soterramiento de El Carmen, aparte de conseguir desbloquear lo de la línea de Chinchilla y el tema de Carrascoy. Luego todavía quedaría el espinoso asunto de la ZAL. Vamos a mirar hacia delante, porque durante los próximos 10 años habrá en Murcia temas de ferrocarril hasta en la sopa. Hay que hacerlo todo nuevo, dado que lo existente no vale para nada y las líneas de desarrollo de una futura red de ferrocarriles se van a decidir en estos meses.

    A ver si pronto salen las propuestas de los diversos partidos políticos y tomamos conocimiento de qué ofrece cada alternativa para hacer un juicio de valor. Este asunto es crucial para el desarrollo de la Comunidad en los próximos años. Esperemos que primen los análisis técnicos y de eficiencia sobre los políticos. El tema de las cercanías y los medios recorridos es más importante, para mi, que los largos recorridos.

  2. #1172
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Veermer View Post
    + 1000

    Mr Aznar, we are missing you!

    Note (Spa): no pillo lo del avión y las compras... será que voy perdiendo facultades...
    Anyway, if you prefer to visit Carrefour for your Christmas shopping... we can upload something about its expansion project at Las Atalayas Shopping Center... hahaha



    Happy Christmas Veermer !...

  3. #1173
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    CREALIA BUSINESS PARK
    A-30 Motorway. Ulea.
    Murcia Community


    ... an excellent initiative ...
    Developer
    GLOBAL CREALIA

    AERIAL IMAGES





    MASTERPLAN




    RENDERING







    MORE INFORMATION




    * * * * *

  4. #1174

  5. #1175
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    CASI FACTORY
    Los Partidores, Almería
    Andalusia Community


    ... a 'business ecosystem' based on new technologies associated with
    agro-industrial processes and environmental excellence....
    Developer
    GRUPO CASI

    * * * * *
    Last edited by Dr.T; December 17th, 2010 at 08:07 AM.

  6. #1176
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default


    Detailed and Explained


    Finally the FIA have published the detail of the 2011 technical regulations. There were no major surprises amongst the rules. There being rules to effectively ban: double diffusers, F-ducts & slotted rear wings. Newly introduced were the mandated weight distribution and adjustable rear wing.
    There’s a lot to cover, so I wont cover every rule change and neither can I cover them in detail. but here’s the main points (with the rule in italics).
    The full FIA regulations are detailed here: FIA F1 2011 Technical Regulations

    Ban on connected shark fins


    Another route to banning F-ducts, as well as a move to limit the ever expanding rear fin, the rule prevents any bodywork reaching the rear wing.
    “3.9.1 No bodywork situated between 50mm and 330mm forward of the rear wheel centre line may be more than 730mm above the reference plane.”

    Ban on slots in the beam wing


    With the exception of the central 15cm, the beam wing cannot have a slot that widens internals to create a blown slot. Only Williams raced this last year, but the practice has prevented. This reinforces the fundamental rule that the lower wing should only be formed of one element
    “3.10.1 Any bodywork more than 150mm behind the rear wheel centre line which is between 150mm and 730mm above the reference plane, and between 75mm and 355mm from the car centre line, must lie in an area when viewed from the side of the car that is situated between 150mm and 350mm behind the rear wheel centre line and between 300mm and 400mm above the reference plane. When viewed from the side of the car no longitudinal cross section may have more than one section in this area.
    Furthermore, no part of this section in contact with the external air stream may have a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.
    Once this section is defined, ‘gurney’ type trim tabs may be fitted to the trailing edge. When measured in any longitudinal cross section no dimension of any such trim tab may exceed 20mm.”
    Ban on slots in the rear wing


    As with the beam wing, the upper rear wing is prevented from having slots extending beyond the central 15cm. This prevent F-ducts or other blown slots, the latter which have been exploited for several years.
    “3.10.2 Other than the bodywork defined in Article 3.10.9, any bodywork behind a point lying 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line which is more than 730mm above the reference plane, and less than 355mm from the car centre line, must lie in an area when viewed from the side of the car that is situated between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm behind it.
    With the exception of minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the section in accordance with
    Article 3.18 :
    - when viewed from the side of the car, no longitudinal cross section may have more than two sections in this area, each of which must be closed.
    - no part of these longitudinal cross sections in contact with the external air stream may have a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.
    Once the rearmost and uppermost section is defined, ‘gurney’ type trim tabs may be fitted to the trailing edge. When measured in any longitudinal cross section no dimension of any such trim tab may exceed 20mm.
    The chord of the rearmost and uppermost closed section must always be smaller than the chord of the lowermost section at the same lateral station.”

    Limit on Rear wing support pylons


    The number, thickness and cross-section of the rear wing support pylons are now more tightly controlled.
    “3.10.9 Any horizontal section between 600mm and 730mm above the reference plane, taken through bodywork located rearward of a point lying 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and less than 75mm from the car centre line,
    may contain no more than two closed symmetrical sections with a maximum total area of 5000mm2. The thickness of each section may not exceed 25mm when measured perpendicular to the car centre line.
    Once fully defined, the section at 725mm above the reference plane may be extruded upwards to join the sections defined in Article 3.10.2. A fillet radius no greater than 10mm may be used where these sections join.”

    Clarification of the starter motor hole


    After some teams were exploiting oversized starter motor holes in the diffuser to create a slotted effect, the FIA clamped down with a clarification. This has now been written into the rule book.
    “3.12.7 No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 125mm above the reference plane. With the exception of the aperture described below, any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.
    An aperture for the purpose of allowing access for the device referred to in Article 5.16 is permitted in this surface. However, no such aperture may have an area greater than 3500mm2 when projected onto the surface itself and no point on the aperture may be more than 100mm from any other point on the aperture.”

    Ban on Double Diffusers (DDD) and Open Exhaust Blown Diffusers (EBD)


    Due to a previous weakness in the rules defining the underfloor, teams were able to exploit this to create the double diffuser. Double diffusers were only possible as an opening could be created in the gap been the reference plane, step plane and the diffuser. Now the rules close this avenue off.
    Additionally this opening allowed teams to open up the front of the diffuser to blow the exhaust through for an even greater blown diffuser effect. This rule also prevents this opening in all but the outer 50mm of the split between the diffuser and the floor.
    One additional clarification is that the suspension must not form any of the measured point for the under floor. Previously the minimum height was exploited by some teams placing wishbones or Toe-Control arms across the top an opening in the diffuser.
    “3.12.9 In an area lying 450mm or less from the car centre line, and from 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template to 350mm rearward of the rear wheel centre line, any intersection of any bodywork visible from beneath the car with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car. When assessing the compliance of bodywork surfaces in this area the aperture referred to in Article 3.12.7 need not be considered.
    3.12.10 In an area lying 650mm or less from the car centre line, and from 450mm forward of the rear face of the
    cockpit entry template to 350mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, any intersection of any bodywork
    visible from beneath the car with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line
    which is visible from beneath the car.
    3.12.11 Compliance with Article 3.12 must be demonstrated with the panels referred to in Articles 15.4.7 and
    15.4.8 and all unsprung parts of the car removed.”

    Driver operated F-duct


    Even though the loop holes in the rear wing regulations have been closed, this additional new regulation prevents the driver influencing aerodynamics. So that other driver controlled F-duct type devices cannot be exploited other areas, such as: front wings, sidepods or diffuser.
    “3.15 With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system, device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited.”

    Ban on movable splitters


    As with some other rules, this is a 2010 clarification now added to the regulations. Its thought that teams were allowing their splitter to flex upwards, to allow the car to run a more raked attitude and lower front wing ride height. There are now more stringent tests and restrictions on the splitter support mechanisms.
    “3.17.5 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at three different points which lie on the car centre line and 100mm either side of it. Each of these loads will be applied in an upward direction at a point 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line using a 50mm diameter ram in the two outer locations and a 70mm diameter ram on the car centre line. Stays or
    structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.
    Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is capable of allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load (including any linear deflection above the test load), such components could include, but are not limited to :
    a) Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
    b) Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
    c) Buckling members or any component or design which may have, or is suspected of having, any non-linear characteristics.
    d) Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.”

    Driver adjustable rear wing


    The driver adjustable front wing is now deleted from the rules and instead the rear wing is now driver adjustable. This is because the expected benefit of greater front wing angle never provided the driver with more grip when following another car. The front flap adjustment was much more a solution to tune the cars handling in between pitstops. The TWG found that the loss of drag from the rear wing was a more effective solution to allow the following to overtake. Now the rear wing flap can pivot near its rear most point and open the slot gap from 10-15mm to up to 50mm. Opening this gap unloads the flap and reduced both downforce and drag.
    This being controlled by the timing gap to the car ahead and managed by the FIA. So there’s two ways the driver can use the system. Firstly in free practice and qualifying the rear wing is solely at the control of the driver. They can adjust the wing at any point on the track and any number of times per lap. So for the ideal lap time, as soon as the car is no longer downforce dependant (straights and fast curves) the driver can operate the wing, just as they did with the F-duct. Although a small complication to the driving process, at least their hands remain on the wheel and not on a duct to the side of the cockpit.
    Then in the race the wing cannot be adjusted for two laps, then race control will send signals to the driver via the steering wheel, such that when they’re 1s or less behind another car at a designated point on the circuit, the rear wing can be trimmed out. The wing returns to the original setting as soon as the brakes are touched.
    “Furthermore, the distance between adjacent sections at any longitudinal plane must lie between 10mm and 15mm at their closest position, except, in accordance with Article 3.18, when this distance must lie between 10mm and 50mm.”
    3.18.1 The incidence of the rearmost and uppermost closed section described in Article 3.10.2 may be varied whilst the car is in motion provided :
    - It comprises only one component that must be symmetrically arranged about the car centre line with a minimum width of 708mm.
    - With the exception of minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the section, no parts of the section in contact with the external airstream may be located any more than 355mm from of the car centre line.
    - With the exception of any minimal parts solely associated with adjustment of the rearmost and uppermost section, two closed sections are used in the area described in Article 3.10.2.
    - Any such variation of incidence maintains compliance with all of the bodywork regulations.
    - When viewed from the side of the car at any longitudinal vertical cross section, the physical point of rotation of the rearmost and uppermost closed section must be fixed and located no more than 20mm below the upper extremity and no more than 20mm forward of the rear extremity of the area described in Article 3.10.2 at all times.
    - The design is such that failure of the system will result in the uppermost closed section returning to the normal high incidence position.
    - Any alteration of the incidence of the uppermost closed section may only be commanded by direct driver input and controlled using the control electronics specified in Article 8.2.
    3.18.2 The adjustable bodywork may be activated by the driver at any time prior to the start of the race and, for the sole purpose of improving overtaking opportunities during the race, after the driver has completed a minimum of two laps after the race start or following a safety car period.
    The driver may only activate the adjustable bodywork in the race when he has been notified via the control electronics (see Article 8.2) that it is enabled. It will only be enabled if the driver is less than one second behind another at any of the pre-determined positions around each circuit. The system will be disabled by the control electronics the first time the driver uses the brakes after he has activated the system.
    The FIA may, after consulting all competitors, adjust the above time proximity in order to ensure the stated purpose of the adjustable bodywork is met.”

    Mandated weight distribution


    Along with the supply of Pirelli control tyres they will be matched to a mandatory weight distribution. Now the cars minimum weight is 640Kg, the specified minimum axle weights, equate to a weight distribution ranging between 45.5-46.7% on the front axle. This is a few percent behind the typical 2010 loadings.
    “4.2 Weight distribution :
    For 2011 only, the weight applied on the front and rear wheels must not be less than 291kg and 342kg respectively at all times during the qualifying practice session.
    If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, it will be weighed on a set of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate.”

    Double wheel tethers


    For safety a doubling of the wheel tethers has been regulated. Each tether needs to pass through a different suspension member and have its own mounting points on the upright and the chassis. There’s not expected to be any performance impact with this. But the tethers are somewhat heavier, so they and the side intrusion panel are part of the reason for the greater minimum weight limit.
    “10.3.6 In order to help prevent a wheel becoming separated in the event of all suspension members connecting it to the car failing provision must be made to accommodate flexible tethers, each with a cross sectional area greater than 110mm². The sole purpose of the tethers is to prevent a wheel becoming separated from the car, they should perform no other function.
    The tethers and their attachments must also be designed in order to help prevent a wheel making contact with the driver’s head during an accident.
    Each wheel must be fitted with two tethers each of which exceed the requirements of 3.1.1 of Test Procedure 03/07.
    Each tether must have its own separate attachments at both ends which :
    - are able to withstand a tensile force of 70kN in any direction within a cone of 45° (included angle) measured from the load line of the relevant suspension member ;
    - on the survival cell or gearbox are separated by at least 100mm measured between the centres of the two attachment points ;
    - on each wheel/upright assembly are located on opposite sides of the vertical and horizontal wheel centre lines and are separated by at least 100mm measured between the centres of the two attachment points ;
    - are able to accommodate tether end fittings with a minimum inside diameter of 15mm.
    Furthermore, no suspension member may contain more than one tether.
    Each tether must exceed 450mm in length and must utilise end fittings which result in a tether bend radius greater than 7.5mm.”

    No more shaped wheel spokes


    After the static front wheel fairings that abounded in 2009, were banned and the wheel design homologated, there must have been some surprise that Ferrari managed to create an aerodynamic wheel shape in 2010. This is partly limited now by the restriction on surface area for spokes and shaping. The limited only allows 13% of the wheel centre to be spoked, meaning that a ten spoke wheel has to have spokes just 16mm wide.
    “12.4.6 When viewed perpendicular to the plane formed by the outer face of the wheel and between the diameters of 120mm and 270mm the wheel may have an area of no greater than 24,000mm2.”

    Clarification of mirror positions


    Again when the FIA clarify a rule or make a change for safety reasons, we don’t get to see the detail of this change until its put into the regulations. The removal of outboard mirrors was brought in early last year and now the mirrors can effectively be no more than 27.5cm from the cockpit opening
    “14.3.3 All parts of the rear view mirrors, including their housings and mountings, must be situated between 250mm and 500mm from the car centre line and between 550mm and 750mm from the rear edge of the cockpit entry template.”

    Ban on blade roll structures


    Mercedes surprised many with their blade-like roll structure, reducing the obstruction to the rear wing and allowing for a much shorter inlet tract for the engine, the solution was likely to be copied. A minimum cross section forced teams to have a wider section above the drivers head, negating the fundamental benefit of the solution
    “15.2.4 The principal roll structure must have a minimum enclosed structural cross section of 10000mm², in vertical projection, across a horizontal plane 50mm below its highest point. The area thus established must not exceed 200mm in length or width and may not be less than 10000mm2 below this point.”

    Dash roll structure point maximum height


    With the cockpit opening fixed at 550mm, teams have often raised the front of the chassis around the dash bulkhead to create a raised nose. In the first of several limits for both 2011 and 2013, with even more stringent plans for 2013, the height of the front of the chassis is now being controlled. The limit for this point is now 670mm, still some 120mm above the cockpit opening.
    “15.2.3 The highest point of the second structure may not be more than 670mm above the reference plane and must pass a static load test details of which may be found in Article 17.3.”

    Limit on front chassis height

    As already explained teams raise the position of the front (AA) and dash (BB) bulkheads to create space under the nose for airflow to pass in between the front wheels and reach the rear of the car. The trend for “V” sections noses, introduced on the Red Bull RB5 in 2009, makes the front of the chassis even higher, often being visible above the height of the front tyres (~660mm). Now both these bulkheads need to be at 625mm, some 75mm above the cockpit opening.
    “15.4.4 The maximum height of the survival cell between the lines A-A and B-B is 625mm above the reference plane.”

    Limit on shaped Rear Impact Structures


    Since the 2009 aero rules, teams have been shaping the rear impact structures into ever more curved shapes to lift it clear of the diffuser and pass it underneath the beam wing. The tail of this structure must be centred at 300mm high, to prevent extreme banana shaped structures, this rule forces the structure to vary by no more 275mm.
    “Furthermore, when viewed from the side, the lowest and highest points of the impact absorbing structure between its rear face and 50mm aft of the rear wheel centre line may not be separated vertically by more than


    https://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/...and-explained/

  7. #1177
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    A thinking about
    Corvera International Airport
    High Speed Train + Airport Terminal
    Satolas TGV by Santiago Calatrava




    * * * * *

    NOTE (SPA): Sigo creyendo que una conexión para la LAV Murcia-Cartagena en superficie y con un trazado paralelo a las pistas es lo más razonable para Corvera. Siempre lo he creído por razones de coste del proyecto, medioambientales (no quisiera que la armonía y la paz de sitios como La Murta se vieran alteradas por un gran túnel) y por el convencimiento de que conectar Lorca y Cartagena a través del aeropuerto de Corvera mejoraría la conexión entre el Campo de Cartagena y el Guadalentín (aparte de nuevas necesidades futuras, como pueden ser: Paramount Park o un circuito de F1 en Los Milanos). Creo que esta visión del proyecto, mucho más realista que el costosísimo túnel de Carrascoy, permitiría crear una mejor solución espacial para las conexiones ferroviarias en la Región, a la vez que no impediría el desarrollo de la ZAL de Murcia y de Cartagena. El túnel las anula, en mi opinión, hasta el punto de que, muy probablemente, la de Murcia acabe asimilando a la de Cartagena antes de que se construya. Lo correcto para un acceso ferroviario a Corvera es hacerlo en paralelo a sus pistas, por razones de estrictas servidumbres aeronaúticas, pues una aproximación a la terminal norte-sur exigiría prolongar la línea con un falso túnel bajo la terminal, una solución indeseable desde el punto de vista de la ingeniería debido al sobrecoste del refuerzo de la plataforma de la pista. Al final, harán lo que quieran o lo que más les convenga, pero el lunes se supone que será el punto de partida para la historia de ese túnel... Ya veremos cuándo se concluye y cuánto cuesta al final...
    Last edited by Dr.T; December 18th, 2010 at 03:19 AM.

  8. #1178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.T View Post

    * * * * *

    NOTE (SPA): Sigo creyendo que una conexión para la LAV Murcia-Cartagena en superficie y con un trazado paralelo a las pistas es lo más razonable para Corvera. Siempre lo he creído por razones de coste del proyecto, medioambientales (no quisiera que la armonía y la paz de sitios como La Murta se vieran alteradas por un gran túnel) y por el convencimiento de que conectar Lorca y Cartagena a través del aeropuerto de Corvera mejoraría la conexión entre el Campo de Cartagena y el Guadalentín (aparte de nuevas necesidades futuras, como pueden ser: Paramount Park o un circuito de F1 en Los Milanos). Creo que esta visión del proyecto, mucho más realista que el costosísimo túnel de Carrascoy, permitiría crear una mejor solución espacial para las conexiones ferreas en la Región, a la vez que no impediría el desarrollo de la ZAL de Murcia y de Cartagena. El túnel las anula, en mi opinión, hasta el punto de que, muy probablemente, la de Murcia acabe asimilando a la de Cartagena antes de que se construya. Lo correcto para un acceso ferroviario a Corvera es hacerlo en paralelo a sus pistas, por razones de estrictas servidumbres aeronaúticas, pues una aproximación a la terminal norte-sur exigiría prolongar la línea con un falso túnel bajo la terminal, una solución indeseable desde el punto de vista de la ingeniería debido al sobrecosto del refuerzo de la plataforma de la pista. Al final, harán lo que quieran o lo que más les convenga, pero el lunes se supone que será el punto de partida para la historia de ese túnel... Ya veremos cuándo se concluye y qué costo tiene al final...
    Gracias Dr_T eso es lo mas lógico para todos, y eso si es hacer región.
    Un Saludo.

  9. #1179
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alberto_mu View Post
    Gracias Dr_T eso es lo mas lógico para todos, y eso si es hacer región.
    Un Saludo.

    Maybe you don't understand the topic
    ----------------------------------------------------
    NOTE 1 (SPA): Se construya una solución ferroviaria bajo Carrascoy o se haga desde Alhama hasta Cartagena por Corvera, la situación es la misma: el trazado principal de FERRMED será desde Alicante hacia Almería pasando por Murcia. Dicho de otra manera, Cartagena sólo será un ramal,... por eso la ZAL estará al oeste de Murcia y en Cartagena, a mayores, sólo habrá una ZALP (Zona de Actividades Logísticas Portuarias) en el Gorguel y poco más. Quizás la solución por el oeste de Carrascoy no sea, al final, tan agresiva para la ZALP de Cartagena, pero por la opción centro bajo Carrascoy el efecto será fulminante y la ZAL de Murcia absorverá todo el tráfico logístico de mercancias en poco tiempo. Al final, una propuesta y la otra te dan el mismo resultado, máxime si tenemos en cuenta que la línea de Chinchilla tiene una capacidad potencial enorme en el futuro para mover mercancías hacia el centro de España, de la que carecerán otras redes ferroviarias, y que se cruzará con la gran arteria de FERRMED en donde se construirá la gran ZAL de Murcia.

    En dos palabras: los cartageneros no tienen nada que hacer en este asunto y el follón que están montando es gratuito, porque no van a conseguir nunca que se cree una línea exclusiva que les una con Alicante y Almería por la costa, dado que sería inmenso el coste de esa obra y de muy dudosa rentabilidad. Otra cosa es que, a lo mejor, la ZAL de Murcia pudiera estar un poco más al oeste de donde acaba el término municipal de la capital si se optara por prescindir del túnel de Carrascoy, pero como hay que sacar dinero para el tema del soterramiento de El Carmen, lo mejor será no andarse con más rodeos y dar por buena la opción Sangonera-Barqueros. El tema es meridiano y bastante claro.
    Last edited by Dr.T; December 18th, 2010 at 03:23 AM.

  10. #1180
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    D-Day: December 22nd


    Los ciudadanos podrán consultar
    los proyectos de planeamiento y gestión de Urbanismo
    a través de la web de la Gerencia


    El servicio se podrá utilizar a partir del día 22 de diciembre Se han digitalizado 87.890 archivos con un tamaño de almacenamiento de 1.372 GB y una superficie de papel digitalizada de 12.283 metros cuadrados


    La gerencia de Urbanismo ha informatizado sus expedientes con el objetivo de que los ciudadanos puedan consultar sus proyectos a través de la página web de la Gerencia. Este servicio se pondrá en marcha el día 22 de diciembre. El público podrá consultar, gratuitamente y desde cualquier ordenador, planes parciales, estudios de detalle, juntas de compensación, proyectos de reparcelación, etc.

    Este proyecto comenzó en 2008 con el objetivo de de cumplir con los requisitos legales de ofrecer información al ciudadano. Desde esa fecha se han introducido 87.890 archivos con un tamaño total de almacenamiento de 1.372 GB, y una superficie de papel digitalizada de 12.283 metros cuadrados. El archivo continúa creciendo cada día.

    La información sobre el Plan General de Ordenación Urbana se divide en normas urbanísticas y planos donde se pueden encontrar planos del PGOU en diferentes escalas (1:25.000, 1:10.000, 1:2.000, etc), y otros documentos que incluyen información histórica, el Pecha (Plan Especial del Conjunto Histórico) y los yacimientos arqueológicos. En cuanto a los Instrumentos de desarrollo de planeamiento y gestión, se ha digitalizado todo el archivo de Información Urbanística (tanto planos como documentación de proyectos aprobados y en vigor) y se ha desarrollando internamente una aplicación web que permite acceder al contenido de estos proyectos tanto por los funcionarios autorizados como por los ciudadanos a través de Internet.

    Este es el primer archivo digitalizado completamente, que además incluye en los expedientes en papel códigos de barras y etiquetas de radio frecuencia (RFID), de forma que se controla qué documento sale o entra al archivo y si se ha autorizado previamente el movimiento, dando una alarma al intentar sacar el expediente del archivo en caso de no estar autorizado. Se dispone también de un terminal móvil que nos permite localizar expedientes en cualquier despacho que pueda estar con solo pasar cerca de la carpeta, para inventariar y por temas de seguridad.

    La información se suministra en PDF y se está desarrollando un entorno GIS para la intranet del Ayuntamiento e Internet para el ciudadano.

    Los ciudadanos podrán consultar:

    - Número total de documentos : 34.531
    - Total de páginas escaneadas : 128.243
    - Planos digitalizados : 22.116
    - Documentos en formato PDF : 12.415
    - Documentos en formato A3 : 6.002
    - Documentos en formato A4 : 6.413

    Desde enero de 2006 hasta noviembre de 2010, los ciudadanos han realizado 23,9 millones de clicks en la página web de la Gerencia de Urbanismo. Se han registrado 3,1 millones de páginas visitadas, con una media de 1.795 páginas visitadas al día. Entre las páginas más visitadas se encuentran normas urbanísticas refundidas adaptadas a las regionales, Plan General y normas urbanísticas adaptadas a la legislación regional.

    http://www.murcia.es/centrodemedios/...yuntamiento-sv

  11. #1181
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    GRAN CASINO DE MURCIA EXPANSION
    Correos Street, Murcia City
    Murcia Community


    Mariinsky Theater clone.
    When someone copies the defects of two projects about the same building
    Clavel architects copy the Perrault's dome and the Diamond&Schmitt's skywalk
    Developer
    GRUPO ORENES


    Urbanismo aprueba el proyecto del Grupo Orenes
    para recuperar el antiguo edificio de Correos

    La intervención, diseñada por Clavel Arquitectos,
    dotará a la ciudad de una nueva zona de ocio y de servicios


    El Consejo Rector de la Gerencia de Urbanismo, que se ha reunido esta mañana, ha aprobado definitivamente el Plan Especial que permitirá recuperar el antiguo edificio de la calle Correos, propiedad del Grupo Orenes. El Pleno tendrá que aprobar el próximo lunes este proyecto.

    La rehabilitación del edificio, diseñada por el arquitecto Manuel Clavel, pretende recuperar un espacio urbano, integrándolo en la actividad económica existente, con un gran atractivo para el ocio. De esta forma, se complementa el actual Rincón de Pepe con un nuevo inmueble, surgiendo un complejo hotelero y de servicios de ocio único en el corazón de la ciudad.

    El antiguo edificio Correos y el edificio del Hotel Rincón de Pepe estarán unidos mediante una pasarela aérea. En el proyecto destaca la cúpula que cerrará el inmueble que actualmente ocupa Correos. Con una forma geométrica de piedra preciosa en un cofre, podrá cambiar de color, y otorga una gran singularidad a la intervención. Se mantendrá la fachada del edificio y el patio interior cubierto.

    Este nuevo espacio incorpora un aparcamiento subterráneo adscrito al uso del complejo –con unas 210 plazas aproximadamente-, la planta cero se reserva como espacio público con cafetería, restaurante, área de exposiciones, etc.; la planta 1 albergará el Casino (que desaparece del actual Rincón de Pepe y su lugar lo ocupará un gimnasio con spa); en la sala 2 se encontrará un salón multiusos (para convenciones, banquetes, etc.); en la planta 3 se ubicará el salón de celebraciones; mientras, las plantas 4 y 5 estarán ocupadas por suites del hotel. En la cubierta se instalará una piscina con terraza.

    En la actualidad se puede conocer el proyecto porque dentro del edificio hay un vídeo en 3 dimensiones para que cualquier ciudadano pueda visualizar cómo quedará el espacio.

    La ejecución del proyecto supondrá una inversión de 20 millones de euros (al margen del coste que supuso la adquisición del edificio). El plazo de ejecución de las obras es de unos 18 meses.

    http://www.murcia.es/centrodemedios/...mG4_delta%3D75
    CLAVEL ARCHITECTS PROJECT



    PERRAULT DOME IN MARIINSKY PROJECT





    DIAMOND&SCHMITT SKYWALK IN MARIINSKY PROJECT




    * * * * *

    NOTE (SPA): Contar la historia del Mariinsky es dolorosa para los que trabajamos allí durante algún tiempo. De Perrault sólo tengo palabras elogiosas: un maestro y una excelente persona. A principios de la década, el "maestro" de Clermont Ferrand, ganó el concurso internacional para desarrollar la ampliación del gran Teatro Mariinsky de San Petersburgo: todo un reto tecnológico por la ubicación del inmueble junto a los canales del Neva y por la propia singularidad del diseño. Allí trabajamos muchos durante bastante tiempo. Luego llegaron los problemas: la culpa la tuvo Gazprom y su puñetera torre Okhta. La opinión pública se levantó y la UNESCO entró a cuchillo. El alcalde y los oligarcas de Moscú se asustaron "...y los justos pagaron por los pecadores", como dice la Biblia. El proyecto de la cúpula diamantina de Perrault fue cancelado por considerarse demasiado agresivo con el entorno monumental de la ciudad báltica. Allí dejamos el sarcófago acabado y detrás vino un "arquitecto-trepa" de Canada que presentó un proyecto formalmente correcto en la audifonía y los desarrollos interiores, pero de un diseño exterior tan vulgar como zafio. Además, como si lo anterior fuera poco, le endosó al viejo "Templo de la Danza" de San Petersburgo una horrrible pasarela para conectarlo con el nuevo edificio: algo tan injusto como innoble.

    Hoy Murcia asiste impertérrita ante el proyecto de un "aprendiz de arquitecto" que, lejos de innovar, sólo copia lo que fueron las grandes cruces del Mariinsky: la cúpula diamantina iluminada con luces led rojizas (que lo asimilaba a una joya dentro del tesoro monumental de la Ciudad de los Zares) y la pasarela de Diamond&Schmitt... ¡ Con dos cojones ! o como dicen ahora los arquitectos hortera de chaqueta sin camisa y corbata: ¡ alleop ! ideas creativas...
    Last edited by Dr.T; December 18th, 2010 at 09:13 AM.

  12. #1182

    Default

    This is the state of investigative journalism today.

    http://www.laverdad.es/murcia/v/2010...-20101219.html

    NOTE (SPA): Qué casualidad que esa misma frase la haya escrito el Dr.T en estos foros hace unos días, y éstos lo saquen ahora (por supuesto, sin nombrar el capítulo de Ginés Navarro). Así está el periodismo en la Región de Murcia: "La Verdad", del grupo Vocento, sirve a los intereses más oscuros del Partido Popular, aunque cuando levantan un poco la mano, dan voz al PSOE. A IU, si grita mucho, y al fenómeno en alza, UPyD, los quieren callar a toda costa (porque defienden a los ciudadanos, no como los otros que defienden a los políticos que se sentaron en el despacho e hicieron ventosa con el ojo del culo en el sillón; esa caterba de politicuchos de tercera, sin oficio ni beneficio puestos a dedo por PP y PSOE en mandos intermedios que no tienen ni idea de nada y van sacando la barriga por la Platería y el Casino, como si fueran más que los currantes licenciados, doctores y catedráticos que sí que merecerían ciertos puestos). Ese es el estado del periodismo en Murcia. Si quiere Vd. radicalismo izquierdoso-pseudosostenibilista, váyase a Vega Media Press. Si quiere información pasada por la cortapisa del PP, váyase a La Verdad. Si quiere información sesgada, váyase a La Opinión. Si quiere leer todas las notas de prensa, váyase a murcia.com. Si quiere periodismo del bueno, métase Vd. en la web de Europa Press y Teleprensa.es. LO DEMÁS, ES ZAFIO.

    PD.- Señores periodistas, a ver si van Vds. trabajando un poquito mejor en lugar de leer tanto foro y decir lo que nosotros decimos. Que si van a publicar noticias, que sean NOTICIAS, no artículos de opinión sacados de nuestros textos. Hagan Vds. el favor y dejen de tirar por tierra su propia profesión y modo de subsistencia. Y a algunos les diría "Vendidos, más que vendidos, por 30 monedas de plata sacrificásteis la Veracidad. Os llegará vuestra hora".

  13. #1183
    Senior Member Veermer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Murcia (Spain)
    Posts
    207

    Default

    I like the project of Clavel Architects. It is possible that it is not very original, but it is much better than the current condition of the building. But I need to see more images.

  14. #1184
    Forum Veteran Dr.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SPA - RU
    Posts
    3,839

    Default

    Surely you are right. However, the project will not create a building design that will be admired in any architecture book. A pity, because Manuel Clavel had been characterized as an architect of another style so far.

    Bye Veermer.


    ------------------------------
    NOTE (SPA): Acabo de llegar a mi casa después de volar toda la tarde. Lo voy a decir lo más rápido posible. Es el último post que escribo en un foro en mi vida. Las cuentas del pasado ya están saldadas. Ahora tengo otra abierta, quizás peor que las anteriores. Espero poder pagarla con el silencio, porque este sitio ya nunca volverá a ser igual para mi desde ayer... Buena suerte a todos y os deseo lo mejor de corazón. Un saludo y hasta siempre.

  15. #1185

    Default

    what happen?Any problem whit ''bad people''??

Similar Threads

  1. Winter Garden of World Financial Center - Recent pictures
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: August 31st, 2016, 12:04 PM
  2. Empire State Building Observatory
    By noharmony in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: August 12th, 2011, 10:36 PM
  3. Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 21st, 2010, 09:17 PM
  4. Building Art at Rockefeller Center
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: June 26th, 2009, 02:40 PM
  5. Jazz at Lincoln Center - Time Warner Center
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 12:47 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software