Village workshop - charrette Why did we need a village workshop? –Things were moving slowly at the Town Hall –If we could get no input from the municipality we would get it by our own. Why did we invite INTBAU Scandinavia to organise this work shop? –The project architect was Mr. Arne Sødal, member of INTBAU Scandinavia. –Intbau Scandinavia proposed to organise the WS. It was good value for money. –The quality turned out to be excellent.
The long term consequences of involving INTBAU? Mr. Sødal and Mr. A. Engh organised the workshop. The need for a training venue and office became evident. The first steps towards a rental agreement for House 344 was made. Mr. A. Sødal, Mr. A. Engh, A. Neag, have the contract with the owner. The paperwork to start INTBAU Romania was set in montion. The genesis of INTBAU Romania was started. Many students were recuited from the Medias workshops / architect competitions. Mr. A. Sødal, Mr. A. Engh pushed this project forward on their own initiative.
Figure 5. Proposed development low cost social housing - overview. Development of Node 2. Northern side of village, at entry from turnoff from main road. Presently site is makeshift gypsy settlement. To the right a run down former workers housing block. Can with minor financial means be brought up to minimum standard. Plan for low cost communal houses for the socially disabled as presently set in motion by the by Municipality. Target, bring social hosing, improved sanitary conditions; i.e. washing facilities. Figure 6. Detailed view of upgraded workers flats at north end of social housing village proposed development
Proposals for upgrade and safeguard of buildings; court between Hospital and the new Saxon church. One of the nodes is the complex of House of Culture (behind church), the Saxon Church; the old tower and the hospital. Results to be achieved with a minimum of investments and use of local manpower.
court between Hospital and the new Saxon church. Renovation of place outside the church.
The historic urban planning seminars with the Municipality 2003 – the historic center square and the new market 2004 – historic court yards and facades, 2005 – The historic centre; the old monastery, the medieval walls
Winning model from architect student competition Franz Ferdinand place, Medias, May 2003
Now used for INBAU training seminars. Last in September 2007.
Rehabilitation method - Work priority definitions Developed by Riksantikvaren and architect. Mr. A. Sødal categ ory Starting condition house / property Relevant interventions – order of priority C 1. Good maintenance condition. Only normal yearly maintenance work needed Front facades, drainage, down pipes, gate, stucatures, C 2. poor maintenance condition, but suffer no structural damages. 1. Damaged building elements: roofs, drainage, down pipes, gate, side walls, windows etc. 2. Esthetical elements: painting facades, restoring front façade stucature. C 3. poor maintenance condition and suffer from structural damages. 1. Repair of structural damages (fallen down roof, falling out of fundaments, caving in of cellar vaults, cracking of facades and long term damages caused by moisture and root). 2. Repair of other damaged building elements: : roofs, drainage, down pipes, gate, side walls, windows etc. 3. Restoration of esthetical elements (painting of facades, front façade stucature). C 4. in bad need of attention and maintenance to arrest the (rapid) and advanced decay through existing damages to the house. Only arresting actions are applied. The objective is to arrest further decay of the building fabric to safeguard house for future repairs; C3.intervention.
INTBAU Workshop on eco- tourism and cultural heritage 1. The trekking group 2. A group mapping interesting events 3. A group mapping interesting sites 4. A group looking at cultural and natural heritage sites and documenting a village profile based on the findings
Walking routes drawn up during the workshop; illustrates the need for detailed topographical maps.