CopyMaster Plan, Apartments, Residential•Penrith, Australia ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/957995/lumina-apartments-dko-architecture Clipboard ArchDaily Lead Landscape Architect:Matt CogganLandscape Architect:Hayley Huang, Scott JacksonPrinciple:Koos de KeijzerDirector:David Randerson, Nick Byrne, Raymond MahGraduate Architect:Ricky YeDesign Architect:Sasha Hakimian, Weimeng JiangCity:PenrithCountry:AustraliaMore SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!© Ben GuthrieRecommended ProductsStonesNeolithSintered Stone – Arctic White – Colorfeel CollectionStonesCosentinoSurfaces – Prexury®WoodLunawoodThermowood FacadesWoodAccoyaAccoya® Cladding, Siding & FacadesSave this picture!© Ben GuthrieText description provided by the architects. DKO’s design concept for two linear sites in Penrith aims to create a series of vertical villages that animate the street, each with different characters and scales. Save this picture!© Ben GuthrieSave this picture!Site PlanSave this picture!© Ben GuthrieThe buildings have been designed to mediate between the more considerable height, scale and proportion of adjacent apartment developments and the fine grain, smaller terraces and houses in the surrounding context. This is paired with the vision to create a network of smaller, more approachable and diverse communities. Save this picture!© Ben GuthrieSave this picture!© Ben GuthrieThe buildings are highly articulated and have been visually broken down into volumes. The massing sensitively responds to existing conditions and is aligned with Penrith Council’s future plans for the area. The visual bulk of the buildings is softened further due to material selection, massing techniques, and landscaping. The façade is composed primarily of pre-cast concrete of varying tones with highlights of black metal screens and window hoods. The brick element contributes to the texture and materiality of the façade and responds to the general character of the surrounding buildings.Save this picture!© Ben GuthrieIn different sizes and layouts, a variety of dwelling typologies have been considered within the overall scheme, offering opportunities for families of all scales and helping to create a highly diverse community. Save this picture!© Ben GuthriePrivate and communal open space has been skilfully woven throughout the development. Street landscaping wrapping around each buildings’ edges creates a green buffer while establishing a clear and engaging entry for residents. Unique double-storey communal spaces further break up the building mass, creating generous open green zones supporting various resident activities – from relaxation and play to food production and gatherings. These facilities will foster social interactions between residents and promote a real sense of community.Save this picture!© Ben GuthrieThe Lord Sheffield Circuit apartments aim to reduce reliance on mechanical heating and cooling through carefully considered passive design solutions. Deep balconies, screening and shading devices offer additional sun protection, while 61% of apartments embrace cross-ventilation via open-plan floor plates to the corners and through the building’s depth. The building’s orientation takes full advantage of prevailing breezes to maximize fresh air movement, creating a comfortable indoor environment. Low energy lighting, energy-efficient water heaters, water-saving fittings, and fixtures have been specified throughout, with rainwater tanks onsite collecting for public and private gardens.Save this picture!© Ben GuthrieProject gallerySee allShow lessGround Floor Office / Takayuki Kuzushima and AssociatesSelected ProjectsThe Edge Office Building / Dub ArchitectsSelected ProjectsProject locationAddress:210 Lord Sheffield Cct, Penrith NSW 2750, AustraliaLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address. Share Manufacturers: Austral Bricks “COPY” Projects Year: Area: 15000 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Australia Lumina Apartments / DKO ArchitectureSave this projectSaveLumina Apartments / DKO Architecture Lumina Apartments / DKO Architecture Architects: DKO Architecture Area Area of this architecture project Photographs Save this picture!© Ben Guthrie+ 46Curated by Paula Pintos Share Photographs: Ben Guthrie Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/957995/lumina-apartments-dko-architecture Clipboard Lead Architects: Master Plan 2020 Sonny Oh “COPY” CopyAbout this officeDKO ArchitectureOfficeFollow#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsUrbanismUrban PlanningMaster PlanResidential ArchitectureHousingApartmentsBuildingsResidentialPenrithOn FacebookAustraliaPublished on March 06, 2021Cite: “Lumina Apartments / DKO Architecture” 05 Mar 2021. ArchDaily. Accessed 10 Jun 2021.
About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. 30 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Mental health care charity Rethink is testing 240,000 inserts in The Guardian during June to capitalise on its national awareness week.TDA is the agency behind the campaign that is split testing two propositions; one focusing on opposing prejudice, the other on raising funds to provide practical support for people as they recover. Each leads with the experiences of somebody who has been affected by severe mental illness or associated discrimination. Both inserts are designed to motivate people to make a regular donation to Rethink’s work. “The campaign has been timed to coincide with Rethink Week, which runs from 20-30 June,” said Louise Farnell, Head of Fundraising at Rethink. “The aim of Rethink Week is to raise awareness of and funds for our work.” Advertisement AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Howard Lake | 24 June 2003 | News “This is a high impact campaign using negative situations that have turned positive with help from Rethink,” said Sarah Woodford Jones, Account Director at TDA. “The aim of the split test is to establish whether campaigning work or practical support are more powerful messages for generating donations. The message will be most relevant to people who have experienced mental illness first hand, either personally or through a friend or relative.” Rethink tests inserts in The Guardian during awareness week Tagged with: Consulting & Agencies Individual giving
About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. 61 total views, 3 views today Howard Lake | 12 January 2012 | News Giifa – Changing the World, One Job at a Time AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Advertisement How do charities convince enough donors that employing skilled staff is an essential and valuable part of running a successful charity? The question bedevils many charities who find it hard to secure funding for core costs like staff.US online service Giifa might offer a way forward. The site, still in development, aims to list charities and prospective employees, and invite individuals to donate towards that employee’s salary and costs of employment. In a way, it is like project funding, which attracts many donors with its transparency and its ability to demonstrate impact. In Giifa’s case though, the project is the staff member.Once enough money has been raised, based on a figure set by the nonprofit, then the employee can be hired.The site is being developed by Pratyush Agarwal, who was inspired by peer-to-peer microfinancing site Kiva.org. He explained: “Giifa’s mission is to make donations more transparent, while empowering every individual to create jobs, and help the US economy recover.”I can see some objections to the site’s model, not least how long can employees and nonprofits wait to hear if they have been funded. But its focus on paying for staff costs is most welcome, and might inspire other crowdfunding sites to add such a facility.What is Giifa? 62 total views, 4 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Tagged with: Digital Recruitment / people
Since 2007 approximately 75 percent of the $9 billion to $11 billion in bonds issued by Puerto Rico’s Electric Power Authority (AEE in Spanish), allegedly to repair and maintain the electrical infrastructure, has instead gone to pay debt service, termination fees on interest rate swaps, and fees to financial advisers on the $9 billion in bonds owed by the utility.The effects of this usury on AEE, as well as other sectors of the Puerto Rican economy, left the electric company in complete disrepair even before the recent hurricanes. For much the same reason, the people of Puerto Rico now face at least six months with no electricity. The debt service imposed by the banks and financial institutions has led to huge increases in electricity rates for the poor.What follows is a brief summary of this usury practiced by finance capital. These facts are taken from a report titled “Wall Street’s Power Grab in Puerto Rico,” prepared by the Refund America Project of the Action Center on Race & the Economy. This report and others on the austerity imposed on Puerto Rico by the banks can be found at refundproject.org/#puerto-rico.AEE’s bonds are triple exempt, meaning that investors don’t pay state, local or federal taxes on them, which means they are considered great investments for financial institutions.A June 2015 study by the Puerto Rico House of Representatives’ Small and Medium Businesses, Commerce, Industry and Telecommunications Commission found that of more than $11 billion in AEE bonds issued between 2000 and 2012, only $2.7 billion was dedicated to capital projects. One hundred sixty-five million went to financial “advisors” for fees, and the rest, more than $8.5 billion, went to interest payments and to refinance earlier debt.More than $2 billion of the proceeds from AEE bonds from 2007-13 was allocated to paying older debt and debt-related fees such as capitalized interest, lines of credit and swap penalties. Rather than being used to fund infrastructure improvements, the bonds were used primarily to make interest payments on debt and pay off previously issued bonds and interest rate swaps. Only about 31 percent of bond revenues since 2007 were allocated to AEE’s construction fund to upgrade and repair infrastructure.The banks underwrote bonds that pushed final maturity of the debt beyond the Puerto Rican Constitution’s 30-year limit.Cancel the debtBanks like JP Morgan and Chase collected at least $65 million in termination penalties on interest rate swaps connected to AEE bonds. These banks underwrote the original bond deals that included the toxic swaps — giving them multiple paydays on the same bonds. This is at least a conflict of interest and potentially a violation of securities law.AEE bonds with a principal of $822 million issued in 2010 were underwritten by Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase. At least a quarter of the bond proceeds was designated to repay a line of credit with these institutions.The ratings agencies Standard & Poors, Moody’s and Fitch gave AEE positive investment grade ratings for major bond offerings as late as 2013, despite knowing that AEE did not have revenues sufficient to cover the debt. They did so because they are funded by the banks who pay them to rate the bonds.Wall Street pressured AEE into an unfair debt restructuring when it was clear AEE was heading to a default on the bonds. This pending default was precipitated in part by the same bond agencies, which had fraudulently rated the bonds investment grade, downgrading AEE’s investment grade in 2014.Hedge funds like Blue Mountain Capital, Oppenheimer Funds Inc., Mass. Mutual Life Insurance, Goldman Sachs and Franklin Resources purchased the bonds for 50 cents to 60 cents on the dollar. They then pushed AEE into a restructuring agreement that allows for automatic rate increases for AEE customers when energy use declines due to people being unable to afford their electricity or leaving the island entirely.When Puerto Rico filed to restructure its debt under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (Promesa) in May, the $9 billion in AEE debt was not included in the filing. After Gov. Ricardo Rosello took office this year, he negotiated a revised restructuring agreement with an effective repayment rate of 85 percent on the bonds, despite the fact that Puerto Rico could afford to pay only about 25 percent of the existing public debt.Further fleecing AEE and the people of Puerto Rico, financial “advisors” like Alix Partners were paid enormous fees, way over the norm and twice the original estimates for their involvement in the restructuring.The people of Puerto Rico have every right to demand that the debt to the banks and financial institutions be canceled and that these robbers be forced to fund the reconstruction of the island and its infrastructure.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Home Energy ASA Points to Multiple Benefits from Increase in Biodiesel Fuel Standard The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday an increase in the biodiesel volume requirement under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) from 1 billion gallons in 2012 to 1.28 billion gallons in 2013, a move welcomed by the American Soybean Association (ASA).“More than half of all biodiesel produced in the United States comes from soybean oil, which expands a growing market for soybean farmers,” said ASA President Steve Wellman. “We congratulate the Environmental Protection Agency on today’s announcement as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Secretary Vilsack for their continued strong support for the U.S. biodiesel industry. We look forward to helping the U.S. biodiesel industry hit the 1.28 billion gallon mark in 2013. By achieving the new requirement, we’ll help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and help increase soybean meal supplies to our valued partners in the livestock industry for use as feed.”Wellman highlighted several benefits from biodiesel production that help U.S. livestock producers. “Soybean-based biodiesel actually has a positive impact on U.S. soybean meal supplies,” he said. “Processing biodiesel from soybeans uses only the oil portion of the soybean, which is about 18-20 percent of the soybean, leaving the remaining 80-82 percent of the soybean available as protein to nourish both livestock and humans. By increasing the market for soybean oil in the United States and domestic oilseed processing, we increase the availability of protein-rich meal for human and livestock consumption. The increased meal supply results in a more cost-effective food and feed source. In addition to soybean oil, biodiesel is made from a wide range of sources, including other agricultural oils such as canola, recycled cooking oil, and animal fats, enabling the majority of biodiesel producers to alternate feedstocks if prices increase or supplies decrease.”“It is important to remember,” added Wellman, “increased biodiesel use helps to grow diversity in our nation’s fuel supply, which in turn, reduces our vulnerability to inflated global oil prices which are the real drivers behind increased food costs because of higher food processing and transport costs. Biodiesel is a clean, renewable, American-made energy source that helps expand our fuel supply.”ASA represents all U.S. soybean farmers on domestic and international issues of importance to the soybean industry. ASA’s advocacy efforts are made possible through the voluntary membership in ASA by more than 21,000 farmers in 31 states where soybeans are grown.Source: ASA ASA Points to Multiple Benefits from Increase in Biodiesel Fuel Standard SHARE Previous articleAnalyst says End Users Now Supporting Corn and Bean MarketsNext articleGas Prices Within Pennies Of New 2012 Highs Andy Eubank By Andy Eubank – Sep 16, 2012 SHARE Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter
By Digital AIM Web Support – February 17, 2021 Twitter SoftServe acquiert le statut d’Expert en droit et gouvernement, dans le cadre du programme Google Cloud Partner Advantage Local NewsBusiness TAGS Pinterest WhatsApp Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Previous articleSoftServe erlangt „Law and Government Expertise“ im Partner Advantage Program von Google CloudNext articleThe Latest: US government seizes over 10M fake N95 masks Digital AIM Web Support Pinterest Facebook SoftServe acquiert le statut d’Expert en droit et gouvernement, dans le cadre du programme Google Cloud Partner Advantage
News UpdatesShramik Trains : Karnataka HC Asks State To Clarify Stand On Bearing Rail Fare Of Migrants Who Can’t Pay [Read Order] Mustafa Plumber19 May 2020 10:41 PMShare This – xThe Karnataka High Court has asked the state to clarify on whether it really wants to take a stand that a migrant worker who has no income and is not in a position to pay Railway fare will not be allowed to travel by Shramik special trains to his home State.The court sought the clarification from the state by May 21, after government in its written submission said that six shramik trains…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?LoginThe Karnataka High Court has asked the state to clarify on whether it really wants to take a stand that a migrant worker who has no income and is not in a position to pay Railway fare will not be allowed to travel by Shramik special trains to his home State.The court sought the clarification from the state by May 21, after government in its written submission said that six shramik trains were arranged till 15th May, 2020 from various States to bring workers from other states back to Karnataka. The stand specifically taken was that the expenses for travel by shramik trains have been paid fully by the Government of Karnataka. However, the stand taken as regards the migrant workers in the State who want to go back to their States of their origin is that unless the corresponding States to which the migrants wish to travel agree to bear the train fare, the migrant workers will have to pay the train fare. An argument was canvassed by the petitioner that the State cannot discriminate by creating two artificial classes of migrant workers on the basis of the State of their origin. Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union Government, explained to the Court the inter-state arrangements for bearing travel cost of Shramik Trains.The ASG said : “The state of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Assam, West Bengal, Manipur, Uttarakhand, Nagaland, Tripura etc. have all deposited money in advance with the Government of Karnataka for arrangement of train services for the movement of migrant workers to their respective home states through the designated trains i.e. Shramik special Trains.” In case of migrant workers from other States which have not agreed to pay the train fare of the migrant workers, the State Government will have to pay the fare to the Railways and thereafter, take up the matter with the corresponding States for reimbursement of the amounts, the Centre told the Court.The Court also noted that the State Government is not willing to accept this stand of the Centre.In this backdrop, a division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice B V Nagarathna said “Now, the State wants to create two separate classes of migrant workers who wish to go back to their respective States based on the State of their origin. The State will have to satisfy the Court about the legality of the said stand in the context of the arguments based on Articles 14, 15 and sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.”Irrespective of the State of origin, the reasons why the migrant workers are desperate to go back to their respective States are the same, the bench noted.The bench said “The State Government must state before the Court whether it wants to deviate from the stand taken by the Government of India on the issue of bearing the fare of the Railways and whether it really wants to take a stand that a migrant worker who has no income and is not in a position to pay Railway fare will not be allowed to travel by Shramik special trains to his home State.” It added ” We must note here that we are dealing with the issue of violation of fundamental right of migrant workers who are unable to approach Writ Court for the reasons which are obvious.” The bench has also called for a broad data regarding the number of migrant workers who wish to go back, along with the data of buses which are made available to migrant workers traveling to the neighbouring States.The Additional Advocate General for the State argued that the order of the Apex Court dated 15th May, 2020 concludes the issue and this Court cannot deal with the issue of compelling the State Government to bear the train fare of migrant workers. The bench also directed the Additional Advocate General to respond on whether the order dated 15th May, 2020 of the apex court will constitute a binding precedent especially when it is alleged before the court that the policy of the State is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights of the migrants.On May 12, the court had prima facie held that considering the constitutional rights of the migrant workers, no one should be deprived of an opportunity to go back to his own State only for the reason that he has no capacity to pay for the transport. The court had then asked the Central and State Government to immediately take a decision on the question of paying railway fare of those migrant workers who are wanting to travel back to their states but cannot do so due to their inability to pay.Click here to download OrderRead Order Next Story