Month: May 2019

Posted on

The Giants of Royal de Luxe

The Little Girl Giant, from "Royal de Luxe" (on parade at Trafalgar Square in London, in May 2006)

Taking storytelling to new heights

The story of Lemuel Gulliver, as told by satirist Jonathan Swift in his book Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World (also known as Gulliver’s Travels), has been a favorite of mine since childhood. One image that has always stuck with me from the story was the description of how the tiny residents of Lilliput lashed the much-larger Gulliver to the ground, and how Gulliver eventually pulled himself free from these restraints.

I remembered this scene years later when a friend sent me an intriguing video; in it, a curious little girl wakes up, gets dressed, and sets out to see the world around her. However, this “little girl” is actually a giant marionette, and her movements are determined by people pulling her strings from below and above. But, unlike Gulliver, these men and women dressed in crimson livery are not pinning her down, but instead seem to be freeing her, making her appear amazingly lifelike and real.

I later learned that the events I was watching were part of a larger production called The Sultan’s Elephant, which took place at various points around London in early May of 2006. This four-day, large-scale performance was created by Royal de Luxe, a street theater company based in Nantes, France. Seemingly well known everywhere but in North America, Royal de Luxe has been presenting highly creative street theater pieces in France and around the world for 40 years.

Giant Fans

Founded in 1979 by current director Jean Luc Courcoult, Didier Gallot-Lavallée, and Véronique Loève, Royal de Luxe staged a series of popular street theater productions in the 1980s, several of which they took on tour to various parts of Europe, Africa, and South America. In 1989, Royal de Luxe moved its operations from southern France to Nantes, a city in western France, and in 1993 embarked on a new phase of its history, when it presented the first of its “giant” pieces.

Featuring a doleful-looking gargantuan figure named Le Géant (the giant), the piece was called Le Géant Tombé du Ciel (“the giant falls from the sky”), and to date has been followed by numerous other giant-related shows including: another version of the first show (Le Géant tombé du Ciel: Dernier Voyage); Retour d’Afrique (“return to Africa”), which introduced the giant’s son, Le Petit Géant (“the little giant”); Les Chasseurs de Girafes (“the giraffe hunters”), again featuring the little giant; The Sultan’s Elephant, which introduced the giant’s daughter, La Petite Géante; and The Hidden Rhinoceros, which debuted in Santiago, Chile, in January 2007. The most recent additions to the giant crew were a giant grandmother, and a giant dog, Xolo, and various productions involving the five giant characters have been mounted in Iceland, Portugal, England, Germany, Mexico, Chile, France, Belgium, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. (This article in the Atlantic features beautiful photos of some of these productions.)

These shows all feature enormous human and animal figures, built primarily by company member François Delarozière, and although rigorously choreographed, give a sense of spontaneity, as the figures move about in their surroundings and interact with bystanders. They all follow a simple story, since according to director Courcoult, it should be one that children can understand. The company reveals few details before a show opens, wanting to surprise its audience and to increase the chance that viewers will just “happen” upon the spectacle. Indeed, Courcoult finds it preferable that viewers don’t see everything that takes place, just participating in the performance as it happens.

Taking it to the Streets

When Royal de Luxe made its debut in the UK with The Sultan’s Elephant, a project that took four years of planning, this randomness was ensured by the diverse settings in which the events of the performance occurred, including Waterloo Place, the St. James’ neighborhood, Trafalgar Square, and Horse Guards Parade. These settings served the purpose of the story, for which the French name of the show provides a helpful outline: La visite du sultan des Indes sur son éléphant à voyager dans le temps, or “Visit from the Sultan of the Indies on his Time-Traveling Elephant.” The sultan of the story is looking for La Petite Géante (the little girl giant), who landed in Waterloo Place in a gigantic space rocket inspired by the works of Jules Verne. In fact, Jean-Luc Courcoult created the show in honor of the centenary of Verne’s death, and it was first performed in Nantes and Amiens, Verne’s places of birth and death respectively.

While I’m sure the elephant in the show was truly impressive—an intricate machine powered by hydraulics and motors, and weighing 42 tons—based on the video I saw, I think I would have found the little girl giant more fascinating. As she moves around doing ordinary things (getting dressed, licking a lollipop, sleeping), all the wires and people around her seem to fall away, and it’s as if you are watching a real giant girl do these things. It tickles me to know that on her sojourn in London she also did not-so-ordinary things, such as “sewing” cars onto the road, and stopping to take a pee out in the open.

In an article for 3 Quarks Daily that was published soon after the London performance, Elatia Harris reflected on the history of Royal de Luxe, and The Sultan’s Elephant in particular, and described the ending of the little girl giant’s time in London:

Then, on the afternoon of the fourth day, a Sunday, it was time to go. At Horseguard’s Parade, Little Girl Giant was helped into her goggles and her Lindbergh-era aviator’s cap, and climbed back into her ornate 19th Century rocket…Little Girl Giant took one more look around London, then the hatch went down and the engines were fired. There came an enormous explosion under the fuselage—the hellfire in broad daylight that is a Royal de Luxe specialty, and a mighty effort at a lift-off into another dimension. Of course, the rocket went nowhere. But when the hatch was opened, Little Girl Giant had gone—hurtling through time without her rocket. So the sultan was launched once again on a fathomless quest, his bearings to be taken in dreams.

A Giant Good-Bye

It’s clear that the minds behind Royal de Luxe want to fire the imaginations of spectators, reminding them of childhood dreams and reveries. In an interview with Jean-Christophe Planche from 2005, Jean Luc Courcoult even remarked on this, responding to how people react emotionally to the shows, saying “I have seen adults crying as the giant leaves…I don’t believe they are crying because he is leaving but because of the loss of their imagination.”

Although spectators might have been saddened by the disappearance of the giant after each performance, they might be sadder still to know that the era of the giants has passed. Courcoult has announced that a performance in Liverpool in October 2018 would be the last outing for the giant characters, and that the company next plans to launch a new show that will involve a silverback gorilla.

As I have fond memories of the image of Gulliver and the Lilliputians from my childhood, so those who were lucky enough to see the giants of Royal de Luxe in their full glory will have incredible memories to look back on. But unlike my childhood reminiscences, those who watched the giants invade cities from Liverpool to Santiago will have memories of fairy tales fully realized, in real life and larger than life.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on April 11, 2007.

Image credit: doctorow / gruntzooki / Cory Doctorow from London / Toronto [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons


Go to Source
Author: Morgen Jahnke

Posted on

Dogs: The Best Natural Remedy for Anxiety

I love our dog, Snickers. She joined our family almost a year ago, and she has made such a big difference. She’s been so wonderful on so many counts, but I definitely see what a big impact she has on the emotional health on everyone in the family. The biggest part, honestly, is that my sensory seeking kids, instead of using me for all their sensory needs get it out on the dog which makes me much


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

Posted on

Divorces declared void after being issued within one year of marriage

Sir James Munby’s judgment in Baron & Others (4 Defective Divorces) hit the headlines recently, but not actually because of the subject-matter of the case (the headlines, as I mentioned here, were to do with Sir James’s comments regarding the inefficiency of some Regional Divorce Units).

What the former President of the Family Division was actually considering in the case was applications by the Queen’s Proctor for the setting aside of divorce decrees in four different cases, on the ground that the petitions had been presented before the expiration of the period of one year from the date of the marriage. As I explained here recently, the Queen’s Proctor is an officer of the judiciary, who may intervene in divorce proceedings “to argue before the court any question in relation to the matter which the court considers it necessary or expedient to have fully argued”. (The case referred to in that post was one of five, the other four being considered in the Baron case).

To explain for those who are not aware, the present law forbids the filing of a divorce petition before the expiration of the period of one year from the date of the marriage. Accordingly, any petition filed before then is null and void. And this, it seems, will not change when (and if) the proposed no-fault divorce is introduced, as the government intends to retain this ‘one-year bar’, which it believes “serves a useful purpose to underline the importance of commitments made at the time of marriage”. Accordingly, if the government gets its way this case will still be relevant when the law on divorce changes.

I’m not going to go into the legal niceties of whether failure to comply with the one year rule is a matter that can be corrected by the court, or whether it means that the petition is a nullity (you can find the details in paragraphs 4 to 9 of the judgment). Suffice to say that Sir James found in favour of the latter.

So to the four cases.

In the first case the parties were married on the 23rd of August 2012. The wife issued her divorce petition on the 28th of May 2013. No one spotted the error and the divorce eventually went through (i.e. to decree absolute) in August 2018. As Sir James said, “the case admits of no possible argument”. Accordingly, he declared the divorce void.

In the second case the parties were married on the 28th of May 2015. The wife issued her divorce petition on the 20th of May 2016. No one spotted the error and the divorce went through in January 2017. Again, said Sir James, the case admitted of no possible argument. Accordingly, he also declared this divorce void.

In the third case the parties were married on the 26th of July 2014. The husband post-dated his petition 27th of July 2015, but sent it to the court on the 17th of June 2015, and the court issued it on the 22nd of June. Without going into the details, the divorce was made absolute on the 11th of October 2016. Once again, Sir James found that the case admitted of no possible argument, and declared the divorce void.

The fourth case was slightly different. The parties were married on the 16th of January 2015. The wife issued her divorce petition on the 13th of January 2016. The divorce went through in September 2016, but the problem was then identified, and the court set aside the decrees. A fresh petition was issued, and fresh divorce decrees made. Unfortunately, there was an administrative error by the court in that it failed to properly process the fresh petition. However, Sir James held that this did not nullify the ‘new’ divorce, which remained valid.

In all of the cases the parties had issued new petitions for divorce, in order to preserve their positions. In each of the first three cases Sir James went on to grant a decree nisi, and to abridge the time for the decree absolute, from six weeks to four days in the first two cases, and to three weeks in the third case. The new petition in the fourth case was struck out.

The moral from all of this, of course, is to make sure that you comply with the one year rule. It’s an easy trap to fall into, but one that can have serious and expensive consequences, not least the possibility of bigamy if a party remarries when they were not actually divorced.

You can read Sir James’s full judgment here.

The post Divorces declared void after being issued within one year of marriage appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Micronations

Principality of Sealand

Starting your own country

Although my friends and acquaintances have a wide range of political leanings and opinions, I’ve never met anyone who agrees with and supports every single government policy and regulation—in this country or any other. The very nature of democratic government makes this virtually impossible, and I think it’s fair to say that every legislator could produce a long list of things they might wish to be different. We all accept certain laws and taxes in exchange for the considerable benefits government provides in the way of economic structures, a justice system, education, public works, national security, and so on. For most of us, that’s a reasonable trade.

But what if you could tailor a government to your exact specifications? Exercise strict control over the currency, imports and exports, immigration policies, defense programs, foreign relations, and everything else? What if you could tailor laws to support those things you care about most and disallow the things you’re against? What if, in fact, you had your very own country, in which you—along with, perhaps, your family, friends, or business associates—ran the whole place from top to bottom?

Numerous individuals and groups have attempted to do just that: start their own tiny countries. None of the attempts to do so in the past century has resulted in an entity that’s actually recognized as a country by the world’s other sovereign nations. But a number of so-called micronations around the world are run as though they’re autonomous nations, their residents and leaders holding onto a faint hope that one day they may finally be legitimate members of the international community. In many cases, they even issue stamps, coins, and passports, and have a national anthem. Wikipedia lists over 80 former and current micronations. There’s also a book called How To Start Your Own Country by Erwin S. Strauss, which delves into many of the issues you’d have to deal with if you decided to try.

Finding a New World

The first problem you’ll notice if you’re contemplating starting your own country is that all the world’s land is already spoken for. There’s no unclaimed territory left, and for this very reason, existing countries tend to be extremely protective of their real estate. So you could declare your apartment, farm, or private island to be an autonomous territory (as others have in fact done), but seceding isn’t that easy. If the jurisdiction from which you’re trying to separate doesn’t change its laws to accommodate you—and crucially, if it has more guns and soldiers than you do—you’re pretty much out of luck. A few groups have attempted to create land for their micronations by building artificial islands of one kind or another or by declaring a ship floating in international waters to be their territory. Apart from the logistical and financial issues of such an approach, there’s still that pesky problem that if no other nation recognizes your new entity to be a country, then for all practical purposes, it isn’t.

Those details aside, you’ve got to convince enough people to inhabit your country to make it viable. You’ll need a government and security forces, naturally, but also some means of providing all the goods your population will need. If your nation can’t produce enough food, clothing, transportation, and so forth from its own resources, you’ll need to import it—and to do that, you’ll have to have a source of income. Income could, of course, come from exported goods and services, but you’ll still need resources of some sort and a reasonably large labor pool. Oh, and unless you want your citizens to go abroad for their schooling and medical care, you’d better have a well-thought-out educational system and at least one hospital. Add to that courts to punish crimes and resolve disputes; infrastructure for electricity, water distribution, waste processing, and communications; and a transportation system, just to name a few of the many obvious features your nation will require, and you can begin to see why more people don’t start their own countries.

Minor Victories

And yet, despite all these complications and many more, a few micronations have managed to survive for decades without being invaded and shut down by another country. Here are a few prominent examples:

  • Sealand: During World War II, Britain built a large gun platform in the North Sea, just outside its territorial waters, to defend itself from German aircraft. They abandoned it after the war, and in 1967 it was occupied by Paddy Roy Bates and several of his associates. Bates declared the platform a sovereign nation called the Principality of Sealand and named himself Prince Roy I. In 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters past where Sealand sits, but although the British government doesn’t officially recognize Sealand, they haven’t tried to take it over either. Bates died in 2012 and his wife died in 2016. His son, Michael, is now nominally the ruler, though he doesn’t live on Sealand. But one or more caretakers apparently do still live on the platform; the nation’s primary activity and source of income appears to be selling coins, stamps, and titles of nobility.
  • Principality of Hutt River: This farm in Western Australia, formerly known as Hutt River Province, claims to have seceded in 1970 after a long-running dispute involving wheat quotas. It was led by the farm’s owner, Leonard George Casley (or Prince Leonard I to his subjects), for 45 years until 2017, and died in 2019. The principality is now ruled by Casley’s youngest son, Prince Graeme. Like all micronations, it’s not officially recognized as a sovereign state and its legal status is quite ambiguous, despite some evidence that Australia at one point regarded its secession as legal. The Principality of Hutt River has about 20 residents, but has issued passports to thousands of people around the world.
  • Molossia: The Republic of Molossia comprises a small patch of land in Nevada and another in California, referred to as the Desert Homestead Province. It was founded in 1977 and still has only 34 citizens (“including dogs”), but it nevertheless claims to be working toward eventual recognition as a true nation.
  • Talossa: The Kingdom of Talossa was created in 1979 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and originally consisted of the bedroom of its then-14-year-old founder. Today, Talossa claims an area of 13km2 (5 square miles) and a population of 255—not to mention its very own language.

Not in My Ocean

Other attempts, though, have been less successful. Such was the case with a micronation called the Republic of Minerva. In 1971, a Las Vegas millionaire named Michael Oliver decided to create his own island by dumping barges full of sand onto a shallow reef in the Pacific Ocean, not far from Fiji. The newly formed Republic of Minerva declared independence in letters sent to all the nearby nations, which soon gathered to sort out what they thought about suddenly having a new neighbor. The result of that meeting was a small military force sent by Tonga to evict the Minervans. Tonga annexed the new island, but now it’s apparently fully submerged, so its status as a micronation is entirely moot.

But not all micronations are truly attempts to create geographically distinct, sovereign countries. Many people have declared some piece of land to be a micronation for comedic or artistic reasons, as a form of political protest, or to generate publicity—without ever truly intending to make it a permanent, sovereign nation. And some micronations (such as Wirtland) have no territory at all, but exist only on the internet; some of these serve as virtual real estate in role-playing games, while others are themselves simulations of real societies in some fashion or another. Real or virtual, micronations feed that common but quixotic urge to make and live by one’s own rules. One of them might eventually succeed, but sooner or later, a citizen of even the most idyllic micronation is bound to feel that something better can be created. Nanonations can’t be far behind.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on September 20, 2006.

Image credit: Ryan Lackey from San Francisco, CA, US [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Posted on

What is sole custody?

Divorce is a difficult life event. However, it can mean more than just a failed marriage. It could mean the splitting of a family. When children are involved, it is important to think about what is best for the child. No two families are alike, and the needs of each parent and child are different. In matters where domestic violence was present or there are safety concerns, joint custody may not be the most suitable. In these situations, seeking sole custody may be in the best interests of the child.

While it is not as common, sole custody is often sought in matters that involve domestic violence, child abuse or substance abuse problems. Unlike joint custody where each parent has legal and physical custody of the child, sole custody awards both legal and physical custody to one parent while the non-custodial parent has neither legal nor physical custodial rights of the child.

Sole legal custody means that one parent has the rights and responsibility to make major decisions regarding the child’s welfare. This commonly includes decisions regarding education, medical care, religion and emotional and moral development. On the other hand, sole physical custody means that the child will reside and be under the supervision of just one parent. However, in these cases, the non-custodial parent may be able to obtain reasonable visitation with the child so long as it is in the best interests of the child.

Child custody matters can look very different from one family to the next. In some cases, parents can work together to reach a fair agreement. In other cases, disputes arise. No matter the situation or if you seek joint or sole custody, it is important to be aware of your rights and what steps you can take to protect them and the interests of your child.


Go to Source
Author: On behalf of Katie L. Lewis of Katie L. Lewis, P.C. Family Law

Posted on

Not one in ten: Why family dispute numbers matter by Families need Fathers

Today we welcome Michael Lewkowicz. Director of Communications at Families need Fathers to the Stowe Family Law blog with the first in a series of exclusive articles.

“Over the few years, I have attended various Cafcass events – open board meetings, conferences, consultations. Occasionally their chief executive, Anthony Douglas, ‘clarified’ that whilst there were tens of thousands of court applications for Child Arrangements, they represent just 10% of family separations with 90% resolving things out-of-court. ‘Great’ one might have thought, ‘so it’s not such a big issue for most separating families’. The prevailing narrative was that many of those were then resolved adequately before full proceedings. Some came to mutual agreements in early proceedings and only a very small proportion, the story went, perhaps under 5% formed the ‘difficult’ cases that involved ‘high conflict’ – the cases that nobody could really “expect” to do anything about. The message was not quite ‘well that’s alright then’, but it seemed to be heading in that direction.

It was something of concern, but never became a priority and all those thousands of dads, mums and grandparents coming to Families Need Fathers and family lawyers for help were at best unlucky to be faced with confrontational ex-partners or perhaps mutually confrontational or, worse still, the ones made to feel responsible for the conflict.

The trouble was, that visits to our support meetings did not seem to reflect this. It was affecting too many people and, guess what, many of them were lovely people who would not say ‘boo to a goose’.

More troubling still was that the numbers, that the ‘small minority’ narrative was based on, simply did not ring true. I’m no mathematical genius, but if there are some 50,000 court applications each year, less 30% return cases leaves 35,000 new applications. If these represent 10% of separations, then the implication is that there are some 350,000 break-ups a year. Assuming an average of 2 children per case (Cafcass average figures) implies 700,000 children involved. Since the number of births in England and Wales in 2017 was 679,106 the figures suggested that every single family separated before their children left school. Spot a problem? We did.

Over subsequent months we raised this with Cafcass’ newly appointed Director of Strategy, Teresa Williams. The great news was that she too thought this was odd. Some months later I bumped into Ms Williams again and was very reassured when she said Cafcass were re-calculating this and were getting nearer the reality – which was over a third of cases! In fact, Cafcass later reported that the figures looked like being 38%, a nearly four-fold increase over the widely quoted previous value!

Now we had, in the absence of detailed data, made some estimates of our own using a range of disparate sources and came up with a figure of slightly over half. Since then Cafcass, at their most recent open board meeting, told us that about a third of cases were families returning to court.

We knew returns to be frequent, but this was higher than we imagined. We speculate that returns have grown in recent years since the guidance was issued exhorting judges to end proceedings within six months. This is good for court statistics showing that cases have been disposed of quickly but can lead to some cases being prematurely closed.

Taking all this into account, our original estimate seems not to have been that far off the mark. The new Cafcass figure certainly cuts right through what now seems to have been a surprisingly long run of what might these days be considered ‘fake news’. The President, no not Trump, but of The Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, observed the shift in presumed wisdom in his speech last week to The Resolution Conference.

Sir Andrew told the conference that this is

“a far cry from the previous comfortable urban myth based on a figure of 10%. It indicates a major societal problem…”.

The importance of understanding that the true proportions of families going to court is almost four times greater than previously thought was also brought into sharp focus just a few weeks ago at the APPG on Legal Aid. We drew attention to the long-term opportunity to diminish the reliance of separating parents on family courts from a up to half of cases to around the level of 2% – that was being achieved in Sweden. The minister, Lucy Frazer MP, responded by ‘correcting’ us and reciting the 10% figure from the old narrative that the opportunity was not really that big nor worth the government prioritising it. My brief interjection to the minister received a frosty response from the chair – our apologies for this.

We have now written to the minister with an update and we hope Cafcass will have updated her too. The desperate need for reform of family justice is now even clearer. Unquestionably, for tens of thousands of needlessly damaged children and parents, that reform is very urgent.”

Families need Fathers (FNF)

FNF is a leading UK charity supporting dads, mums and grandparents to have personal contact and meaningful relationships with their children following separation. They offer information, advice and support services on how to provide the best possible blend of both parents in the lives of children.

You can find further information on the Families need Fathers website.

The post Not one in ten: Why family dispute numbers matter by Families need Fathers appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

Posted on

The significance of pensions in high net worth divorces

Pensions are often of great significance in divorces, more so than many divorcing couples realise. Even in cases involving quite modest assets, pensions can be one of the most valuable of those assets, usually only exceeded in value by the matrimonial home. However, pensions can be even more significant in high net worth divorce cases, as recent research has shown.

The research was carried out by the wealth planning company Succession Wealth. They analysed the Office for National Statistics’ Wealth and Assets Survey data and the number of divorces in England and Wales, to estimate the makeup of the assets of divorcing couples whose net financial wealth is £1 million or more.

They found that that 550 couples with net financial wealth of one million pounds or more each will divorce this year, and estimate that collectively these individuals have around £1.91 billion of net wealth, equating to an average of about £3.48 million per couple.

And so to the breakdown of that wealth. This was divided into four categories: financial wealth, property wealth, physical wealth and private pension wealth. I haven’t seen an explanation of the first three, but I assume ‘financial wealth’ means cash and savings-type assets, such as bonds, shares and so on, ‘property wealth’ means real property (i.e. land and buildings) and ‘physical wealth’ means other valuable physical assets, such as cars, jewellery and paintings.

The breakdown was as follows: financial wealth represented 20% of the assets, worth on average about £712,000, property wealth represented 31% of the assets, worth on average about £1,075,000, physical wealth represented 5% of the assets, worth on average about £186,000, and private pension wealth represented a whopping 43% of the assets, worth on average about one and a half million pounds. In other words, private pension wealth is by some margin the most significant asset of many couples whose net financial wealth is £1 million or more.

These figures may not come as a surprise to an experienced family lawyer used to dealing with high net worth cases, but I’m sure they would raise a few eyebrows elsewhere. How many ‘non pension owning’ spouses in high net worth cases will be aware of this? I suspect not many. That is why it is essential that they obtain full disclosure of the other spouse’s wealth. And that does not just mean accepting what the other spouse discloses. All too often a spouse with substantial financial assets will be less than forthcoming in disclosing them. That is when it may be necessary to employ the services of a forensic accountant (see below), who can help to uncover those assets.

Of course uncovering the true value of pension (and other) assets is only half of the story. The other half is working out how those assets should be divided between the parties.

Thus the question is: if you are the ‘non pension owning’ spouse, how do you receive your fair share of pension assets? Well, there are essentially three ways: offsetting against other assets, pension sharing orders and pension attachment orders. Offsetting, at its simplest, involves the spouse with the pension keeping it, but the other spouse being compensated by receiving a greater share of other assets. Pension sharing means transferring the pension ‘pot’, or part of it, from one spouse’s pension to a pension in the name of the other spouse. Pension attachment orders redirect all or part of the pension benefits to the other spouse, when the pension comes into payment. Which of these options is right for you can be a complex question. (For further information regarding pensions, see here.)

The moral of all of this, of course, is to get the best possible advice when you divorce, especially if the assets of the marriage are significant. And that does not just mean legal advice. It is also necessary to have the best financial advice. That is why Stowe Family Law have their own specialist in-house team of forensic accountants, which is one of the reasons why they are experts in high net worth divorce cases.

The post The significance of pensions in high net worth divorces appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Posted on

Shipping Container Architecture

Shipping containers as apartment buildings for students, Le Havre (France, Normandy)

Ship-shape design

When I lived in San Francisco I saw cargo shipping containers in use fairly regularly—sometimes being hoisted by cranes in the busy Port of Oakland, other times filling the decks of gigantic freighters passing through the Golden Gate. They were such a common sight that I almost stopped noticing them, although if I did, they made me think of the immense scale of the global economy, and provoked curiosity about what kind of goods they might be carrying. I didn’t think of shipping containers themselves as very interesting. But for the past few decades, many architects and builders have looked at shipping containers as not only a means to transport goods, but as a source of building material. Whether intended for private homes, schools, markets, or multi-unit complexes, repurposed shipping containers have become a unique way to bring exciting design and environmental concern into everyday life.

Shipping News

The use of modern shipping containers first developed in the mid-fifties in Denmark, Canada, and the United States. These containers soon became invaluable, as their use streamlined the transportation of goods between ports and inland destinations via railroad cars and large trucks. They were created to be easily stackable and made sturdy to withstand wind and water, and these same attributes are what make shipping containers so attractive to architects and builders.

In addition to their sturdiness and flexibility, shipping containers have other benefits. Designers looking for more environmentally friendly construction methods can practice recycling by using decommissioned containers from shipping companies. These containers are also much cheaper than standard building materials (sometimes by as much as half), and with their use, buildings can be assembled in much less time, with lower labor costs.

Another advantage to shipping containers is that they are easy to transport, having been designed expressly for that purpose. This can facilitate their use in disaster situations, allowing repurposed containers to arrive quickly in areas where temporary housing is desperately needed. It also means that containers can be worked on in one location, and then easily transferred to the actual building site in another area when needed.

Contain Yourself

While building with shipping containers may make economic and environmental sense, who would want to live or work in a windowless metal box? Designers have gotten around this limitation in a variety of ways, most notably by incorporating containers into larger construction projects, cutting and shaping the existing containers as necessary. Some of the first and most well-known projects of this kind were built by the Container City company in London. Container City I is located at Trinity Buoy Wharf in London’s Docklands district, and comprises 12 work studios and three live/work apartments. Amazingly, it only took two days to install in 2001 (after being built off-site for five months), and 80% of it is made from recycled material. Following the success of Container City I, Container City II was built adjacent to it in 2002. Notable for its ziggurat shape and bright colors, Container City II hosts 22 studios on five floors. Container City now offers their services on other projects such as schools and office buildings, taking these projects from feasibility studies, through design, fabrication, and installation.

On a smaller scale, there are private homes designed using multiple containers. Zigloo Domestique, built using eight containers, was created by designer Keith Dewey in Victoria, British Columbia. Mike and Shawn McConkey built their dream home out of three shipping containers on a piece of land in unincorporated San Diego County.

On the larger end of the scale, shipping containers have also been used to create enormous public marketplaces, like the open-air Seventh Kilometer Market in Odessa, Ukraine. Covering 170 acres, the market is made up of hundreds of shipping containers, with an estimated 150,000 customers a day. The Dordoy Bazaar in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, is constructed out of an estimated 30,000 shipping containers, and draws customers and merchants from Russia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and China.

Yes Cargo

Because of the growing interest in container homes, there are now numerous companies selling pre-made container homes, ready to be delivered and installed at your chosen location. These usually consist of one or two containers, but there are many different configurations that are possible. You can see some current options on the Curbed and Dwell websites, including one house that you can order from Amazon.

With its economic, environmental, logistical, and practical benefits, shipping container architecture provides a compelling alternative to conventional building methods, and seems poised to continue to gain in popularity in the coming years.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on May 21, 2007.

Image credit: Philippe Alès [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons


Go to Source
Author: Morgen Jahnke