– The three maps on the first poster seem almost identical. Why is that? I’m struggling to see any differences between them.
– The sequence of photographs at the bottom of the first poster seems like it needs a title – what are we looking at.
– Text is copied three times?
– What is the significance of the location. It seems that you are closing down on one location too quickly (unless it has significance re- your unit work). Otherwise it might be worthwhile to explore the River a bit more – what kind of construction has there been along its banks? Did the river ever play a role in the availability of construction along it – ie because workforce or materials could be transported easily along it? This might help to determine the “vernacular” of the River Thames. Have a look at the Tees-Exe line for purposes of understanding the UK geologically.
– Maybe include a section of the Thames at the chosen location. This might help you to understand how the river carries different materials and deposits them in different ways. Check out Brunel’s sectional drawings of the river done for excavating the Rotherhithe tunnel.
– It being a beach I imagine there is a lot of sand on the site (you map this a bit in one of the posters) – understand the relevance of sand in the manufacturing process of ceramics – silica etc.
– I’ll post references tagged with your name so you can use them.
– Your case study is very well drawn / documented. However it might be interesting to understand cob construction in London (to my knowledge, no exemplars left). So brick might be more in keeping with the location. Although, connecting to the first part of your ETS3 research last year (what you did roughly before open week), it is also interesting to see the viability of earth construction within a metropolitan setting – maybe – if you want to go that way? Just bear in mind that poetically perhaps the city is more related to brick and the rural / Devon to cob so you’d be changing that “lineage” so to speak.
– The three maps on the first poster seem almost identical. Why is that? I’m struggling to see any differences between them.
– The sequence of photographs at the bottom of the first poster seems like it needs a title – what are we looking at.
– Text is copied three times?
– What is the significance of the location. It seems that you are closing down on one location too quickly (unless it has significance re- your unit work). Otherwise it might be worthwhile to explore the River a bit more – what kind of construction has there been along its banks? Did the river ever play a role in the availability of construction along it – ie because workforce or materials could be transported easily along it? This might help to determine the “vernacular” of the River Thames. Have a look at the Tees-Exe line for purposes of understanding the UK geologically.
– Maybe include a section of the Thames at the chosen location. This might help you to understand how the river carries different materials and deposits them in different ways. Check out Brunel’s sectional drawings of the river done for excavating the Rotherhithe tunnel.
– It being a beach I imagine there is a lot of sand on the site (you map this a bit in one of the posters) – understand the relevance of sand in the manufacturing process of ceramics – silica etc.
– I’ll post references tagged with your name so you can use them.
– Your case study is very well drawn / documented. However it might be interesting to understand cob construction in London (to my knowledge, no exemplars left). So brick might be more in keeping with the location. Although, connecting to the first part of your ETS3 research last year (what you did roughly before open week), it is also interesting to see the viability of earth construction within a metropolitan setting – maybe – if you want to go that way? Just bear in mind that poetically perhaps the city is more related to brick and the rural / Devon to cob so you’d be changing that “lineage” so to speak.