Creating replicas of scultural heritage through 3D reconstruction and low cost 3D printer in Education

The process of making replicas of heritage has traditionally been developed by public agencies, corporations and museums and is not commonly used in schools. Currently there are technologies that allow creating cheap replicas. The new 3D reconstruction software, based on photographs and low cost 3D printers allow to make replicas at a cost much lower than traditional. This article describes the process of creating replicas of the sculpture Goslar Warrior of artist Henry Moore, located in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. To make this process, first, a digital model have been created using Autodesk Recap 360, Autodesk 123D Catch and Autodesk Meshmixer MarkerBot MakerWare applications. Physical replication, has been reproduced in polylactic acid (PLA) by MakerBot Replicator 2 3D printer. In addition, a cost analysis using, in one hand, the printer mentioned, and in the other hand, 3D printing services both online and local, is included. Finally, there has been a specific action with 141 students and 12 high school teachers, who filled a questionnary about the use of sculptural replicas in education.

Dublin docklands. The urban fabric as cultural heritage

Introduction

Since the 1980s there have been major policies and projects for the redevelopment of Dublin Docklands. These projects were mainly aimed at profitable development of office, commercial and residential space, without a sound plan that would preserve the identity or community of the area. The recent shift in policies and urban design principles in the Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008 shows that policy makers have acknowledged that mistakes were made in the last decades of the 20th century. The current map of the Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008 gives us useful information about these changes. The Ringsend/ Irishtown area, which has kept a great part of its urban form and community identity throughout centuries, is described as an ‘area of protection of residential and services amenities’ (DDDA, 2008, map A). Meanwhile, the area of the Grand Canal Docks, recently developed, is described with the objective ‘to seek the social, economic and physical development or rejuvenation
within an area of mixed use of which residential and enterprise facilities would be the predominant uses’ (DDDA, 2008, map A). This classification shows that recent development has been unable to achieve the cohesion and complexity of existing neighbourhoods, revealing flaws not only in policy, but also in the built environment and approaches to urban design.

The shift towards the consideration of more community participation reveals a need to understand the tradition and past of these communities, while the urban fabric of small plots in the existing neighbourhoods, therefore, seems to have a very important role in the conservation of identity of place and providing the opportunity for difference within regularity. On the other hand, the new fabric of residential block developments in the docklands denies the possibility of developing a sense of community, and by providing only regularity, does not leave space for difference.

This paper will address questions related to urban morphology and town analysis in the case of Ringsend and Irishtown. This will provide a tool to learn from the past and perhaps find new models of development that might be less detrimental for the heritage of cities and urban communities. One of the ideas of this paper is to adhere to the new tendency in conservation policies to provide a broader analysis of urban areas, not only considering individual monuments in cities, but also analysing the significance of urban morphology and intangible heritage. It forms part of an OPW Post- Doctoral Fellowship in Conservation Studies and Environmental History.1 Research has been carried out in different areas of urban history of Dublin’s southern waterfront, including infrastructure history and a thorough analysis of the letters of the Pembroke Estate of the 19th century, which included the areas of Ringsend and Irishtown. However, this paper focuses on the study of urban form of the area and its significance to Dublin’s heritage.

List 229: Irish and English Dendrochronology

These results cover dating undertaken since the last published list of dated building from Ireland (Brown (2002)); one English church building is also included in the list. Thanks are due to the owners of the buildings and especially to everyone who assisted in taking of the samples: Phil Barrett, Sapphire Mussen, Charles Lyons, Jon Pilcher and Mike Baillie, Amanda Pedlow, Caimin O’Brien and Martin Timoney. Most of the descriptions of the buildings are taken from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage http://www.buildingofi reland.ie/. The correlation values were generated by CROSS84 (Munro, 1984), which provides a signifi cance level for the date to be correct; *** (extremely signifi cant), ** (very signifi cant), * (signifi cant), nsm (not signifi cant). Estimated felling date ranges are based on the Belfast sapwood estimate of 32 ± 9 years. Date ranges have been calculated by adding and subtracting 9 years from the calculated estimated felling dates. Timbers from the following buildings could not be dated. Cork: St Finbarre’s Cathedral (W 675 715); Dublin: Christchurch Cathedral (O 152 341); Galway: Cloghan Castle (M 972 119); Kilkenny: Rothe House (S 506 563); Offaly: Boveen House (S 075 956); Waterford: Christchurch Cathedral (S 616 121). Generally only single oak samples were recovered from these structures. References: D.Brown, ‘Dendrochronological dating building from Ireland’, VA 33 (2002), 71–3; M. Munro, ‘An improved algorithm for crossdating tree-ring series’, Tree-Ring Bulletin 44 (1984), 17–27.