Above all, the baroque city was intended to impress with monumental buildings, magnificent palaces and perspective used to focus attention on majestic views along broad, straight avenues. Symmetry, with a classical sense of balance and regularity, was a defining characteristic. Although the most flamboyant expressions of the baroque movement were built later – at Versailles, for example, Karlsruhe and St Petersburg – its principles were firmly established at the time of Wren’s study tour in France, and an intention to impress is certainly evident in the plan for rebuilding London that Wren submitted to Charles II. The plan essentially divided London into two parts: a western section consisting of rectangular blocks, and an eastern section of polygonal squares joined by streets radiating from each. These broadly disparate parts were linked by two grand thoroughfares angled across the plan to meet in the form of an arrowhead at the site of St Paul’s. There were several piazzas, merchant shipping quays, and also a Grand Terrace along the Thames with adjacent public halls. On paper, Wren’s plan for London offered an impressive city – fit for a king even though it lacked a palace. But he must have known the scheme was irrelevant to the needs of the City. A.E.J. Morris describes it as ‘an overnight exercise based on a superficial use of continental Renaissance planmotifs’, which is perhaps a little unkind, though it bolsters Morris’s suggestion that the plan may not have been seriously intended at all, but was simply a pre-emptive strike on the part of an ambitious though untried architect who was keen to establish his claim to a major share of the rebuilding work. If so, the overnight exercise certainly paid off. Wren became a member of the six-man commission formed to advise and oversee the rebuilding programme; he was appointed Surveyor-General in 1669, given the commission to design the new St Paul’s and sixty other City churches, as well as almost all the worthwhile architectural work of the period. Whatever its conceptual attributes, Wren’s plan failed from a practical point of view in its total disregard for the topography of London. His new city was designed as though it occupied a flat plain, whereas in fact the site undulates considerably (even more so then than now), with hills on either side of both the Fleet and the Walbrook tributaries of the Thames. The rise and fall of these hills would have obliterated the magnificent perspective vistas that the plan promised, as well as distorting the proposed arrangement of neat blocks, tidy squares and radiating streets. Wren’s baroque vision could never have existed in reality. In point of fact there was never much chance that it would. Quite apart from the practical difficulties of wrapping a two dimensional plan over a three dimensional landscape, Wren’s scheme also called for an almost total rearrangement of streets and buildings within the City. Many property owners would have been obliged to build to a different ground plan, or on a different site, and no-one had the authority to insist upon that – especially not the King, given how successful London had been in limiting royal involvement with City affairs. Wren had submitted his plan to the king but Charles could not take it further without the unanimous agreement of parliament and all London’s landowners and institutions. Such a consensus would be hard to achieve on even the most innocuous of issues; impossible when all parties simply wanted to get on with the urgent task of rebuilding their lives and livelihoods – London would fail or prosper accordingly. But the king was in any case ‘at one’ with the city. On 13 September he issued a royal proclamation on desirable rebuilding procedures, undertook to rebuild the Custom House promptly, and to relinquish Crown property in the City wherever it would be of common benefit. By the end of September, there was a general agreement that the existing street lines and property boundaries must be accepted, and at the beginning of October six commissioners were appointed to supervise and effectively to control all technical aspects of the rebuilding work. Three were nominated by the king and three by the City. Wren was one of the king’s nominees; Hooke was one of the City’s

The focus of Wren’s plan for London was:

• a two-way split emphasising classical regularity

• the site of the new St. Paul’s cathedral

• the linking of the parts by two main thoroughfares

• a grand terrace along the river

• total reworking of the old city plan

Above all, the baroque city was intended to impress with monumental buildings, magnificent palaces and perspective used to focus attention on majestic views along broad, straight avenues. Symmetry, with a classical sense of balance and regularity, was a defining characteristic. Although the most flamboyant expressions of the baroque movement were built later – at Versailles, for example, Karlsruhe and St Petersburg – its principles were firmly established at the time of Wren’s study tour in France, and an intention to impress is certainly evident in the plan for rebuilding London that Wren submitted to Charles II. The plan essentially divided London into two parts: a western section consisting of rectangular blocks, and an eastern section of polygonal squares joined by streets radiating from each. These broadly disparate parts were linked by two grand thoroughfares angled across the plan to meet in the form of an arrowhead at the site of St Paul’s. There were several piazzas, merchant shipping quays, and also a Grand Terrace along the Thames with adjacent public halls. On paper, Wren’s plan for London offered an impressive city – fit for a king even though it lacked a palace. But he must have known the scheme was irrelevant to the needs of the City. A.E.J. Morris describes it as ‘an overnight exercise based on a superficial use of continental Renaissance planmotifs’, which is perhaps a little unkind, though it bolsters Morris’s suggestion that the plan may not have been seriously intended at all, but was simply a pre-emptive strike on the part of an ambitious though untried architect who was keen to establish his claim to a major share of the rebuilding work. If so, the overnight exercise certainly paid off. Wren became a member of the six-man commission formed to advise and oversee the rebuilding programme; he was appointed Surveyor-General in 1669, given the commission to design the new St Paul’s and sixty other City churches, as well as almost all the worthwhile architectural work of the period. Whatever its conceptual attributes, Wren’s plan failed from a practical point of view in its total disregard for the topography of London. His new city was designed as though it occupied a flat plain, whereas in fact the site undulates considerably (even more so then than now), with hills on either side of both the Fleet and the Walbrook tributaries of the Thames. The rise and fall of these hills would have obliterated the magnificent perspective vistas that the plan promised, as well as distorting the proposed arrangement of neat blocks, tidy squares and radiating streets. Wren’s baroque vision could never have existed in reality. In point of fact there was never much chance that it would. Quite apart from the practical difficulties of wrapping a two dimensional plan over a three dimensional landscape, Wren’s scheme also called for an almost total rearrangement of streets and buildings within the City. Many property owners would have been obliged to build to a different ground plan, or on a different site, and no-one had the authority to insist upon that – especially not the King, given how successful London had been in limiting royal involvement with City affairs. Wren had submitted his plan to the king but Charles could not take it further without the unanimous agreement of parliament and all London’s landowners and institutions. Such a consensus would be hard to achieve on even the most innocuous of issues; impossible when all parties simply wanted to get on with the urgent task of rebuilding their lives and livelihoods – London would fail or prosper accordingly. But the king was in any case ‘at one’ with the city. On 13 September he issued a royal proclamation on desirable rebuilding procedures, undertook to rebuild the Custom House promptly, and to relinquish Crown property in the City wherever it would be of common benefit. By the end of September, there was a general agreement that the existing street lines and property boundaries must be accepted, and at the beginning of October six commissioners were appointed to supervise and effectively to control all technical aspects of the rebuilding work. Three were nominated by the king and three by the City. Wren was one of the king’s nominees; Hooke was one of the City’s

A.E.J. Morris’s description suggests that:

• Wren was not interested in the commission

• Wren did not understand the principles of the baroque

• Wren was attempting to gain a share of the building work

• Wren was not an innovative architect

• Wren comprehensively used Renaissance planmotifs

Above all, the baroque city was intended to impress with monumental buildings, magnificent palaces and perspective used to focus attention on majestic views along broad, straight avenues. Symmetry, with a classical sense of balance and regularity, was a defining characteristic. Although the most flamboyant expressions of the baroque movement were built later – at Versailles, for example, Karlsruhe and St Petersburg – its principles were firmly established at the time of Wren’s study tour in France, and an intention to impress is certainly evident in the plan for rebuilding London that Wren submitted to Charles II. The plan essentially divided London into two parts: a western section consisting of rectangular blocks, and an eastern section of polygonal squares joined by streets radiating from each. These broadly disparate parts were linked by two grand thoroughfares angled across the plan to meet in the form of an arrowhead at the site of St Paul’s. There were several piazzas, merchant shipping quays, and also a Grand Terrace along the Thames with adjacent public halls. On paper, Wren’s plan for London offered an impressive city – fit for a king even though it lacked a palace. But he must have known the scheme was irrelevant to the needs of the City. A.E.J. Morris describes it as ‘an overnight exercise based on a superficial use of continental Renaissance planmotifs’, which is perhaps a little unkind, though it bolsters Morris’s suggestion that the plan may not have been seriously intended at all, but was simply a pre-emptive strike on the part of an ambitious though untried architect who was keen to establish his claim to a major share of the rebuilding work. If so, the overnight exercise certainly paid off. Wren became a member of the six-man commission formed to advise and oversee the rebuilding programme; he was appointed Surveyor-General in 1669, given the commission to design the new St Paul’s and sixty other City churches, as well as almost all the worthwhile architectural work of the period. Whatever its conceptual attributes, Wren’s plan failed from a practical point of view in its total disregard for the topography of London. His new city was designed as though it occupied a flat plain, whereas in fact the site undulates considerably (even more so then than now), with hills on either side of both the Fleet and the Walbrook tributaries of the Thames. The rise and fall of these hills would have obliterated the magnificent perspective vistas that the plan promised, as well as distorting the proposed arrangement of neat blocks, tidy squares and radiating streets. Wren’s baroque vision could never have existed in reality. In point of fact there was never much chance that it would. Quite apart from the practical difficulties of wrapping a two dimensional plan over a three dimensional landscape, Wren’s scheme also called for an almost total rearrangement of streets and buildings within the City. Many property owners would have been obliged to build to a different ground plan, or on a different site, and no-one had the authority to insist upon that – especially not the King, given how successful London had been in limiting royal involvement with City affairs. Wren had submitted his plan to the king but Charles could not take it further without the unanimous agreement of parliament and all London’s landowners and institutions. Such a consensus would be hard to achieve on even the most innocuous of issues; impossible when all parties simply wanted to get on with the urgent task of rebuilding their lives and livelihoods – London would fail or prosper accordingly. But the king was in any case ‘at one’ with the city. On 13 September he issued a royal proclamation on desirable rebuilding procedures, undertook to rebuild the Custom House promptly, and to relinquish Crown property in the City wherever it would be of common benefit. By the end of September, there was a general agreement that the existing street lines and property boundaries must be accepted, and at the beginning of October six commissioners were appointed to supervise and effectively to control all technical aspects of the rebuilding work. Three were nominated by the king and three by the City. Wren was one of the king’s nominees; Hooke was one of the City’s

Wren’s plan was impractical because:

• it was unsuited to the topography of the site

• the Fleet and the Walbrook disrupted the pattern

• the hills would obscure the view

• baroque architecture was too new

• property owners preferred old ground plan

Above all, the baroque city was intended to impress with monumental buildings, magnificent palaces and perspective used to focus attention on majestic views along broad, straight avenues. Symmetry, with a classical sense of balance and regularity, was a defining characteristic. Although the most flamboyant expressions of the baroque movement were built later – at Versailles, for example, Karlsruhe and St Petersburg – its principles were firmly established at the time of Wren’s study tour in France, and an intention to impress is certainly evident in the plan for rebuilding London that Wren submitted to Charles II. The plan essentially divided London into two parts: a western section consisting of rectangular blocks, and an eastern section of polygonal squares joined by streets radiating from each. These broadly disparate parts were linked by two grand thoroughfares angled across the plan to meet in the form of an arrowhead at the site of St Paul’s. There were several piazzas, merchant shipping quays, and also a Grand Terrace along the Thames with adjacent public halls. On paper, Wren’s plan for London offered an impressive city – fit for a king even though it lacked a palace. But he must have known the scheme was irrelevant to the needs of the City. A.E.J. Morris describes it as ‘an overnight exercise based on a superficial use of continental Renaissance planmotifs’, which is perhaps a little unkind, though it bolsters Morris’s suggestion that the plan may not have been seriously intended at all, but was simply a pre-emptive strike on the part of an ambitious though untried architect who was keen to establish his claim to a major share of the rebuilding work. If so, the overnight exercise certainly paid off. Wren became a member of the six-man commission formed to advise and oversee the rebuilding programme; he was appointed Surveyor-General in 1669, given the commission to design the new St Paul’s and sixty other City churches, as well as almost all the worthwhile architectural work of the period. Whatever its conceptual attributes, Wren’s plan failed from a practical point of view in its total disregard for the topography of London. His new city was designed as though it occupied a flat plain, whereas in fact the site undulates considerably (even more so then than now), with hills on either side of both the Fleet and the Walbrook tributaries of the Thames. The rise and fall of these hills would have obliterated the magnificent perspective vistas that the plan promised, as well as distorting the proposed arrangement of neat blocks, tidy squares and radiating streets. Wren’s baroque vision could never have existed in reality. In point of fact there was never much chance that it would. Quite apart from the practical difficulties of wrapping a two dimensional plan over a three dimensional landscape, Wren’s scheme also called for an almost total rearrangement of streets and buildings within the City. Many property owners would have been obliged to build to a different ground plan, or on a different site, and no-one had the authority to insist upon that – especially not the King, given how successful London had been in limiting royal involvement with City affairs. Wren had submitted his plan to the king but Charles could not take it further without the unanimous agreement of parliament and all London’s landowners and institutions. Such a consensus would be hard to achieve on even the most innocuous of issues; impossible when all parties simply wanted to get on with the urgent task of rebuilding their lives and livelihoods – London would fail or prosper accordingly. But the king was in any case ‘at one’ with the city. On 13 September he issued a royal proclamation on desirable rebuilding procedures, undertook to rebuild the Custom House promptly, and to relinquish Crown property in the City wherever it would be of common benefit. By the end of September, there was a general agreement that the existing street lines and property boundaries must be accepted, and at the beginning of October six commissioners were appointed to supervise and effectively to control all technical aspects of the rebuilding work. Three were nominated by the king and three by the City. Wren was one of the king’s nominees; Hooke was one of the City’s

The king could not take the plan further because he:

• didn’t consider it suitable

• lacked the necessary authority

• needed approval that was a prerogative of Parliament

• needed consensus from mutually antagonistic factions

• preferred to appoint commissioners

Question 4

Edit

Above all, the baroque city was intended to impress with monumental buildings, magnificent palaces and perspective used to focus attention on majestic views along broad, straight avenues. Symmetry, with a classical sense of balance and regularity, was a defining characteristic. Although the most flamboyant expressions of the baroque movement were built later – at Versailles, for example, Karlsruhe and St Petersburg – its principles were firmly established at the time of Wren’s study tour in France, and an intention to impress is certainly evident in the plan for rebuilding London that Wren submitted to Charles II. The plan essentially divided London into two parts: a western section consisting of rectangular blocks, and an eastern section of polygonal squares joined by streets radiating from each. These broadly disparate parts were linked by two grand thoroughfares angled across the plan to meet in the form of an arrowhead at the site of St Paul’s. There were several piazzas, merchant shipping quays, and also a Grand Terrace along the Thames with adjacent public halls. On paper, Wren’s plan for London offered an impressive city – fit for a king even though it lacked a palace. But he must have known the scheme was irrelevant to the needs of the City. A.E.J. Morris describes it as ‘an overnight exercise based on a superficial use of continental Renaissance planmotifs’, which is perhaps a little unkind, though it bolsters Morris’s suggestion that the plan may not have been seriously intended at all, but was simply a pre-emptive strike on the part of an ambitious though untried architect who was keen to establish his claim to a major share of the rebuilding work. If so, the overnight exercise certainly paid off. Wren became a member of the six-man commission formed to advise and oversee the rebuilding programme; he was appointed Surveyor-General in 1669, given the commission to design the new St Paul’s and sixty other City churches, as well as almost all the worthwhile architectural work of the period. Whatever its conceptual attributes, Wren’s plan failed from a practical point of view in its total disregard for the topography of London. His new city was designed as though it occupied a flat plain, whereas in fact the site undulates considerably (even more so then than now), with hills on either side of both the Fleet and the Walbrook tributaries of the Thames. The rise and fall of these hills would have obliterated the magnificent perspective vistas that the plan promised, as well as distorting the proposed arrangement of neat blocks, tidy squares and radiating streets. Wren’s baroque vision could never have existed in reality. In point of fact there was never much chance that it would. Quite apart from the practical difficulties of wrapping a two dimensional plan over a three dimensional landscape, Wren’s scheme also called for an almost total rearrangement of streets and buildings within the City. Many property owners would have been obliged to build to a different ground plan, or on a different site, and no-one had the authority to insist upon that – especially not the King, given how successful London had been in limiting royal involvement with City affairs. Wren had submitted his plan to the king but Charles could not take it further without the unanimous agreement of parliament and all London’s landowners and institutions. Such a consensus would be hard to achieve on even the most innocuous of issues; impossible when all parties simply wanted to get on with the urgent task of rebuilding their lives and livelihoods – London would fail or prosper accordingly. But the king was in any case ‘at one’ with the city. On 13 September he issued a royal proclamation on desirable rebuilding procedures, undertook to rebuild the Custom House promptly, and to relinquish Crown property in the City wherever it would be of common benefit. By the end of September, there was a general agreement that the existing street lines and property boundaries must be accepted, and at the beginning of October six commissioners were appointed to supervise and effectively to control all technical aspects of the rebuilding work. Three were nominated by the king and three by the City. Wren was one of the king’s nominees; Hooke was one of the City’s

The first result of Wren’s submission was:

• he was appointed as Surveyor-General

• He was appointed to rebuild London as it had been

• he designed St Paul’s

• he was appointed as one of six commissioners

• he was forced to abandon his baroque vision

Having drawn an isosceles triangle ABC consider the triangle ABD with the same base AB and its vertex on the extension of height CH. If height DH of ABD is double height CH of ABC, to which fraction of the area of ABD does the triangle ABC correspond?

• 1/2

• 2

• 1/4

• The above data is insufficient to calculate the solution to the question

• 1

Premises: all fourth year architecture exams are very difficult; no very difficult exam has less than six credits. Which of the following statements is unquestionably true?

• At the faculty of architecture the exams of the first three years are worth a maximum of six credits

• No architecture exam, unless it is a fourth year exam, is worth at least six credits

• All the fourth year architecture exams are worth at least six credits.

• At the faculty of architecture only the fourth year exams and above are worth at least six credits

• Every fourth year exam is worth six credits.

The supermarket where Alice and Giorgio do their shopping offers one gadget for every 30 € spent. If you know that the total number of offered gadgets is 24, that Giorgio needs twice Alice’s gadgets to complete the collection, and that Alice has 4 more gadgets than Giorgio, how many gadgets does Alice have?

• 16

• 20

• 18

• 22

• 26

Giorgio has to feed his fish; he has 20 fish in two separate tanks. If for each fish in the first tank Giorgio has to use five larva, while for each fish in the second tank he has to use six, how many of Giorgio’s fish are in the second tank, if he uses a total of 112 larva to feed his 20 fish ?

• 8

• 15

• 12

• 16

• 10

When a mass of water passes from a liquid to a solid state it increases by 1/11. When this same mass of ice passes from a solid to a liquid state it decreases by….….…. Choose the appropriate answer.

• 12/11

• 1/7

• 1/22

• 1/12

• 1/10