daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Has architectural modernism failed?
Yes 190 45.13%
No 231 54.87%
Voters: 421. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 29th, 2011, 11:58 AM   #281
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,348
Likes (Received): 891

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Everything is laid out in all previously related posts. Take the time to read them.

Whichever side you go for (and I know which side you are on), please understand that the point was NOT to compare Roman slums with the works of starchitects.

The point was to compare standard streetscapes/houses from the Roman period and those from today. Using upper class Vitruvian derivations won't cut it. Using frescoed Roman houses won't cut it. This is because the average house throughout the Empire at the time was very different from all these. The North African comparison comes pretty close.
You keep repeating yourself over again and yet you make no sense. And you don't know which side Im on.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 29th, 2011, 01:02 PM   #282
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
You keep repeating yourself over again and yet you make no sense. And you don't know which side Im on.
Here is your initial supposition as posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
The fact that people are comparing Roman and Medieval slums (poorly built mud and brick buildings that were designed not to look like anything) to modernism which was built by world- famous architects with all the money, materials and technology they could imagine at their disposal, really says it all.
This was in response to THAT post: Roman and Medieval slums were brought up as part of the discussion pointing out that Roman and Medieval streetscapes were no better than streetcapes of later periods (today's inclusive). The discussion had nothing to do with starchitects. Neither were slums compared to works by these so-called starchitects.

You seem to think that Modernism is all about starchitects. That would be ridiculous.

If you still don't get this, then THAT is YOUR problem.

Last edited by tpe; August 29th, 2011 at 01:15 PM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2011, 01:12 PM   #283
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,404
Likes (Received): 21020

Quote:
Originally Posted by hayes88 View Post
interesting topic. For me modernism absolutely failed to create cities that are alive. The best example is the city I live in, Rotterdam the Netherlands. The coldblooded modernism architectures havent tried to creat beautiful buildings that could last for more than a decade. Rotterdam is one of the most whealty cities in the world, but the streets are grey. If you would ask the people in the streets, They will underline this. Utrecht, Haarlem are known for their beauty in The Netherlands. And that is because they have a historical downtown.
I love Rotterdam, and so do many of my friends from abroad. There is a sense that, while all Dutch cities have canal style houses, 3-story narrow row houses and the likes, Rotterdam is a unique place in Europe with its modern bridges (a large river surely helps), those quirky buildings near the Maashaven area, buildings imitating boats and spheres, cube houses etc. But I bet Rotterdam is one of those love/hate places: you can't be indifferent to it.

Let's not forget Rotterdam was carpet bombed, whilst Utrecht, Amsterdam and Den Haag weren't. At least in Rotterdam they experimented, built new things instead of going fake and outdated like Hamburg or Dresden did after war.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2011, 01:24 PM   #284
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1919

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Well, it seems to me that you do have some form of "canon" that is somehow "set", if not rigidly absolute.

I asked this question not to put you on the spot, but to understand where you are coming from.

That you have some form of "canon" would explain a lot. And there comes a point that if we don't agree on some fundamentals, then there is no point in arguing over other things. To discuss is fine, but I don't think we will reach a resolution, given that we may be far apart on the basics.
I get the impression you are doing everything you can to avoid admitting you think those buildings are ugly.

It's worthy that you feel it's right to defend modernism from what is often unwarranted attack, but the defence of the multitude of dreadful, ugly, ill-thought, unimaginitive and completely unartistic post-war buildings just has a touch of The Emporer's New Clothes about it.


Quote:
I would want to comment about your saying that art is not lived-in. As I said, great architedcture is art. And for that matter: furniture, paintings, music, is just as lived-in as any building. This is my collector's viewpoint creeping in.
Paintings and music are not lived in to any degree. That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Also, if you collect paintings and music then you are choosing what to collect. You are not having somebody else's idea of music imposed upon you, which is what happens with architecture.

Quote:
In the strictest sense, I would consider architecture as an art-form, as "Art" is really a more encompassing concept.

But that is all a matter of definition.
Great architecture is artistic. I don't think there are too many complaints about great architecture though, just the bad stuff. And the bad stuff, as far as modernism is concerned, isn't artistic at all.

Maybe you see art in the building below, but to me it's just an example of an architect believing that nothing beyond function is important.


http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/01/...6_02d5721d.jpg
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2011, 02:53 PM   #285
kaligraffi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Let's not forget Rotterdam was carpet bombed, whilst Utrecht, Amsterdam and Den Haag weren't. At least in Rotterdam they experimented, built new things instead of going fake and outdated like Hamburg or Dresden did after war.
I don't get this reasoning. A rebuilt city isn't "fake" and it certainly isn't "outdated". A "fake" isn't the same as rebuilding something after it's destroyed. "Outdated" implies that restored cities don't work as well...but who would seriously argue that Los Angeles works more efficiently than Munich?

When disasters happen, humans rebuild. I find it quite unsavory that modernists try to heap some form of shame upon this very basic and reasonable desire in favor of their "experiments" and "new things".
__________________
The principles discoverable in the works of the past belong to us; not so the results. It is taking the end for the means. - Owen Jones
kaligraffi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2011, 04:39 PM   #286
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
I get the impression you are doing everything you can to avoid admitting you think those buildings are ugly.

It's worthy that you feel it's right to defend modernism from what is often unwarranted attack, but the defence of the multitude of dreadful, ugly, ill-thought, unimaginitive and completely unartistic post-war buildings just has a touch of The Emporer's New Clothes about it.
I am not avoiding anything. I defend relatively recent or contemporary architectural styles on the grounds that we do not have the necessary OBJECTIVITY to assess them. This is done in the study of History all the time. And there is good reason for it.

I can use the term "ugly", but I will qualify this by saying that "I think such and such is ugly". I don't have any claims that what I term as ugly is gospel truth.

Moreover, personal preferences change all the time. Things I hated in my youth I have grown to love in my maturity. How do you think I would feel now if I had all those things I hated destroyed in my younger days?

As I said: it is a matter of taste. And tastes change all the time. That is why YOU should be cautious in your judgements, or at least qualify them as NOT ABSOLUTE.

Quote:
Paintings and music are not lived in to any degree. That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
I see that you are not a serious collector. We agree to disagree on this point.

Quote:
Great architecture is artistic. I don't think there are too many complaints about great architecture though, just the bad stuff. And the bad stuff, as far as modernism is concerned, isn't artistic at all.

Maybe you see art in the building below, but to me it's just an example of an architect believing that nothing beyond function is important.

"Just the bad stuff" is precisely where I have an issue.

You seem to indicate that it is OBVIOUS to judge the good stuff and the bad stuff.

My claim is that what is considered good or bad changes through the ages -- even within the lifetime of a single individual.

Everything hinges on this essential difference of opinion: you seem to indeed have a fixed canon of what makes something great or not; I claim that there is no canon that remains fixed through the ages. "Good" has changed to "bad", and then "good" successively. This should teach us CAUTION.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2011, 04:42 PM   #287
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
Maybe you see art in the building below, but to me it's just an example of an architect believing that nothing beyond function is important.


http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/01/...6_02d5721d.jpg
And would you believe it if I tell you that with proper cleanup and restoration, the above example would be "beautiful"?
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 12:47 AM   #288
SmalltownUrbanist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
And would you believe it if I tell you that with proper cleanup and restoration, the above example would be "beautiful"?
I, for one, wouldn't.
SmalltownUrbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 03:50 AM   #289
SmalltownUrbanist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 17

After having quickly read through the thread, there's a few points of the discussion I think miss the point. The discussion about taste and fashion is irrelevant. Yes, people might have disliked older architecture before as well, and a favoured argument by the modernists is that cities always change, and should change. There is nothing wrong with that argument, in fact it is quite right, but traditionally the cities have developed along the same patterns, with the same urban qualities (scientifically and emprically proven) as what stood there before. Old, unattractive buildings have replaced new, more attractive ones which were in fashion yes. But, wether a Gothic or Georgian is more beautiful is really irrelevant, they both inhabit intrinsic qualities that make them enjoyable and positive to the urban space.

In my opinion it is more a discussion of form rather than style. Modernism brought with it a new kind of urbanism, that disregards humans altogether. This is where I believe modernism fails. Therefore the argument that taste is subjective and that fashion changes becomes obsolete, as modernism goes beyond that discussion.

Having said that, I think modernist buildings can look perfectly fine. The only problem is that more often than not, they don't contribute to the street life one single bit. Most of the time they detract from it, and we might have a nice building, but a completely lifeless and unattractive area.

And that is also why the modern buildings posted earlier from Amsterdam, Hamburg and Copenhagen work so well, because they adhere to the rules of classical urbanism. This is to some degree the case with the Apple store posted earlier as well. It is at a smaller scale and interacts well with the street, and therefore adds to the space rather than closing it off and alienating people. Wether the minimalist architecture is good or not is more of a subjective matter.

So strictly aestethically speaking modernism might not have completely failed, although a large majority of modernist buildings (in my opinion) has. However architecturally speaking I would argue it has failed, as to be architecturally succesful I believe a building needs more than to be aestethically pleasing isolated. And modernist architecture, coupled with bad planning decisions, has ruined much good urban fabric and certainly not created any new, quality urban fabric.
SmalltownUrbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 04:42 AM   #290
RioARCHTQTO
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: ATLANTIS
Posts: 97
Likes (Received): 1

Not Yet...
RioARCHTQTO no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 05:00 AM   #291
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmalltownUrbanist View Post
I, for one, wouldn't.
Well, you WOULD be surprised to know that mid-century modern buildings like this have a LOT of serious admirers -- and not just here in the USA.

I am aware of what you said in your later post, but how would you account for these strongly opposing reactions, unless taste is taken into consideration?

Last edited by tpe; August 30th, 2011 at 05:08 AM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 05:00 AM   #292
rychlik
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,809
Likes (Received): 6603

del
rychlik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 10:40 AM   #293
Andros_Pelekanos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 14
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmalltownUrbanist View Post
After having quickly read through the thread, there's a few points of the discussion I think miss the point. The discussion about taste and fashion is irrelevant. Yes, people might have disliked older architecture before as well, and a favoured argument by the modernists is that cities always change, and should change. There is nothing wrong with that argument, in fact it is quite right, but traditionally the cities have developed along the same patterns, with the same urban qualities (scientifically and emprically proven) as what stood there before. Old, unattractive buildings have replaced new, more attractive ones which were in fashion yes. But, wether a Gothic or Georgian is more beautiful is really irrelevant, they both inhabit intrinsic qualities that make them enjoyable and positive to the urban space.

In my opinion it is more a discussion of form rather than style. Modernism brought with it a new kind of urbanism, that disregards humans altogether. This is where I believe modernism fails. Therefore the argument that taste is subjective and that fashion changes becomes obsolete, as modernism goes beyond that discussion.

Having said that, I think modernist buildings can look perfectly fine. The only problem is that more often than not, they don't contribute to the street life one single bit. Most of the time they detract from it, and we might have a nice building, but a completely lifeless and unattractive area.

And that is also why the modern buildings posted earlier from Amsterdam, Hamburg and Copenhagen work so well, because they adhere to the rules of classical urbanism. This is to some degree the case with the Apple store posted earlier as well. It is at a smaller scale and interacts well with the street, and therefore adds to the space rather than closing it off and alienating people. Wether the minimalist architecture is good or not is more of a subjective matter.

So strictly aestethically speaking modernism might not have completely failed, although a large majority of modernist buildings (in my opinion) has. However architecturally speaking I would argue it has failed, as to be architecturally succesful I believe a building needs more than to be aestethically pleasing isolated. And modernist architecture, coupled with bad planning decisions, has ruined much good urban fabric and certainly not created any new, quality urban fabric.
I agree with much of that but I'd also like to add something else to the discussion. Reletivism.

Classical architecture can be cool when it's not overdone and is well planned. For example, too much nuances (lions, angels, demons etc.) found on classical architecture definitely looks bad when overdone. It's as if someone was trying too hard to make up for the lack of function or quality design.

Another thing to consider is which style is at a disadvantage when in a mixed environment.
Andros_Pelekanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 12:45 PM   #294
SmalltownUrbanist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 139
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Well, you WOULD be surprised to know that mid-century modern buildings like this have a LOT of serious admirers -- and not just here in the USA.

I am aware of what you said in your later post, but how would you account for these strongly opposing reactions, unless taste is taken into consideration?
I'm not surprised at all that people like buildings such as this. My reaction to that is building is a reflection of my personal taste. There is nothing elegeant or nice about it, as is the case of other modernist architecture. But, as I said in my later post that is irrelevant to wether modernism succeeded as 'architecture'.

If you were to restore that building, move it up to the street and do something useful wit the groundfloor instead of just removing it altogether then I could appreciate the building for its function and the fact that it, post-restoration, won't be as horrible as it were. However it is completely devoid of any relationship to its surroundings and therefore, IMO, fails as a building completely.

That's my point. Just like people enjoy listening to a lot of music I don't enjoy, I know people can like this. But that doesn't make it succesful.
SmalltownUrbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 02:39 PM   #295
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmalltownUrbanist View Post
I'm not surprised at all that people like buildings such as this. My reaction to that is building is a reflection of my personal taste. There is nothing elegeant or nice about it, as is the case of other modernist architecture. But, as I said in my later post that is irrelevant to wether modernism succeeded as 'architecture'.

If you were to restore that building, move it up to the street and do something useful wit the groundfloor instead of just removing it altogether then I could appreciate the building for its function and the fact that it, post-restoration, won't be as horrible as it were. However it is completely devoid of any relationship to its surroundings and therefore, IMO, fails as a building completely.

That's my point. Just like people enjoy listening to a lot of music I don't enjoy, I know people can like this. But that doesn't make it succesful.
Fair enough. My only quibble is that the question of whether Modernism succeeded as "architecture" could be construed under the strong bias of personal taste.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 02:46 PM   #296
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andros_Pelekanos View Post
I agree with much of that but I'd also like to add something else to the discussion. Reletivism.

Classical architecture can be cool when it's not overdone and is well planned. For example, too much nuances (lions, angels, demons etc.) found on classical architecture definitely looks bad when overdone. It's as if someone was trying too hard to make up for the lack of function or quality design.

Another thing to consider is which style is at a disadvantage when in a mixed environment.
I think that whatever the style, elegance is important. In more "decorative" styles, there is always a tendency to overdo things if one is not guiided by some principle of restraint.

Mannerism is very interesting, for example. And I do see elegance in many Mannerist exemplars. But to many 20th and 21st century eyes, the theatrical nature of some of these exemplars can be seen as bordering on kitch or bad taste. I don't think this was the intention of their creators. (Let us be fair to say that they had other objectives that went beyond the confines of architecture.) But how people view styles change drastically over time -- in many cases, more as a reaction to the past than on anything else.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 09:23 PM   #297
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1919

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
You seem to indicate that it is OBVIOUS to judge the good stuff and the bad stuff.

My claim is that what is considered good or bad changes through the ages -- even within the lifetime of a single individual.

Everything hinges on this essential difference of opinion: you seem to indeed have a fixed canon of what makes something great or not; I claim that there is no canon that remains fixed through the ages. "Good" has changed to "bad", and then "good" successively. This should teach us CAUTION.
The problem with that is that the logical conclusion is that we should be happy to allow unchecked development of any design anywhere. Even if we think it'd be awful to knock down a building on St Mark's Square to build a McDonalds Drive-Thru, it shouldn't matter as tastes might change and we might prefer it in the future.



Perhaps the more worthwhile thing to consider is what is it about ugly and/or bad buildings that attract criticism? It isn't just about fashion or being modern. What is it about offices like the one above which just seem to sap the soul of most who look at it?

To me it's the lack of detail. There's just no charm or warmth to it. While not quite inhuman, there is a sense there being no effort at all to make it anything beyond functional.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011, 09:58 PM   #298
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
The problem with that is that the logical conclusion is that we should be happy to allow unchecked development of any design anywhere. Even if we think it'd be awful to knock down a building on St Mark's Square to build a McDonalds Drive-Thru, it shouldn't matter as tastes might change and we might prefer it in the future.
There is such a thing as CONSENSUS. Sure, I might want to demolish St. Mark's Basilica and build a Hooters Restaurant in its place, but prevailing tastes would recognize that we are better off without the Hooters in Venice.

Shall I wait to see if tastes change so I can build my Hooters? Of course I can do that. But probability will be against me, and I will most likely die waiting.

Unfortunately, a lot of other cases are not so clear-cut as these ridiculous examples.

Nonetheless, the development of styles and designs cannot be regulated. Human nature craves new things, and design and architecture will follow. Whether it is for the good or for the bad cannot be gainsaid with any absolute certainty. That is the hard reality.

Quote:
Perhaps the more worthwhile thing to consider is what is it about ugly and/or bad buildings that attract criticism? It isn't just about fashion or being modern. What is it about offices like the one above which just seem to sap the soul of most who look at it?

To me it's the lack of detail. There's just no charm or warmth to it. While not quite inhuman, there is a sense there being no effort at all to make it anything beyond functional.
Well, as I said, I know lots of people who would actually love the building in question. I personally think it would look nice if it is cleaned and restored properly.

For me, there is a boldness in its simple lines and strong contrasting colors. I can also see that interior light is not going to be a problem, in contrast to so many of the older office buildings that may look impressive on the outside, but are dark and dingy on the inside. The same can be said regarding parking space, as the lower level affords sufficient space for the occupants. The building also appears to be on stilts, which adds to the visual interest.

One can argue for or against it. But one side does not have the exclusive claim of being the only side.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2011, 04:32 PM   #299
PadArch
Registered User
 
PadArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 948
Likes (Received): 47

I think the key to this discussion is to separate modernist architecture from modernist planning. So then we can tackle both points as follows:

Architecture:
Has modern architecture failed? I think it is clear from the responses we've had in this thread that modernist architecture has not failed. Find me one person who will say they don't like ANY modern building. The other point here is the time/demolition factor. A lot of the buildings of antiquity that survive today, have survived because they are well functioning, well built, good buildings. Most of the bad stuff has fallen down/been demolished. More attractive/expensive buildings are better looked after and last longer. This gives a one-sided impression of "old buildings", making them seem more consistently better than perhaps they were once. So when we look at the modern period, there hasn't been that period of "correctitude" exacted. However, one just has to look at parts of London, New York, Chicago, Amsterdam, Copenhagen etc to see how beautiful modern buildings can be.

Urbanism:
Now we come on to urbanism. I think we can quite confidently say that modernist urbanism does fail. It fails because it puts the motor car above the pedestrian, which kills the life of the city. It also fails because it zones activities where earlier models of urbanism often mix them.
PadArch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2011, 07:04 PM   #300
RPFigueiredo
The Modernist
 
RPFigueiredo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: So Jos dos Campos
Posts: 1,077
Likes (Received): 621

It seems to me that the discussion here is primarely focused either on the european purism of the 20's and 30's or on the post war architecture, which has shown us some of the most dreadful architecture of th century.
However, when the failure of such architecture is being analysed, I think it is wiser to not focus these two examples. I believe most people here would agree that the birth of contemporary architecture was brought up by Oscar Niemeyer who, in the 40's came up with his revolutionary designs for Pampulha, in Belo Horizonte (Brazil).
Some critics even argue that his architecture before Brasilia was indeed Baroque, however with a modernist language. You may like his work or not, but you can't deny his buldings were extremely elegant and light.
Concerning Brasilia, I guess it is pretty much common knolwdge that the modernist urbanism is a failure, which encompasses everything done having it's basis on the Athens Chart (Chandigarh...). However, concerning architecture, I think the Palaces by Niemeyer (specially the Alvorada and the Itamaraty) proove the success of the modern movement, once they show an extremely classical composition which, 50 years after their oppening, still look fantasticaly serene, beautiful, light, and not vulgar at all.
image hosted on flickr


To conclude, I think that modernism has NOT fail on the basis that its basic principles (standardisation, structural independence from walls, humanisation of circulatory functions) allowed a plastic freedom which the purists like Gropius or early Corbusier didn't realize, but Niemeyer, Aalto and others did, and which contributed significantly to the architeture we see nowadays.
RPFigueiredo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
architecture

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu