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 6th, 2011, 10:03 PM   #61
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taller, Better View Post
This is turning into a "Region vs Region" thread very rapidly, when the discussion should be about modernism as a design concept. Modernism exists all around the world; not just in one region. Many of the great Modernists came from Europe: Le Corbusier, mies van der rohe, Marcel Breuer. etc...

Let's stop insulting each other and assuming no one has travelled because they do not agree with us, and just discuss the topic.


I do apologize, Taller, Better. I have made my point and will let it go from there.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 6th, 2011, 10:05 PM   #62
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,969
Likes (Received): 12195

Well, it is a pretty scintillating topic! I can see why blood pressures rise to the boiling point! Many a family gets into a bickering fight around the dinner table every night over this same discussion!
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2011, 10:05 PM   #63
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajs0503 View Post
Paris, London, and Rome largely consist of neoclassical structures.
The West End isn't London's medieval centre though. That area is now a financial district, and suffered through an imposition of modernism after much of it was bombed to buggery during the blitz.

There are still plenty of old buildings in the area, and some good new ones too.

It's just for every "Shard" or Gherkin that gets built, there are plenty more like Guy's Hospital giving modern building a bad name.

http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/c...2_ShiftN-2.jpg


The area round St Paul's is sometimes said to be so bad that the Luftwaffe should be allowed another go.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2011, 10:14 PM   #64
ajs0503
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
VITRIOL is necessary to balance the BASENESS of the opposing argument, if you would allow me to say so.

And you will admit that many of what you call "neoclassical" structures are not more than 200 years old, correct? So would you say that London and Paris were completely empty of buildings and structures before that? After all, London and Paris have been on the map for about 2000 years. So, one can never think of Paris and London as ever being anything BUT neoclassical? LOL

Do you see the foolishness of your argument?

Can you tell me the predominant architectural style of Le Marais? I will tell you this: it is NOT neoclassical. And you don't need to be a European to see that.

So you completely disregard an entire district of central Paris, and say that the City is largely neoclaasical?

To travel extensively does not mean that you SEE, apparently.
Compared to Dallas, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles Paris is predominately a neo-classical city. By the way, capitalizing entire words really displays the intent and fervor of your argument. That was meant to be more tongue-in cheek than vitriolic. Now I have to go to lunch...
ajs0503 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2011, 10:33 PM   #65
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,969
Likes (Received): 12195

I think we can all agree that many attempts at "modernism" were not successful. Some where hampered by post-war budgetary problems, when there was little time or energy left to pour vast amounts of money into much needed structures, in the name of aesthetics. We could also argue that not all "classical" or vaguely "classically inspired" structures were successful, either. There is a lot of eye-brow raising kitsch throughout the world that was built a century or so ago. I've seen some hideous glazed brick Victorian piles that would make your eyes bleed.
But exceptions to the rule don't really mean either movement was a failure, per se..... I think there is room for both movements on this great big planet.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2011, 11:43 PM   #66
ajs0503
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taller, Better View Post
I think we can all agree that many attempts at "modernism" were not successful. Some where hampered by post-war budgetary problems, when there was little time or energy left to pour vast amounts of money into much needed structures, in the name of aesthetics. We could also argue that not all "classical" or vaguely "classically inspired" structures were successful, either. There is a lot of eye-brow raising kitsch throughout the world that was built a century or so ago. I've seen some hideous glazed brick Victorian piles that would make your eyes bleed.
But exceptions to the rule don't really mean either movement was a failure, per se..... I think there is room for both movements on this great big planet.
Agreed. However you must concede that it is much more difficult to recreate a historic building than it to build a modern one. That is why I think they should be valued more given their rarity and vulnerability...

Last edited by ajs0503; August 7th, 2011 at 02:15 AM.
ajs0503 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2011, 04:55 AM   #67
OakRidge
Registered User
 
OakRidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: El Camino Real - California
Posts: 693
Likes (Received): 1460

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taller, Better View Post

No matter HOW hard we try, we are NEVER going to get stone carvings again like at the mid century University of Toronto:

We simply are never going to get this type of carved oak panelling again, except for extremely rare and ultra high end historical restoration projects:

I suspect the gist of this thread is really a question of :"Do you prefer the aesthetics of historical architecture or the aesthetics of modern architecture?" That seems to be how everyone is weighing in here. But, couching those terms as a "failure of modernism" is not realistic. We are not living in 1850 now; we are living in 2011, and the best we can do is mimic or try and copy at a small scale to produce the odd imitation of past glory. On a broader scale we are far more honest and realistic to have wisely gone down the path of "modernism". Quite contrary to having been a "failure", modernism has virtually salvaged a comfortable, clean and well housed society. I doubt if anyone here wants to go back to working 10 hour days, 6-1/2 days a week for a dollar a day, and live in a hovel just to provide some fabulously wealthy banks or citizens hand carved finishes.
Built within the last few years:


http://www.pbase.com/artichoke/image/57010857/original

http://www.castingdesignsinc.com/Ima.../StMartins.htm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3666127070


http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/hi-res-photos

http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/hi-res-photos


http://www.flickr.com/photos/catholi...es/5012880937/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/catholi...57624883048375

http://www.flickr.com/photos/catholi...57624883048375


wustl @ http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/21165.aspx

Jeffrey Edward Tryon @ http://tryography.blogspot.com/2010/...-st-louis.html

wustl @ http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/21165.aspx

wustl @ http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/21165.aspx


Elmira College @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/elmiracollege/4662958677/

Elmira College @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/elmiracollege/4705753203/

Elmira College @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/elmiracollege/4706396550/

Elmira College @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/elmiracollege/4663581208/

Elmira College @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/elmiracollege/4616290991/

Contrary to what you have been told it all can be done today. I could post more examples if you wish.
__________________
"I had my back to the light and my face was turned towards
the things which it illumined, so that my eyes, by which I
saw the things which stood in the light, were themselves
in darkness." - Confessions (Book IV), Augustine of Hippo

"Laws are made for these reasons: that human wickedness
may be restrained through fear of their execution; that the
lives of innocent men may be safe among criminals; and
that the temptation to commit wrong may be restrained by
the fear of punishment." - The Visigothic Code (Book I, Title II, Part V)

Simfan34 liked this post

Last edited by OakRidge; August 7th, 2011 at 05:03 AM.
OakRidge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2011, 05:14 AM   #68
Skyscraperer
Scraping Skies
 
Skyscraperer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Orchard, Singapore
Posts: 115
Likes (Received): 1

Those look really good! Please post more!
__________________
The end
Skyscraperer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2011, 05:31 AM   #69
OakRidge
Registered User
 
OakRidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: El Camino Real - California
Posts: 693
Likes (Received): 1460





__________________
"I had my back to the light and my face was turned towards
the things which it illumined, so that my eyes, by which I
saw the things which stood in the light, were themselves
in darkness." - Confessions (Book IV), Augustine of Hippo

"Laws are made for these reasons: that human wickedness
may be restrained through fear of their execution; that the
lives of innocent men may be safe among criminals; and
that the temptation to commit wrong may be restrained by
the fear of punishment." - The Visigothic Code (Book I, Title II, Part V)
OakRidge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2011, 05:40 AM   #70
OakRidge
Registered User
 
OakRidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: El Camino Real - California
Posts: 693
Likes (Received): 1460

Most modernist structures are terrible but on rare occasions it has been done right.

Here is the Oslo City Hall.







Intricate and detailed modernism, what a concept............
__________________
"I had my back to the light and my face was turned towards
the things which it illumined, so that my eyes, by which I
saw the things which stood in the light, were themselves
in darkness." - Confessions (Book IV), Augustine of Hippo

"Laws are made for these reasons: that human wickedness
may be restrained through fear of their execution; that the
lives of innocent men may be safe among criminals; and
that the temptation to commit wrong may be restrained by
the fear of punishment." - The Visigothic Code (Book I, Title II, Part V)

Brunarino liked this post
OakRidge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2011, 05:00 AM   #71
ajs0503
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by OakRidge View Post
Intricate and detailed modernism, what a concept............
Exactly. I actually find 8 Spruce St. (Beekman Tower) to be one of the most fascinating and beautiful skyscrapers that has ever been built in New york. It isn't just another glass box.

ajs0503 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 01:40 AM   #72
SoroushPersepolisi
Moderator
 
SoroushPersepolisi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tehran
Posts: 14,994
Likes (Received): 5083

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajs0503
Has anyone actually been to Europe? Compared to North American cities their urban historical architecture is largely preserved. Of course every European city has a few modern buildings in it's urban core, but I am speaking comparatively.

You are missing my point. It is one thing to appreciate modern architecture and support it's construction outside of historically designated zones; however it is quite another thing to consider that everything old is ugly and should consequently be torn down.

"Paris is not a museum"? And your source is a random, anonymous poster on Skyscrapercity?

"The modernist movement has a lot of Support in Europe". Have you read the postings submitted by Europeans on this thread? Also, have you checked the poll lately? Yes this is skyscrapercity, the bastion of modernism and skyscrapers. I'm actually surprised how many voted yes.

Finally, have you ever walked down a street in Paris? The architecture largely consists of homogenous second empire buildings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AAL

My thoughts exactly!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco

Many European cities have preserved their classical (Greek and Roman) street plans as well as structures, but it goes a bit deeper than this. In Rome, for example, ancient buildings have been incorporated into new ones (Theatre of Marcellus), found a new use (Pantheon) or left other mark(s) in the urban fabric (Piazza Navona on what was once a stadium). Indeed many of European cities were founded in Classical times and it shows.
exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe

Yes, and in more cities that I would care to mention, and at least 5 to 8 times a year.

And you? Do you visit North America with the same frequency?

So, Medieval Paris and London are pretty much the same as the cities you see now, correct? If you answer "yes", then you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

No. YOU are missing the point. The fact is: European cities have changed DRASTICALLY over the past 2000 years. Rome of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages is largely replaced by Rome of the Baroque period. The Paris you see today is largely the creation of the 19th Century, as much as NYC and Chicago are products of the 19th Century. To claim otherwise is to be completely IGNORANT of the evolution of European Art and Architecture.

.

Are you DENSE? I am not claiming him as a source. What I am saying is that HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH, and he is a Parisian at that. Do you live in Paris? If not, then what IMPUDENCE it would be to put your NAIVE opinions over his.

I suggest that you take a closer look at the history and evolution of the urban centers of Europe, and learn how much they have changed over the centuries. THEY ARE NEVER STATIC.

The absolute nerve of these people... It is like talking down to children!
why do you keep bringing up the 2000 year old evolution of rome ? we are arguing about modernist buildings (today's designs) , and how it has /is / will be taking over what was previously in place, what was previously inplace is called classic in this thread , and that is what remains of traditional architecture on a large scale. yes cities have evolved for thousands of years but is it fair now to replace that evolution of classic architecture with something totaly new and different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajs0503

Youre right. For me, it is simply a matter of historical preservation. I wold much rather live in a circa nineteenth century brownstone than a modern high rise, but that's just me and I'm sure there are many people who have similar preferences. All I ask is that modernism does not encroach on what we already have that is of value. It only takes the demolition of a handful of historical buildings a year before a city loses it's classical elegance and historical integrity in a century's time.
exactly! well stated
__________________
See TEHRAN, The Capital of IRAN
SoroushPersepolisi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 02:28 AM   #73
Ewan117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 267
Likes (Received): 18

A lot of modern architecture nowadays lack detail. Towers like Jin Mao and Petronas comes to mind when it comes to detailed modern supertalls, but its just detailed, thats all. You can't look at the detail and say, ah, it represents this and that.

Modern architecture ie ok-ish. I'm a bit skeptical about the future designs. It seems like all countries have similar designs, those plain yet munted shaped towers that represent nothing more than 'modern architecture'.

The Shard in London, strictly speaking isn't very pleasing
Ewan117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 02:46 AM   #74
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,421
Likes (Received): 21043

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewan117 View Post
A lot of modern architecture nowadays lack detail.
Merely aesthetic preferences and trends. Take, for instance, the whole 21st Century minimalism movement... it is as void as details as possible, but good minimalist houses are just stunning!
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 02:56 AM   #75
Rebasepoiss
Registered User
 
Rebasepoiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 5,797
Likes (Received): 1788

What people don't seem to understand is that modern architecture does not equal tall glassy skyscrapers. It comes in many forms and functions. While I agree that extremely simplified concrete buildings with little or no attention to the facade can be quite boring or even brutal, I wouldn't form my opinion on modernsim based on these buildings.

Tallinn has seen a large construction boom since the early 90s, especially in the 00s. Historicism almost doesn't exist here. Even though a lot of new apartment buildings in the suburbs are made of pre fabricated concrete blocks and have little to no architectural value, there are also some really good examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin_Can View Post
Now moving into Rotermanni quarter. Built in the area of former factory and warehouses,it is an example of what can be done,if developer aims for quality instead of quantity. Some of the buildings are new (built in recent years),some are historic (date back to early 1900s). Not much to be added to the photos,soo just enjoy them!

24


25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin_Can View Post
36 Rather interesting looking building with parking house on Jõe street.


38 Quite near is also Tallinn's synagogue / Beit Bella Synagogue
Rebasepoiss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 06:36 AM   #76
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoroushPersepolisi View Post


why do you keep bringing up the 2000 year old evolution of rome ? we are arguing about modernist buildings (today's designs) , and how it has /is / will be taking over what was previously in place, what was previously inplace is called classic in this thread , and that is what remains of traditional architecture on a large scale. yes cities have evolved for thousands of years but is it fair now to replace that evolution of classic architecture with something totaly new and different?
If you have cared at all to read the line of discussion, you would have realized that the point I was making is that CITIES ARE NOT STATIC.

Do you think what these buildings that you call "classic" have always been there? You would be an unmitigated fool to think so.

In fact, there is a thread in this very part of the forum that glorifies Medieval/Gothic Paris, and REGRET that many of the so-called "classic" buildings that you admire have replaced them.

If you think this is foolish and stupid, then what do you think of yourselves who don't like to see modernist styles replacing what you call the "classic" style of Paris?

If you think that these medievalists are stupid, then you have judged yourselves,

And while we are at it, I must say that it irritates me to no end when people say that Rome is largely neoclassical, or that Paris is largely neoclassical, etc.

The cities that you see now are built on the destruction or earlier styles and earlier edifices. Read the contemporary accounts of how the Romans HATED the destruction of the medieval portions of Rome in order to make way for what you call the "neoclassical" Via della Conciliazione during the first part of the 20th century.

Let me repeat it one more time: the Rome and Paris that you see today and that you admire so irrationally are not neoclassical.

Rome today is NOT neoclassical -- it is a city of the BAROQUE. Paris in NOT neoclaasical -- it is largely a product of the late 19th century historical styles. Please educate yourselves on the true meaning of the "neoclassical" style of architecture, which spans the late 18th century to the early part of the 19th century.

It is embarassing that people can't even distinguish between the different architectural styles of these cities in an ARCHITECTURE forum.

The baroque buildings of Rome are built on the destruction of so many earlier buildings in earlier architectural styles. Look at St.Peter's and the Lateran. Why did they not simply rebuild the Imperial basilicas of the Emperor Constatine instead of building these ridiculously "modern" churches that you see today?

The answer: They rebuilt St. Peter's and the Lateran in the (what was then) MODERN styles because ART and ARCHITECTURE continuously EVOLVE.

These cities will over time introduce more and more modern styles into their centers. Why? Because THAT is the NATURE OF THINGS. That is how it has always been -- in Rome, in Paris, etc

If you can't accept that simple fact of life, then I suggest that you hide under a rock and cry.

Last edited by tpe; August 9th, 2011 at 06:51 AM.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 06:45 AM   #77
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

* Double Post *
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 06:50 AM   #78
SoroushPersepolisi
Moderator
 
SoroushPersepolisi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tehran
Posts: 14,994
Likes (Received): 5083

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe

If you have cared at all to read the line of discussion, you would have realized that the point I was making is that CITIES ARE NOT STATIC.

Do you think what these buildings that you call "classic" have always been there? You would be an unmitigated fool to think so.

In fact, there is a thread in this very part of the forum that glorifies Medieval/Gothic Paris, and REGRET that many of the so-called "classic" buildings that you admire have replaced them.

If you think this is foolish and stupid, then what do you think of yourselves who don't like to see modernist styles replacing what you call the "classic" style of Paris?

If you think that these medievalists are stupid, then you have judged yourselves,

And while we are at it, I must say that it irritates me to no end when people say that Rome is largely neoclassical, or that Paris is largely neoclassical, etc.

The cities that you see now are built on the destruction or earlier styles and earlier edifices. Read the contemporary accounts of how the Romans HATED the destruction of the medieval portions of Rome in order to make way for what you call the "neoclassical" Via della Conciliazione during the first part of the 20th century.

Let me repeat it one more time: the Rome and Paris that you see today and that you admire so irrationally are not neoclassical.

Rome today is NOT neoclassical -- it is a city of the BAROQUE. Paris in NOT neoclaasical -- it is largely a product of the late 19th century historical styles. Please educate yourselves on the true meaning of the "neoclassical" style of architecture, which spans the late 18th century to the early part of the 19th century.

It is embarassing that people can't even distinguish between the different architectural styles of these cities in an ARCHITECTURE forum.

The baroque buildings of Rome are built on the destruction of so many earlier buildings in earlier architectural styles. Look at St.Peter's and the Lateran. Why did they not simply rebuild the Imperial basilicas of the Emperor Constatine instead of building these ridiculously "modern" churches that you see today?

The answer: They rebuilt St. Peter's and the Lateran in the (what was then) MODERN styles because ART and ARCHITECTURE continuously EVOLVE.

These cities will over time introduce more and more modern styles into their centers. Why? Because THAT is the NATURE OF THINGS.

If you can't accept that simple fact of life, then I suggest that you hide under a rock and cry.
yes i knew exactly what you ment, but you dont mention your argument in a correct way

alot of paris/ rome etc is from 100 years ago not since the middle ages yes
but the changes made today are so drastical, that it is good to keep large parts of the traditional architecture (tradition meaning whatever has been handed down to us)

you are missing my point, i never said neoclassical, i never said rome has been like this since ceasar's time
__________________
See TEHRAN, The Capital of IRAN
SoroushPersepolisi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 06:54 AM   #79
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoroushPersepolisi View Post
yes i knew exactly what you ment, but you dont mention your argument in a correct way

alot of paris/ rome etc is from 100 years ago not since the middle ages yes
but the changes made today are so drastical, that it is good to keep large parts of the traditional architecture (tradition meaning whatever has been handed down to us)

you are missing my point, i never said neoclassical, i never said rome has been like this since ceasar's time
Sorry if I gave the impression that you called these "neoclassical."

I was referring here to other posters...
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2011, 07:00 AM   #80
skymantle
Registered User
 
skymantle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,796
Likes (Received): 3114

Yes absolutely, for the most part, modernism has failed. The dehumanising, out-of-scale, megalomaniac monumentalism of modernism has been a disaster. Give me Jane Jacobs vision over Robert Moses' any day.

Time to embrace new urbanism for the sake of humanity and sustainability on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism
skymantle 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 01:16 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