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 > Classic Architecture

Classic Architecture Discussions on heritage buildings, monuments and landmarks.



Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 6th, 2012, 08:26 PM   #201
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
That's a delightful revitalization project:




Similar wonders could be done on almost any neglected pre-war building.
At least a gem like the Drake Hotel would more than deserve this attention, instead it gets torn down.
The same firm is in the early stages of doing a similar conversion in Hells Kitchen.

Walker Tower Gets a Sequel With Hell's Kitchen Conversion



Now that sales at Walker Tower, the conversion of a Chelsea building designed by Ralph Walker, are underway, developers JDS and Property Markets Group can move on to their next project—another conversion of a Ralph Walker building a bit further uptown. That building is 435 West 50th Street, and the Observer notes that the project just got $25 million in funding from Starwood Capital last week. Congrats, friend! Above, a before-and-after of the conversion. Seventeen stories of the building will get the condo treatment, for a total of 65 residential units. Chelsea's Walker Tower definitely has the edge when it comes to location, but perhaps it will help to inspire a more widespread Walker fever that will help its 50th Street sibling.

Source: Curbed
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 6th, 2012, 08:26 PM   #202
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,231
Likes (Received): 57900

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galro View Post
While I do believe New York could have done more to preserve its history, then my impression isn't that London is any better in that regard. I guess it's a inherent part of being a growing metropolis.
Indeed. Being a city that constantly seeks growth, power and importance there sometimes is no way to keep valuable history.

On the other hand: At times, there's more value in keeping and embracing your history - than in blindly rushing for the sole profit-driven future.

The horrors of post-war modernism around the (old and new) world should have tought as something about that.



Please avoid another "NYC is doing so much with protecting neighborhoods" or similar. We got it. That's not the point.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2012, 08:44 PM   #203
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Please avoid another "NYC is doing so much with protecting neighborhoods" or similar. We got it. That's not the point.
What is the point of this thread then? The title is "New York is sacrificing its heritage and unique flair... Dumb York"... In pointing what New York has done to preserve its historic architecture relates directly to the title / subject of this thread. Are we only allowed to focus on the negative?
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2012, 09:08 PM   #204
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
...Are we only allowed to focus on the negative?
Essentially, yes.
yankeesfan1000 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:29 AM   #205
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Actually the lawsuit related to the Grand Central Station Tower substantiated (legally) the Landmarks Laws that were passed following the destruction of Penn Station. Following a legal battle between the developer and the newly formed Landmarks Preservation Commission, the case over the proposed tower ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978. A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court upheld the NYC's landmarks law, saving Grand Central from any future alterations. The ruling provided both New York and other U.S. cities with the legal precedent to preserve their historic architecture. I should mention that not all "historic architecture" was then protected, only that which was deemed a landmark or fell within a landmark district. As you may gather, the Drake hotel had neither of those distinctions.
LOL, I was kidding around!

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Similar wonders could be done on almost any neglected pre-war building.
At least a gem like the Drake Hotel would more than deserve this attention, instead it gets torn down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
The same firm is in the early stages of doing a similar conversion in Hells Kitchen.
Bleh, Art Deco. If 100 Art Deco buildings were destroyed, it still wouldn't make up for the Drake Hotel. Demolishing them might actually make the city look better, Seriously, imagine less of these:



...and more buildings like 200 West Street.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Good for Germany. I'm sure Germany is much better a preserving its historical architecture, it is much older and its historical buildings have greater cultural value then that found in the U.S.
So, you're undermining the glory days of America?

Quote:
The fact is, today there is a strong preservation movement in NYC. In fact I would argue that no other major U.S. city has done as much to preserve its historical fabric as New York. It pioneered the establishment of a municipal Landmarks Commission. It was the home of Jane Jacobs who transformed the practice of urban planning across the U.S. (and arguably world). Today large swaths of the city are Landmarked, from the Upper West Side to the Village, from SoHo to Tribeca, from the Flatiron District to brownstone Brooklyn. Buildings in areas aren't going anywhere.
Please don't bring up Jane Jacobs. Her ideas were all about the "pleasures" of the grittiness and organic structure of secluded neighborhoods, while me and erbse are referring to the bygone grandiose of major areas.

Quote:
You're right in pointing out that there are areas of the city that are not Landmarked (and probably should be). However if the city isn't allow to grow and change it runs the risk of stagnating and losing its position as the American business capitol. And finally, thankfully there is much more to New York than just its nineteenth and early twentieth century architecture.
As I have agreed before, there are some grand buildings remaining like The Apthorp, and there has been preservation efforts recently for these said structures. Regardless, keeping the building is step one. It's all about what it's used for, the associated streetscape, and overall neighborhood that make up the "grand" factor. I believe this postcard best sums up what I'm trying to convey:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TFSGsRRvCP...k%20Avenue.jpg

Last edited by RegentHouse; December 14th, 2012 at 09:50 AM. Reason: Added image source
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:41 AM   #206
WrightTurn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 379
Likes (Received): 21

The building you would see removed is one of the greatest works by Ely Jacques Kahn and has incomparable detailing reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright. The Drake hotel was a pleasant pastiche and I am sad to see it removed, but it was not comparable to a major example of a wholly American architectural type.

The postcard you use shows Park Avenue. Guess what. Stand at 59th Street and look north or 40th Street and look south and you still see a huge swath that looks precisely like that.

As for the remainder of Park between 59th and 40th - well, if you don't like SOM or the Seagram Building or classic Brooks Brothers Mad Men-era Modernism, then I suppose you don't like those things. But to claim they simply mean a lack of architecture is idiocy.

As for this Erbse person...well, if you don't want to hear words to the contrary, then it doesn't make a difference whether you post here or in a darkened closet. You are saying there is no historic preservation of the central city in New York and it is quite obvious that is completely and utterly absurd. BTW, I don't know that I would hold up Germany as some stunning example of a nation that preserved its wonderful architecture. Seems a few things happened over the last hundred years that would make that argument appear highly ironic where not actually morally repulsive.
WrightTurn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 05:05 AM   #207
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

^Too bad Wright was the antithesis of urban America... Nothing he built was "American" architecture.

Park Avenue certainly doesn't look the same! Here's the same area at street level in 1922:

http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/...vepost1922.jpg

I like modern architecture and particularly International Style overall, but I believe historic hotels in this day of age shouldn't be replaced by something that looks like a perversion of aforementioned architecture stretched to the moon. NYC already has stellar examples of modern architecture, but many of the best classical pre-1916 skyscrapers or pre-depression low-rises are lost. While the Drake wasn't the cream of the crop, when considering what else still stands...

Last edited by RegentHouse; December 14th, 2012 at 09:50 AM. Reason: Added image source
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 05:48 AM   #208
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
^Too bad Wright was the antithesis of urban America... Nothing he built was "American" architecture.

Park Avenue certainly doesn't look the same! Here's the same area at street level in 1922:


I like modern architecture and International Style overall, but I believe historic hotels in this day of age shouldn't be replaced by something that looks like a perversion of aforementioned architecture stretched to the moon. While NYC already has stellar examples of modern architecture of all kinds, many of the best classical pre-1916 skyscrapers or pre-depression low-rises have been destroyed. The Drake wasn't the cream of the crop, but considering what else still stands...
Why shouldn't they be replaced, because you said so? Who are you to judge what should get torn down and built and what would be best for NYC? NYC has done pretty well for itself. Perhaps if it had taken your conservative approach, it wouldn't be the dominant city it is today.

Last edited by aquablue; December 7th, 2012 at 05:59 AM.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:08 AM   #209
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Who rattled your cage? I'm stating the facts and expressing my opinions.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:09 AM   #210
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Jane Jacobs, Art Deco and the walk up tenements of the Lower East Side are all just as much of a part of the history of New York as the "grand era" of the City that you seem to fetishize.

Regardless, much of Midtown was actually tenement walk-ups until the 1920s and 1930s (and looked like Hells Kitchen). Before then, the real business district was further south. Thats why Landmarked neighborhoods such as the Flatiron District have such amazing architecture.

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

image hosted on flickr

Anomalous_A

I could go on...
__________________

yeisson liked this post
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:14 AM   #211
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Who rattled your cage? I'm stating the facts and expressing my opinions.
Yes, but who are you to judge that the Drake shouldn't have been torn down? How do you know what would be best for NYC and for its economic well being?

I would like if NY had kept all its grandiose buildings too, but then again, who the heck am I to judge. NY may have ended up beautiful but insignificant economically for all I know if it had taken this approach. Perhaps NY would start to decline now if it became conservative and stopped developing. There is only so much land available in tiny Manhattan. You just have to accept that it is a city about $$$ first, aesthetics take second fiddle.... At least it didn't end up like Hong Kong which lost nearly all of its classical architecture through sheer economic greed.

Last edited by aquablue; December 7th, 2012 at 06:26 AM.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:25 AM   #212
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Here is an actual photograph view of the grandeur you're fetishizing.


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=1665

Last edited by sbarn; December 7th, 2012 at 06:35 AM.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:30 AM   #213
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

^

Those buildings are pleasant, but they are not Paris, they are not Prague. If NY had kept a rigid policy of keeping everything pre-war, people would be complaining that NY is too stagnant and perhaps even boring. There are people who complain about Paris in this way, if you can believe it and its pre-war stuff is 10x higher quality than anything NY could and can muster today (a few exceptions of course).

Last edited by erbse; December 8th, 2012 at 04:26 PM.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:35 AM   #214
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Those buildings are pleasant, but they are not Paris, they are not Prague. If NY had kept a rigid policy of keeping everything pre-war, people would be complaining that NY is too stagnant and perhaps even boring. There are people who complain about Paris in this way, if you can believe it and its pre-war stuff is 10x higher quality than anything NY can muster (a few exceptions of course).
Agreed, the more impressive buildings lost have been downtown. I think Midtown is the perfect place for redevelopment. Its the very reason that the grid system was implemented. Besides, much of Park Avenue still looks like both of those images.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:35 AM   #215
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,487

Any view of that street today?
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:38 AM   #216
yankeesfan1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,235
Likes (Received): 560



In regard to the black and white photo sbarn posted, and aqua quoted, those buildings in the foreground are fairly standard for NY. Yes they're nice, but nothing stunning. Most of what was just landmarked in the UWS is made up of buildings that look like the first one on the right which is cut off.

sbarn, are those your photos? Lower 5th, below Madison Square Park is one of my favorite stretches anywhere in the city, and it spills over a bit onto 6th Ave to the West, and Broadway to the East. The building on 6th Ave with the gold domes on about 20th st...? Is one of my favorite in the city. Thanks again for sharing.

WrightTurn, we need more posters like you in this thread! Completely agree with what you said.
yankeesfan1000 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:48 AM   #217
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
Any view of that street today?
You can see it on Google Maps HERE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000
In regard to the black and white photo sbarn posted, and aqua quoted, those buildings in the foreground are fairly standard for NY. Yes they're nice, but nothing stunning. Most of what was just landmarked in the UWS is made up of buildings that look like the first one on the right which is cut off.

sbarn, are those your photos? Lower 5th, below Madison Square Park is one of my favorite stretches anywhere in the city, and it spills over a bit onto 6th Ave to the West, and Broadway to the East. The building on 6th Ave with the gold domes on about 20th st...? Is one of my favorite in the city. Thanks again for sharing.
I found those photos on Flickr. That neighborhood is indeed amazing. Broadway south of Union Square is also a great street with lots of well preserved photos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000
WrightTurn, we need more posters like you in this thread! Completely agree with what you said.
Agreed!
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 08:28 AM   #218
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,213
Likes (Received): 769

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Regardless, much of Midtown was actually tenement walk-ups until the 1920s and 1930s (and looked like Hells Kitchen). Before then, the real business district was further south. Thats why Landmarked neighborhoods such as the Flatiron District have such amazing architecture.
That's one of the major problems. The tenement "sea" has pretty much turned into an inconsistent mess. There are some nice surviving patches of rows, but outside of them, surviving tenements and corresponding low-rise structures never redeveloped tend to look completely out of place. Meanwhile, Drake Hotel-sized buildings next door bite the dust, which is counterintuitive to the smart-growth attitude the city champions so much. Hence, parts of today's Hell's Kitchen I previously discussed. I feel like I'm repeating myself...

It's always nice to see that area of Manhattan you posted images of more commercialized, but I still prefer the refined successor department stores in Midtown. Also, it's a shame a university like NYU is occupying such a nice building, while much of the student body were being vagrants by occupying Wall Street. It's like a reminder of the neighborhood's "arts" and farts days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Yes, but who are you to judge that the Drake shouldn't have been torn down? How do you know what would be best for NYC and for its economic well being?

I would like if NY had kept all its grandiose buildings too, but then again, who the heck am I to judge. NY may have ended up beautiful but insignificant economically for all I know if it had taken this approach. Perhaps NY would start to decline now if it became conservative and stopped developing. There is only so much land available in tiny Manhattan. You just have to accept that it is a city about $$$ first, aesthetics take second fiddle.... At least it didn't end up like Hong Kong which lost nearly all of its classical architecture through sheer economic greed.
True, but at least Hong Kong has some very innovative twenty-first century architecture, and is dwarfed by the mainland. All the time I hear on this forum people complaining about building renders as being "too Chinese" as if NYC needs nothing but more 425 and 432 Park Avenues. Where do you think the next economic forefront is going to be unless America stops electing losers? Among other things, building ambitious projects while carefully preserving history is the best way to market a city for international business, tourism, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Here is an actual photograph view of the grandeur you're fetishizing.


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=1665
Heh, I'm not sure if you're trying to insult me... That picture is a bit newer because that thing in front of The Ritz Tower on the right side of the street is in the picture. Actually, I wish I could have found a photograph even earlier without the Waldorf=Astoria. Ah... The Ritz Tower, one of the only few towers that's not the Empire State or Chrysler Building not to be completely mutilated by setbacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Those buildings are pleasant, but they are not Paris, they are not Prague. If NY had kept a rigid policy of keeping everything pre-war, people would be complaining that NY is too stagnant and perhaps even boring. There are people who complain about Paris in this way, if you can believe it and its pre-war stuff is 10x higher quality than anything NY could and can muster today (a few exceptions of course).
Um, Paris is often regarded as one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and people who think it's boring are largely outnumbered. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing more glass box skyscrapers within the city proper. They have much more to spare than NYC. What about Prague? LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbarn View Post
Agreed, the more impressive buildings lost have been downtown. I think Midtown is the perfect place for redevelopment. Its the very reason that the grid system was implemented. Besides, much of Park Avenue still looks like both of those images.
I agree about Lower Manhattan, but it doesn't really have a historic preservation problem today. As yankeesfan1000 pointed out, much of it has been designated historic. Many structures however, ought to be restored and the streetscape needs improvement. Oh? I'm repeating myself again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
In regard to the black and white photo sbarn posted, and aqua quoted, those buildings in the foreground are fairly standard for NY. Yes they're nice, but nothing stunning. Most of what was just landmarked in the UWS is made up of buildings that look like the first one on the right which is cut off.
You see, I like "The Park Lane," which is that building with the classic gap in the middle, the best in the picture. It's gone while its inferior neighbor, "The Barclay" still stands. Even with all of the historic preservation laws, it would probably still be in danger today, like the Roosevelt Hotel.

Last edited by RegentHouse; December 7th, 2012 at 08:38 AM.
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2012, 08:54 PM   #219
WrightTurn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 379
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
^Too bad Wright was the antithesis of urban America... Nothing he built was "American" architecture.
The first comment is open to debate. The Larkin Building was masterpiece of modern urbanism, and Wright collaborated on several early projects, including the interior of the Rookery in Chicago, that are stunning examples of urban art.

The second comment is absurd. Wright was nothing if not an American architect - following Sullivan and Richardson, he created a whole American type of architecture.
WrightTurn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2012, 12:48 AM   #220
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,222
Likes (Received): 991

Agreed. Even though the Prairie style had some Japanese influence, the work of Frank Lloyd Wright was quintessentially American.

This news is quite relevant to this thread:

MAS Submits 17 Buildings to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for Evaluation
December 7th, 2012 [Source]

The New York City Department of City Planning’s proposed East Midtown re-zoning has the potential to dramatically change the area and threaten the mix of old and new buildings that define the neighborhood as uniquely New York. In response to the City’s proposal, MAS is developing a holistic vision for the future of East Midtown that supports a vibrant mix of businesses, people, and of course, the buildings themselves – over a century’s worth of architecture. Historic preservation is a key component of this ongoing work.

Today, of the 587 building located in the City’s study area, 32 are designated as individual landmarks. In October, as part of our comments on the draft scope for the environmental review, MAS identified 29 sites of historic and architectural merit not currently protected by New York City landmark status. These buildings represent the development periods that define East Midtown, from pre-Grand Central to Terminal City to the post-war Modern Movement. They also represent a mix of materials, styles and uses that contribute to East Midtown’s visual diversity and sense of place.

East Midtown is certainly known for iconic landmarks such as the Chrysler Building, Lever House, and Grand Central Terminal (which celebrates 100 years in 2013, thanks in part to the work of MAS.) As reported in today’s New York Times, from the initial list of historic resources identified, MAS further refined the selection to 17 buildings that best convey historic, architectural and cultural significance, as determined by site visits, research, and collaboration with experts on the MAS Preservation Committee. These 17 buildings have been submitted for evaluation to the Landmarks Preservation Commission:

4 E. 43rd Street (former Mehlin Piano Company Building; Andrew J. Thomas, 1916)
18-20 E. 50th Street (former Grand Rapids Furniture Company; Rouse & Goldstone, 1915)
270 Park Avenue (former Union Carbide Building; Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 1960)
445 Park Avenue (Kahn & Jacobs, 1947)
450 Park Avenue (former Franklin National Bank Building; Emery Roth & Sons, 1972)
661 Lexington Avenue (former Babies’ Hospital; York & Sawyer, 1902)
Center for Fiction (former Mercantile Library; Henry Otis Chapman, 1932)
Graybar Building (Sloan & Robertson, 1927)
Hotel Intercontinental Barclay (Cross & Cross, 1926)
The Lexington (former Hotel Lexington; Schultze & Weaver, 1929)
Marriott East Side (former Shelton Hotel; Arthur Loomis Harmon, 1923)
One Grand Central Place (former Lincoln Building; J. E. R. Carpenter; Dwight P. Robinson, 1929)
Pershing Square Building (John Sloan of York & Sawyer, 1923)
Postum Building (Cross & Cross, 1924)
Swedish Seamen’s Church (former New York Bible Society; Wilfred Edward Anthony, 1920)
Vanderbilt Concourse Building (Warren & Wetmore, 1916)
Yale Club (James Gamble Rogers, 1915)
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
nyc photos

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 02:35 AM.


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