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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



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 23rd, 2007, 06:01 PM   #161
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,934
Likes (Received): 21

Are the Mods interested in taking "suburban" out of this thread title, since we already have a "suburban development news" thread?

The greening of Kedzie corridor
30 energy-efficient condos, retail space set for E. Garfield
By Jeanette Almada | Special to the Tribune
December 23, 2007
An $11.5 million, mixed-used project with 30 energy-efficient condos is planned near the Chicago Transit Authority's Green Line Kedzie Avenue Station in East Garfield Park.

Community leaders anticipate that the six-story building slated for the northeast corner of Kedzie Avenue and Lake Street and its 7,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space will be a catalyst for new investment in the neighborhood's Kedzie Avenue commercial corridor.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classi...,4481894.story
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 7th, 2008, 06:06 AM   #162
sukwoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 0

Downtown Oak Park Update

Lots of new development planned for downtown Oak Park.

Sept. 12, 2007 – An agreement has been reached with Morningside Equities Group, Inc. on the terms for a new $30-million mixed-use project at South Boulevard and Harlem Avenue , the Village Board and the Oak Park Development Corporation announced today. The project will be the first redevelopment of Village-owned property specifically planned to take advantage of mass transit literally at the new residents' front door.
http://www.oak-park.us/News/Special_...h_Planning.htm

This will replace a surface parking lot and will be directly south of the Metra/Green line station. Here is a rendering, viewed from the northwest. The el enbankment is off to the left (sorry, can't figure out how to make the image smaller.)





Just north of the same Metra/Green line station...
Dec. 7, 2007 – The Village Board has selected three developers to advance in the next round of competition to develop key properties in downtown Oak Park, including the Colt Building. Seven developers responded to a request for qualifications issued in September. The field initially was narrowed to five, each of which presented credentials and general concepts to the Village Board. The three finalists – AvalonBay Communities Inc., Centrum Properties and Mid America Development Partners LLC – were awarded a $10,000 stipend each to develop specific proposals.
http://www.oak-park.us/RFQ/index.html

This development involves the downtown "superblock" bounded by Lake St, North Blvd, Marion St, and Harlem Ave, and is in the heart of downtown Oak Park. One of the proposals involves an urban Target, and all involve mixed retail and residential use.

Some preliminary renderings.



Last edited by sukwoo; February 7th, 2008 at 07:34 AM.
sukwoo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008, 06:12 AM   #163
sukwoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 0

deleted

Last edited by sukwoo; February 7th, 2008 at 06:18 AM. Reason: accidentally posted
sukwoo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008, 07:12 AM   #164
Chicago2020
Registered User
 
Chicago2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 179
Likes (Received): 0

Im Lovin that first rendering
__________________
Hog Butcher for the World,
Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat,
Player with Railroads and the Nation's Freight Handler;
Stormy, husky, brawling,
City of the Big Shoulders
Chicago2020 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008, 09:45 PM   #165
sukwoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 0

If these TODs are buillt in Oak Park, it will add considerable mass to the downtown area and increase pedestrian traffic. I think a Target would be a great addition as well, a worthy modern-day successor to the Marshall Fields which used to be in downtown Oak Park.
sukwoo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2008, 12:04 AM   #166
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

I don't know many people in Oak Park who have any interest in a giant underground Target in the middle of downtown. It's tacky and at cross purposes with the uniqueness and class they are trying to cultivate there. I'm hoping the Village will toss that proposal.

It's a little unfortunate that that site is being developed without bringing the Pier 1/Gap/Old Navy directly to the west into consideration as well. Some of this new development will be fronting that mistake's parking lot. The plans now involve tearing down some very nice buildings on Westgate when they could be preserved if the properties on Harlem were incorporated into the development as well. (Developing those would also provide the benefit of blocking the view of the nasty strip mall across the street in River Forest.)
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2008, 05:23 AM   #167
sukwoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abner View Post
I don't know many people in Oak Park who have any interest in a giant underground Target in the middle of downtown. It's tacky and at cross purposes with the uniqueness and class they are trying to cultivate there. I'm hoping the Village will toss that proposal.
I don't understand what's wrong with Target. Is it too low-end for Oak Park? I think it'd be nice to have transit-oriented retail that actually sells useful stuff instead of luxury knick-knacks. Obviously if the design is poor that's one thing, but if its tastefully done, I think it would be a good retail anchor for the downtown area.

Last edited by sukwoo; February 8th, 2008 at 05:31 AM.
sukwoo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2008, 05:53 AM   #168
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,934
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by sukwoo View Post
I think it'd be nice to have transit-oriented retail that actually sells useful stuff instead of luxury knick-knacks..
^ Absolutely, positively true. I think this is one of the biggest issues I have with the way many people view how transit and pedestrian-oriented development is "supposed" to be. Until you allow stores that attract the mainstream population into "main streets", people will continue to regularly drive to Target or Menards while only visiting these "main streets" on an occasional Sunday for their nostalgia fix.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2008, 08:22 PM   #169
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Absolutely, positively true. I think this is one of the biggest issues I have with the way many people view how transit and pedestrian-oriented development is "supposed" to be. Until you allow stores that attract the mainstream population into "main streets", people will continue to regularly drive to Target or Menards while only visiting these "main streets" on an occasional Sunday for their nostalgia fix.
Have you guys looked at this plan or ever been to the area it is proposed for? The plan involves leveling almost an entire block of buildings, many of which are historic and were NOT supposed to be part of the redevelopment plan. The Target is proposed to have a massive parking lot AND a garage, although the other plans for the site only involve a garage. Oak Parkers will reject this plan, and if the Village shows signs of favoring it, they will fight it to the death. It's a bad idea that would effectively kill downtown Oak Park and make it little different from River Forest's "Town Center" or whatever they call their abysmal strip mall across Harlem.
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2008, 09:18 PM   #170
sukwoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abner View Post
Have you guys looked at this plan or ever been to the area it is proposed for? The plan involves leveling almost an entire block of buildings, many of which are historic and were NOT supposed to be part of the redevelopment plan. The Target is proposed to have a massive parking lot AND a garage, although the other plans for the site only involve a garage. Oak Parkers will reject this plan, and if the Village shows signs of favoring it, they will fight it to the death. It's a bad idea that would effectively kill downtown Oak Park and make it little different from River Forest's "Town Center" or whatever they call their abysmal strip mall across Harlem.
My understanding may be flawed, and all the proposals are preliminary and subject to change, but my reading of the RFQs do not show any evidence of an outdoor parking lot in the Target proposal. All three proposals under review involve roughly the same area (in fairness, the Target proposal involves slightly more teardown), and they all involve teardown of the Colt building and buildings along Westgate. Oak Park has already had a referendum (by proxy) on the Colt building during the last municipal elections, and the party of preservation was decisively defeated.

The three proposals under review:
http://www.oak-park.us/public/pdfs/P...07_Centrum.pdf (Target + condos plan)
http://www.oak-park.us/public/pdfs/P...ark_Street.pdf (retail + condos, no Target)
http://www.oak-park.us/public/pdfs/P...id-America.pdf (retail, hotel, and apartments)
sukwoo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2008, 12:52 AM   #171
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

Okay, I should have been more specific--the Target plan involves ground-level parking, although it will be in a parking garage. The better plans call for at least some retail or other uses at ground level with parking above. It's important to remember that this property is what you face as soon as you exit the train station--do you really think people should be greeted with blank walls and a driveway into ground-level parking?

Nobody's talking about preserving the Colt Building. That has already been decided. However, the Target plan does not involve "slightly" more demolition, it involves the teardown of, by my rough count, seven or eight additional buildings outside the redevelopment zone! That is a significant chunk of Downtown Oak Park that NOBODY has talked about tearing down!

As for whether Target is the kind of place that should exist in Downtown Oak Park: maybe people in Oak Park would shop at a Target, although I doubt there would be a really great level of interest because, yeah, it is pretty low-end and Oak Park has been moving in the other direction, as is evidenced by the newer and generally more upscale businesses that have opened there--many of which are doing just fine without a Target to draw a population that doesn't align with their demographic anyway. It's not some desolate strip that has no option except bringing in a big box. There is a critical mass there already, and it just plain does not need a Target or any other big box. If that belongs anywhere in Oak Park--and I really don't think it does--it would be on an already unsightly street with the capacity to handle that quantity of car traffic, like Madison, Harlem, or North Ave.
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008, 12:08 AM   #172
sukwoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abner View Post
Okay, I should have been more specific--the Target plan involves ground-level parking, although it will be in a parking garage. The better plans call for at least some retail or other uses at ground level with parking above. It's important to remember that this property is what you face as soon as you exit the train station--do you really think people should be greeted with blank walls and a driveway into ground-level parking?

Nobody's talking about preserving the Colt Building. That has already been decided. However, the Target plan does not involve "slightly" more demolition, it involves the teardown of, by my rough count, seven or eight additional buildings outside the redevelopment zone! That is a significant chunk of Downtown Oak Park that NOBODY has talked about tearing down!

As for whether Target is the kind of place that should exist in Downtown Oak Park: maybe people in Oak Park would shop at a Target, although I doubt there would be a really great level of interest because, yeah, it is pretty low-end and Oak Park has been moving in the other direction, as is evidenced by the newer and generally more upscale businesses that have opened there--many of which are doing just fine without a Target to draw a population that doesn't align with their demographic anyway. It's not some desolate strip that has no option except bringing in a big box. There is a critical mass there already, and it just plain does not need a Target or any other big box. If that belongs anywhere in Oak Park--and I really don't think it does--it would be on an already unsightly street with the capacity to handle that quantity of car traffic, like Madison, Harlem, or North Ave.
You make a decent point about the extra teardown proposed for the Target. I personally don't think these extra buildings are all that architecturally significant, but I'm not a professional architect, so what do I know. Of course, these plans are only preliminary, and probably could be modified to save any buildings if deemed necessary.

Target may be low-end, but they've always seemed to me to do a better job than, say Wal-Mart, of keeping their stores clean and classy. I don't think the affluence of Oak Park would prevent locals from taking advantage of bargains. Additionally a big-box retailer like Target will bring in an enormous amount of sales tax revenue to the village. This is no small matter given the rapidly escalating property tax levies in Oak Park, which are some of the highest in the county.
sukwoo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008, 02:34 AM   #173
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sukwoo View Post
You make a decent point about the extra teardown proposed for the Target. I personally don't think these extra buildings are all that architecturally significant, but I'm not a professional architect, so what do I know. Of course, these plans are only preliminary, and probably could be modified to save any buildings if deemed necessary.

Target may be low-end, but they've always seemed to me to do a better job than, say Wal-Mart, of keeping their stores clean and classy. I don't think the affluence of Oak Park would prevent locals from taking advantage of bargains. Additionally a big-box retailer like Target will bring in an enormous amount of sales tax revenue to the village. This is no small matter given the rapidly escalating property tax levies in Oak Park, which are some of the highest in the county.
It's not just Frank Lloyd Wrights that ought to be preserved. Downtown Oak Park capitalizes on its atmosphere, which is in large part due to all those buildings with solid early 20th-century detailing. It's a pretty safe bet that anything built by Centrum to house a Target is going to be a HUGE step down aesthetically, and in the long run that is going to be much worse for Oak Park because it will make it look like little more than a half-assed Oak Brook Mall. In any case, some of the buildings in question have been very recently rehabbed and repurposed--unlike the Colt Building, they are very functional and still house a lot of activity.

Really the Borders and the Lake Theater are more appropriate downtown anchors than Target and they do their jobs quite well--what downtown needs is probably more businesses to complement them, like some more restaurants to visit before and after movies.

I agree that Oak Park needs to do something about its tax situation, but Target is not the answer. It's not going to draw very many people from outside Oak Park because Target is by its nature a car-oriented store and the area in question just plain can't handle that kind of car traffic. For that kind of shopping, people are going to continue going to Oak Brook or the big boxes on North Ave. or Cermak because they're set up for it. A more appropriate model for Oak Park would be Evanston. Furthermore, the tax situation is more due to bad decisions on the Village's part than any underlying problems with the tax base, and big box stores are by no means guaranteed to have a positive effect on taxes received.

We also shouldn't forget the property at Lake and Forest that is slated for redevelopment. A thoughtful and coordinated redevelopment of that property along with the superblock, hopefully taking into account the potential of future development of the properties fronting Harlem, would do a lot more good for the area than a clear-cutting of downtown for a Target. Unfortunately, all the remaining firms have portfolios composed mostly of schlocky boxes, so we'll see what happens.
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008, 03:55 AM   #174
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

I disagree with just about everything you just said.

IMO, big-box stores should be encouraged as much as possible to adopt urban-friendly site plans. Target seems eager to enter urban markets and new-urbanist developments, so I say let them. They are by their very nature a magnet for other development.

Also, I think Oak Park's downtown success has little to do with the "solid early 20th century detailing" and everything to do with the comfortable pedestrian environment, which this project will not change.

I think I'm coming around to a more relative understanding of architecture - most new things are hated by the establishment that prefers the status-quo. Then the new buildings go through a maturing period where they are universally considered obsolete. Finally, if they manage to survive, they enter a golden age where they are seen as valuable and historic.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008, 08:13 AM   #175
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

I don't see how this proposal is "urban" at all. It's set up to allow people to park in Target's garage and go straight into an underground store without ever stepping onto a sidewalk. It's not designed at all to generate foot traffic. You can say that Target is interested in reaching urban markets, but I'm not going to believe that's possible there without an explanation for how this proposal in this location is a good idea. For example, it's going to be a nightmare for anybody trying to get to the train (notice how their new "Station Street" doesn't even go to the station, only to their parking garage, and it adds zero pedestrians to North Blvd. because it turns it into effectively a garage entrance).

Listen, Oak Park is getting plenty of new development, and few people are particularly opposed to that; in fact, even the local paper is vocally in favor of it. In addition to the 14-story Whiteco project on Harlem and Ontario, there's the eight-story development on Harlem and South Blvd., an eight-story apartment building on Marion north of Lake, the YMCA redevelopment, the Schiess building on Oak Park Ave. and South Blvd., and a possible 13-story building on Lake and Forest, and that's just downtown. There will be plenty of new (and therefore expensive) retail space without knocking down another half-dozen relatively affordable buildings that allow a mix of businesses downtown. And that is a whole lot more "new urbanist" than clear-cutting for a Target.

By the way--that rendering for the Harlem/South Blvd. project is probably out of date, as it has increased from six to eight stories. The proposal for that project definitely looks like a class act, and the architecture is even pretty forgivable, if not exactly pathbreaking.

Last edited by Abner; February 10th, 2008 at 08:23 AM.
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2008, 03:41 AM   #176
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abner View Post
I don't see how this proposal is "urban" at all. It's set up to allow people to park in Target's garage and go straight into an underground store without ever stepping onto a sidewalk. It's not designed at all to generate foot traffic. You can say that Target is interested in reaching urban markets, but I'm not going to believe that's possible there without an explanation for how this proposal in this location is a good idea. For example, it's going to be a nightmare for anybody trying to get to the train (notice how their new "Station Street" doesn't even go to the station, only to their parking garage, and it adds zero pedestrians to North Blvd. because it turns it into effectively a garage entrance).

Listen, Oak Park is getting plenty of new development, and few people are particularly opposed to that; in fact, even the local paper is vocally in favor of it. In addition to the 14-story Whiteco project on Harlem and Ontario, there's the eight-story development on Harlem and South Blvd., an eight-story apartment building on Marion north of Lake, the YMCA redevelopment, the Schiess building on Oak Park Ave. and South Blvd., and a possible 13-story building on Lake and Forest, and that's just downtown. There will be plenty of new (and therefore expensive) retail space without knocking down another half-dozen relatively affordable buildings that allow a mix of businesses downtown. And that is a whole lot more "new urbanist" than clear-cutting for a Target.

By the way--that rendering for the Harlem/South Blvd. project is probably out of date, as it has increased from six to eight stories. The proposal for that project definitely looks like a class act, and the architecture is even pretty forgivable, if not exactly pathbreaking.
Oak Park took a referendum on preservation of the buildings there - preservation lost.

I wouldn't be too concerned about Station Street. It doesn't exist yet, and nobody has trouble getting to the station. Sidewalks along Harlem and Marion are good enough, aren't they?

Also, I 'm not too sure about people only arriving in their cars. People are gonna go to your Targets and Walmarts, whether they are in Oak Park or freakin' Oakbrook Terrace. If they have to travel to Oakbrook Terrace to visit a Target, that means that they most assuredly will drive. Oak Park has the opportunity to capture these shopping trips and tax revenue and bring shoppers downtown, without ruining the urban fabric that currently exists there.

People have never before been given the opportunity to actually WALK to a Target. Where they have, such as in the South Loop, people actually DO. Plenty of South Loopers walk to the Target at Clark and Roosevelt if the weather is tolerable. Who's to say they won't do the same in Oak Park, which already has a strong pedestrian environment and a loyal cadre of pedestrian patrons for the businesses?

Now, if I were Oak Park, I would take my Sharpie and scribble some changes on Centrum's plan. Start with their Plan #2 and move the underground garage entrance to the interior of the property, so that some retail can be shifted to along North Blvd and the curb cut can be narrowed for the loading dock only. With the ramp moved, create a ground-level interior passage through the Target building. This will create a new route to the train stations and provide a southerly entrance for pedestrians.

Last edited by ardecila; February 11th, 2008 at 03:55 AM.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2008, 05:09 AM   #177
sukwoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, IL
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 0

I could become convinced that downtown is the wrong location for a Target. However, I really don't think that Target is too low-end for Oak Park. Remember, a significant portion of Oak Park is made up of rentals (Off the top of my head, I'd guess 20-30% of the population rents.) Additionally, a Target near the Green line would draw from neighborhoods east of Oak Park, particularly those who lack automobiles and can't drive to the Wal-Mart near North and Cicero. Finally, maybe I'm just really cheap and maybe all my friends are really cheap, but we shop at Target even though we can easily afford to go someplace more expensive. All the Targets I've ever been to have been clean and appealing, in contrast to some Wal-Mart's that I've seen. I still believe there's a niche to be filled in Oak Park for inexpensive household items and consumer goods.
sukwoo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2008, 08:00 AM   #178
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Oak Park took a referendum on preservation of the buildings there - preservation lost.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The only building there that was any public discussion of is the Colt, and the engineers have spoken on that one: it's not salvageable, and most of the building is unsightly anyway. The idea that the recent elections were nothing but a referendum on the general virtue of preservation in the village is ridiculous. The old village government was off the wall for a huge variety of reasons, and they got booted because they had no fiscal sense whatsoever.

Regarding Station Street, I don't think it's really necessary at all, although that's debatable. But I do think it's necessary for any development to at least acknowledge that there are going to be pedestrians there, and Centrum seemed unaware that there was even a station there at all. In fact the entire proposal seems oriented toward the garage, not the street--it makes "Station" Street into essentially a driveway off of Lake Street. Now that is ugly.

Sukwoo, I don't doubt that there are a fair number of people in Oak Park who shop (or would shop) at Target. Actually I think the proportion who rent may be higher than 30%, and east of Ridgeland incomes are still more or less working-class. That said, there are business districts that are already suited for, and closer to, that demographic--east Lake St., east Chicago Ave., North Ave., Madison, and Roosevelt--and that have the capacity to accommodate the huge volume of car traffic that a big-box store would inevitably generate, no matter how "transit-oriented" it supposedly is (LOTS of people still drive to the one in the South Loop, you know).

Downtown has narrow streets and a large variety of small storefronts. It's not fundamentally broken, so let's not try to fix it by bringing in a monolithic presence. I'd rather see something like a bigger version of the development across the street with the Lane Bryant--good-sized retailer, not one you need to drive to, complements rather than replaces what's around it, pretty good density, and squarely oriented toward Lake.

Edited to add: actually, if it's so important to have a big box like Target in downtown Oak Park, why not level the properties to the west of the Colt rather than the ones to the east?
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2008, 07:48 PM   #179
Abner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 232
Likes (Received): 0

For what it's worth, Westgate was on Landmarks Illinois' Ten Most Endangered List in 2005:
Abner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2008, 05:32 AM   #180
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97


katherine of chicago

Looks like a movie scene or a war zone.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 05:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

tech management by Sysprosium