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 > City/Metro Compilations

City/Metro Compilations Help report active highrise/urban developments occurring in your city to the global SSC community.



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 February 5th, 2013, 05:06 PM   #5541
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 17,697
Likes (Received): 9114

Quote:
Originally Posted by azzi282 View Post
What they really are going ahead with crossrail 2?! Happy times for anyone who lives in London! It certainly is the boom town of the developed world!
both Crossrails are 30-40 years late.
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 5th, 2013, 05:22 PM   #5542
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 33,923
Likes (Received): 60729

London's construction boom is, in some aspects, making up for years of inactivity and dithering.
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 05:27 PM   #5543
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 17,697
Likes (Received): 9114

Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
Chelsea Barracks | £3bn ($5bn) residential development


Note thats the previous withdrawn design for the site and not the one given planning permission
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 05:27 PM   #5544
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 33,923
Likes (Received): 60729

Canary Wharf Station (£500m / $785m) | Canary Wharf E14

London forum thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=871486



The new Canary Wharf station is taking shape:


Photo by chest
__________________
-

k_kenzo liked this post
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 07:34 PM   #5545
SO143
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 20,896
Likes (Received): 3624

OMG too many developments and projects but the interesting question is that who is paying for all these billions of pounds?
SO143 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 08:23 PM   #5546
ChipBoard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 0

The TAX payers and investors. Mainly foreign. The fact so much is happening in London is because so little is happening elsewhere.

There is a huge gap in investment between London and other regional cities. Probably Inconceivable to most.

Town centers across the country are collapsing around the powerhouse of London.

I struggle to think of any other nation in the world where so much investment is centered around one metropolis.

*Note

This isn't a negative post as I love the city and it's great to see so much going on.

I'm just being reflective on other situations outside London.

Most major schemes in regional cities consist of University buildings and infrastructure. Very few HQ offices are being constructed and relatively few housing units of quality and prestige as in London.

Obviously, being the capital is the reason for many answers to all of this, however you cant help to look back at the 1960's and indeed the 1990's to see the true reasoning for this.

-

Example.

During the 1960's Whitehall had a serious concern about the extraordinary growth and boom of Birmingham.

Between 1945 and 1970 Birmingham's unemployment rate rarely ever exceeded 1%.

By 1961 the household incomes of Birmingham and it's regions were 13% above national average and exceeded those of London and the South East.

Quote:
As the commercial centre of the country's most successful regional economy, Central Birmingham was the main focus outside London for the post-war office building boom. Service sector employment in the Birmingham conurbation grew faster than in any other region between 1953 and 1964, and the same period saw 3 million sq ft of office space constructed in the city centre and Edgbaston. The city's economic boom saw the rapid growth of a substantial merchant banking sector, as major London and international banks established themselves within the city, and professional and scientific services, finance and insurance also grew particularly strongly. However this service sector growth itself attracted government restrictions from 1965. Declaring the growth in population and employment within Birmingham to be a "threatening situation", the incoming Labour Government of 1964 sought "to control the growth of office accommodation in Birmingham and the rest of the Birmingham conurbation before it got out of hand, in the same way as they control the growth of industrial employment". Although the City Council had encouraged service sector expansion during the late 1950s and early 1960s, central government extended the Control of Office Employment Act 1965 to the Birmingham conurbation from 1965, effectively banning all further office development for almost two decades.”
---


And here is a passage of the commons debate which despite Birmingham members of parliament arguing it was it's governance and it's people that had created such a successful city. The best for it's size anywhere in the world why should it be penalized.

Quote:
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling)
The House will recollect that the Government's decision to control office development in the Birmingham conurbation was announced by the Chancellor in his July package of measures to improve the balance of payments. Those measures, which were widely approved, were designed to restrain less essential building and to reduce the general pressure of demand on the economy. In the private sector building control was announced, and the office control was extended to Birmingham. At the same time I.D.C. control was tightened in the Midlands and other congested areas. These new controls will undoubtedly help to achieve the Government's long-term objective of a better distribution of employment as between the over-congested areas and those which are under-employed.

Here we are dealing with what is clearly an over-congested area, and indeed the congestion is getting worse. There are very serious labour, housing and transport problems in the Birmingham area. In July unemployment was below 1 per cent., which puts the Midlands on a par with London and the South-East in terms of very high pressure of demand. The Government, therefore, thought it timely to take steps to control the growth of office accommodation in Birmingham and the rest of the Birmingham conurbation before it got out of hand, in the same way as they control the growth of industrial employment.

I should like to give figures to show the threatening situation which must be faced. In the conurbation the population has increased at a higher rate than the national average for several decades. Employment has grown even faster. Between 1953 and 1964 total employment increased by 170,000 and now stands at nearly 1¼ million. While manufacturing employment increased by 10 per cent. in this period, service employment increased by 27 per cent., a faster rate of growth than in any other region; and of course it was concentrated in the Birmingham conurbation.

It will be no help to the overspill of population to allow uncontrolled growth of office employment in Birmingham itself and the rest of the conurbation, and it would be manifestly unfair to industry in the conurbation, which is already subject to I.D.C. control and which is expected to provide jobs for the overspill towns, if office employment also did not contribute its share to the redistribution of development. Moreover, the continued growth of the conurbation is a threat to the economic balance of the region. Already half the population of the West Midlands lives in the Birmingham conurbation.

In the initial stages, the Board of Trade will subject all applications, therefore, to tough scrutiny. To quote the criteria which we have laid down for office control in the Metropolitan region, applicants will have to satisfy the Board that the proposed activity cannot be carried on elsewhere; that there is no reasonable alternative accommodation; and, unless the project is so small as not materially to add to congestion or to the demand for labour, that the activity is in the public interest. These are the same criteria as we are applying to applications for office development permits in the Metropolitan region.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd(Sutton Coldfield)
What is the reason? It is that the Minister has argued the matter on the long-term basis of the desire to help other regions of the country in employment and—he does not hesitate to say so—I think, potentially at the expense of Birmingham and the area of the West Midlands. [An hon. Member: "Why not?"] I hear an hon. Gentleman opposite asking "Why not?" That intervention must be heard in the City of Birmingham because, while I quite understand that there are people who would take that point of view, even the hon. Gentleman who made the intervention will, I hope, understand that the people of Birmingham, employers and employed, have built up between them this tremendous prosperity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) referred and to which the Minister was continually referring as one of the reasons why he felt that the Order could be forced on the area. It was because it was doing extremely well.

This Order is a kind of penalty on the success of the West Midlands and Birmingham, imposed admittedly by the Government in order, as they believe, to help somewhere else. There is a growing anxiety in Birmingham that the Government may have carried too far this process of siphoning off the prosperity of the Midlands to other areas. I can give examples which are germane to this Order. In Birmingham on Monday I heard of firms, which provide employment similar to that affected by this Order, being forced to leave the city. These firms, to a considerable extent, are firms which are independent of cyclical fluctuations of trade.

The manufacturers of Bird's Custard, a food product, who have been in the city for a great many years, were quoted as an example. The motor industry, on the other hand, is a cyclical industry and whilst Birmingham is very prosperous, it and the Midlands, to the extent of dependence on the motor industry, are living dangerously in their prosperity. Therefore, it hurts these areas the more when industrial and commercial employment of a non-cyclical kind leave the area. Such a movement can prove a great future potential loss to the city and surrounding area.
-

In the 1960's London effectively got scared by the power of Birmingham.

The 70's and 80's much like Detroit in America were on the receiving end of bitter government protocols.

Cities which worked hand and were the epitomy of a top class of innovative and successful people and businesses were starved of further success.

-

In more recent times this could be argued with

1) Arena Central - Would've been the UK's tallest tower. Unashamedly called in by the Government for an inquiry and a height limit imposed to amke sure London regained the title.

Quote:
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: Prescott's tall order over tower slammed.(News)


The Birmingham Post (England)
February 3, 1999 | Copyright

City leaders have lashed out at Government "interference" over plans to build Britain's tallest building in Birmingham.

Deputy Prime Minister Mr John Prescott was accused of hypocrisy for deciding to hold a public inquiry into Arena Central, a pounds 300 million housing and leisure development.

Last night's full council meeting was told there was no local opposition to the scheme, which could be now jeopardised by the inquiry.

The future of the proposed landmark tower, which will have more than 50 storeys, on the Broad Street site of the former Central TV studios is now on hold until the outcome of the public inquiry.
2. The NATIONAL stadium (Wembley)

Fans across the country wanted the new National Stadium to be built in Birmingham. The Government and the office of Sports due to the demand decided to put the bid out to any city - Cities such as Birmingham and Coventry spent hundred of thousands preparing their bid only with MASSIVE backing from the country only to find out there was NEVER A CHOICE. Birmingham was never refunded it's monies. It was preferred bidder all the way until Tessa Jowell continually moved the goal posts (excuse the pun) to allow Wembley the chance to win the bid.

Quote:
Bring it to Birmingham Campaign: Stadium bid is backed by fans.

August 21, 2001 | Copyright

Permalink
Byline: Jonathan Walker Political Correspondent

Fans from across England want the new national stadium to be built in Birmingham, according to a survey by the Football Supporters Association.

More than two thirds of fans rejected Wembley in favour of making Birmingham the home of football.

There was also overwhelming support for the view that the quality of transport links should be a factor in deciding the stadium's location.

The results have been sent to Patrick Carter, the Government-appointed troubleshooter who is to report to ministers this week on the options available.
[qoute]WOBBLY WAY; IT'S THIS ONE ..OR THIS ONE Outrage as national stadium decision is delayed yet again.(News)

The Mirror (London, England)
December 20, 2001 | Copyright

Permalink
Byline: JAMES HARDY, Political Editor

CHAOS over the new national stadium continued yesterday as Wembley was confirmed as the front-runner but Birmingham remained in the frame.

Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell was expected to say that a decision had finally been made in the fiasco which has dragged on for five years.

But instead she gave the Wembley consortium, a subsidiary of the FA, until April 2002 to get its act together or lose the opportunity.

Supporters of Birmingham's bid were last night furious that the city was rejected as the preferred option.[/quote]

Quote:
Stadium deal that doomed city bid.

Link to this page
Byline: Neil Connor

The fiasco surrounding the national stadium took another twist last night as it emerged the FA told the Birmingham bid team its plans were a viable alternative - even though it had signed a deal to keep football at Wembley.

In a letter obtained by The Birmingham Post, the FA's chief executive Adam Crozier made it clear to the Birmingham and Solihull National Stadium Project team in July last year that a national stadium in the Midlands was still an option.

But FA company secretary Nic Coward told the commons' select committee on Tuesday that an agreement was made with Sport England in 1998 to continue toplay games at Wembley for the next 20 years, either at the old twin towers site or at a new stadium.


The FA also insisted at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport committee that the Government had known about the agreement, which was offered as security that the lottery distributor would get its money back if a new stadium was never built. The Government's position will be scrutinised today as Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, answers questions about the stadium affair at the influential inquiry.

However, Mr Crozier yesterday said that 'everyone should stop looking backwards' as he stressed that a new Wembley stadium was still on track.

But Paul Spooner, project director for the Birmingham and Solihull bid, yesterday sent a letter to Mr Crozier calling on the FA to reimburse the pounds 500,000 his team have spent on their bid so far.

In the letter he told Mr Crozier that Mr Coward's comments 'contradicts completely the advice you have given me over the last 12 months, including a letter of July 4 in which you listed Birmingham as a viable alternative to Wembley and more recently your public statement in December that if Wembley fails you will be very prepared to sit down and talk with us again.

'Given the public money spent in the West Midlands in preparing our bid, which you yourself have said many times represents a very strong contender led by a professional team, I cannot believe you have misled us in this way.'

He added: 'If this agreement with Sport England was in place throughout this time, the very least the Football Association should now consider is to reimburse Birmingham and Solihull's public expenditure on the project so far.'

The letter sent by Mr Crozier to Sir Michael Lyons, the former chief executive of Birmingham City Council, in July last year, said: 'In order to be completely open with you, can I let you know exactly where we are in the process.

'Effectively, we have three options going forward: 1. The current design proposed for a 90,000 stadium at Wembley, 2. A new 80,000/85,000 design for Wembley, 3. A new 80,000/85,000 design for Birmingham.'

Mr Crozier yesterday wrote another letter to Mr Spooner reaffirming the FA's commitment to Wembley.

He reiterated that the review undertaken by Government troubleshooter Patrick Carter had backed Wembley as the best venue for a national stadium and that Birmingham would only be considered if it became impossible to proceed with Wembley.

In a statement Mr Crozier added: 'So much has been achieved over the last few months that we fundamentally believe that everyone should stop looking backwards. Let's just get on with it.' Coventry City Council, which also drew up a proposal to host the national stadium, is also demanding the FA reimburse its pounds 120,000 costs following the Commons disclosure on Tuesday. It also emerged yesterday that the National Audit Office (NAO) is set to launch an inquiry into the pounds 120 million Sport England grant given to the Wembley project.

The inquiry would form the basis of yet another parliamentary investigation, this time carried out by the Public Accounts Select Committee.
and many more.

------------


The sad truth is Whitehall decides who prospers and who doesn't and in my eyes it's a massive shame what's happened in the past.

Lets hope Manchester, Birmingham and the likes still have a say in the future, but for now lets enjoy what London is throwing up.
ChipBoard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 10:24 PM   #5547
gehenaus
Registered User
 
gehenaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Reading
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 191

^ Very interesting, I did not know any of that stuff.
I would prefer this country had a major global city though, rather than several less major cities.
However won't HS2 bring benefits to Birmingham as well?
gehenaus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 11:57 PM   #5548
UK86
UK86
 
UK86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 174
Likes (Received): 32



London is having a huge amount of investment but I don't think all other UK cities are starved. In Manchester we are having huge transport upgrades like the Metro link extension and construction of new lines. We also have a considerable amount of the BBC based here. I think the London centric mentality has died off a bit over the years but I still appreciate London's efforts
UK86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 12:41 AM   #5549
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 33,923
Likes (Received): 60729

Quote:
Originally Posted by SO143 View Post
OMG too many developments and projects but the interesting question is that who is paying for all these billions of pounds?
1. Foreign investors.

- London is the most active city in the world in terms of foreign investment (-)

- London has the world's highest residential prices (-)

- London has the world's highest office prices (-)

Various circumstances drive foreign investors to put their money in London. A result of this is foreign investment in new commercial or residential projects, such as The Shard, Chelsea Barracks etc.


2. Government.

- In tax terms, the London region is the biggest subsidiser in the UK: (-)

- London is the least car dependent city in the UK (-)

- London is the highest and most densely populated region of the UK.


Being the most public transport dependent region and having a high, concentrated population results in the need for large infrastructure schemes such as Crossrail to keep the city moving.
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 01:34 AM   #5550
SO143
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 20,896
Likes (Received): 3624

really informative answers. thanks a lot for your efforts guys! GO LONDON!
SO143 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 01:58 AM   #5551
onerob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 403

From @Cmdr_Hadfield on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/st...741313/photo/1

__________________

azzi282, LDN_EUROPE liked this post
onerob no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 10:59 AM   #5552
virtuesoft
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: London
Posts: 40
Likes (Received): 65

Manchester and Liverpool aren't doing bad at the moment...

I go to Manchester once a fortnight. There is loads of building work going on. There is the Metrolink, loads of fancy flats all over the place, new university buildings, new hotels, and the Media City around Salford Quays. Having said all that, when I first visited Manchester I was shocked at how bad the public transport actually is. The Metrolink is well overdue, and the city probably deserves an underground system to be honest.

Liverpool is being regenerated massively. Liverpool One is probably the best example of a shopping centre in the UK. There are huge plans for a massive number of new buildings around the docks, which would increase the size of the city centre by around 50%.
virtuesoft no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 11:39 AM   #5553
ChipBoard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by gehenaus View Post
^ Very interesting, I did not know any of that stuff.
I would prefer this country had a major global city though, rather than several less major cities.
However won't HS2 bring benefits to Birmingham as well?
Indeed.

But London would've always been a major global city however, the UK may have become any even more lucrative country to invest in with more options.

Infact. Birmingham's decline coincided with the UK's financial difficulties in the late 60's throught to the 80's. Food for thought.

HS2 should really help Birmingham and other regional cities for sure.

That post also wasn't to suggest investment still isn't going on. It's just had a forced cap put on it by historical decisions which have effected their global influences (hence global investment) - alot of regional cities rarely see developments supported by foreign companies.

Birmingham still has £20 billion pounds worth of work in the pipeline however, it's had to pay a heavy price from where it could have been and become and in the same way cities such as Liverpool and Manchester prospered from the caps imposed on Birmingham.


Last edited by ChipBoard; February 6th, 2013 at 11:47 AM.
ChipBoard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 12:19 PM   #5554
ChipBoard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 0

More CGI's

Quote:
Planning application submitted to Southwark Council by Sellar Design + Developments, the company set up by James Sellar, son of Irvine Sellar who developed the Shard. The proposals for Sites C&E of Canada Water include over 1,000 residential units across 8 acres with the tallest building rising to 40 storeys. Below are some CGI's from the design and access statement. EGi subscribers can view the building record.




ChipBoard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 12:20 PM   #5555
ChipBoard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 0

25-storey tower planned for Reading town centre
By David Millward
February 06, 2013

Councillors are expecting the first planning applications for the Thames Tower and Station Hill sites to be submitted this month.

Regeneration lead Cllr Tony Page gave an update on the redevelopment plans at the full council meeting on Tuesday last week.

He said the prospective developers of the two sites – La Salle, which owns Thames Tower, and Sackville Developments Reading Limited, which owns Station Hill – had been holding informal pre-application discussions.

He said: “We are expecting the application for Thames Tower to be submitted by the end of February and the application for Station Hill in March.”



http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...g_town_centre?
ChipBoard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 12:43 PM   #5556
Langur
Londinium langur
 
Langur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 9,390
Likes (Received): 1640

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post
It's true. If you include Bray, London has roughly,
4 x 3*
10 x 2*
50 x 1*;
This would make London roughly 5th in the world. Sorry Axel, but you're proving your continued ignorance about London.
Including Bray, London has...

- 4 x 3 stars***
- 7 x 2 stars**
- 46 x 1 star*

That's 55 starred restaurants and 72 total stars.

Where London really shines is variety. No other city has such varied cuisines at that level.
__________________
"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper
Langur no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 03:03 PM   #5557
Metalog51
Philosophizer
 
Metalog51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Great Barrington, MA (currently in Europe)
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 2

I'm currently visiting London and seriously loving this place. Sad to say it, but most in the USA still think of London to be the way it's shown in 1950s postcards and consider NYC to be the be all and end all.

I spent yesterday walking through the West End (Regent's Street, just wow), then through Mayfair and Knights Bridge and having my preconceptions blown away was startling but pleasant. This place means serious business: Exciting yet cleanly, sophisticated and classy. (The latter three are what NYC sadly lacks in my opinion).
__________________

the spliff fairy liked this post
Metalog51 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 04:29 PM   #5558
Sid Vicious
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,033
Likes (Received): 269

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langur View Post
Including Bray, London has...

- 4 x 3 stars***
- 7 x 2 stars**
- 46 x 1 star*

That's 55 starred restaurants and 72 total stars.

Where London really shines is variety. No other city has such varied cuisines at that level.
I dont give a f..k about starred restaurants. All you get there are tiny portions for high prices. btw. Berlin got restaurants from all corners of the world too but with more reasonable prices.
Sid Vicious no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 05:14 PM   #5559
ChipBoard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 0

Agreed in a way. Everywhere has good restaurants. It's just often a case of preference. I enjoy value for money and good portions so i'm pretty easy to please.
ChipBoard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 05:21 PM   #5560
ChipBoard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 0

Already posted but some alternative views and massings!!

Glenn Howells reveals Canary Wharf twin-tower scheme
6 February, 2013 | By Richard Waite

Glenn Howells Architects has submitted plans for these for twin residential towers at Arrowhead Quay, south of Canary Wharf in London’s Docklands

The two ‘slim’ skyscrapers, which are 183m and 170m high will house 792 flats, as well as shops, cafes and a gymnasium.

Drawn up for developer the Ballymore Group, the scheme replaces previous proposals for the Isle of Dogs plot by SOM which won planning in 2001.

The architect’s view

Part of the Millennium Quarter Masterplan, the currently unoccupied site area is approximately 0.55 hectares. Glenn Howells Architects’ design comprises two slim towers connected at first floor level by commercial units. The towers, 183 metres and 170 metres in height translating into 55 and 50 storeys respectively, step down in height away from the central Canary Wharf commercial area, reflecting a gradual fall in building height and Arrowhead Quay’s location in the ‘foothills’ of Canary Wharf.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


ChipBoard no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
development, england, london, united kingdom

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 11:54 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