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 May 11th, 2008, 10:29 PM   #821
jayo
Registered User
 
jayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 886
Likes (Received): 2

Oh good ******* lord

I think this one will get through though
__________________
london
jayo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 11th, 2008, 10:56 PM   #822
CrazyMac
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 540
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox View Post
Johnson’s team are determined to preserve the capital’s skyline, but privately fear that hopes of blocking some projects could descend into a legal quagmire, with developers and architects seeking compensation.
If you think for 1 mintue that Tory central office will allow Johnson and is Toff cronies to potentially waste millions of pounds in court actions with no guarantee of successfully stopping a project that has legally gained planning permission, your nuts.

The only projects that will likely stall are those waiting to go through planning and then only if they are to be built outside of the 2 London clusters.

Economic reality will ensure that the City and Canary Wharf are left alone.

With fully approved planning, the Shard is safe, Johnson and his cronies have more important things to be getting on with.
CrazyMac no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2008, 01:37 AM   #823
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,765
Likes (Received): 10147

hey guys, yes i also hope the shard continues its process.
just on its height
why 310m? 305m= 1000ft which sounds more iconic.
what is height above sea level? has that got something to do with it? here is sydney we have variuos height limits in CBD which are measured from sea level not street. i suppose because that how high they appear on skyline/
cheers
__________________
Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020.. https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2008, 04:38 AM   #824
the spliff fairy
ONE WORLD
 
the spliff fairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: london
Posts: 7,981
Likes (Received): 6274

^that and a combination of the 5 airports round London and their blimmin 20 mile long approaches. Heathrow and London City are within the urban boundaries, notably the latter not a mile from the Canary Wharf cluster.
the spliff fairy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2008, 03:22 PM   #825
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,765
Likes (Received): 10147

in sydney we have a 330m hieght limit above sea level imposed by CASA-sydney airport which is only 6km away. thus sydney tower is 309m high or RL328m.
our tallest bldgs are even limited more to 235m to roof.
__________________
Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020.. https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2008, 01:06 AM   #826
Fido_le_muet
Registered User
 
Fido_le_muet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: France
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 0

May 9th :


May 11th :
Fido_le_muet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2008, 12:38 PM   #827
Assa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 398
Likes (Received): 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
why 310m? 305m= 1000ft which sounds more iconic.
what is height above sea level? has that got something to do with it? here is sydney we have variuos height limits in CBD which are measured from sea level not street. i suppose because that how high they appear on skyline/
cheers
The site at LB is a few meters above sea level but I don't think that planning restrictions on height were the reason for the final height. There are height restrictions on tall buildings outside of London which effedct the other major cities - Birmingham in particular. The restrictions are measured from sea level and Birmingham has the highest elevation of the major UK cities, therefore new tall buildings cannot be as tall as in other cities, notably Manchester. There are of course exceptions where planning is given.

In the case of London, the general trend is towards taller and taller buildings with the biggest hurdle now being the new city mayor who is rather more anti-tall buildings than the last. However, I suspect he won't be in the job more than 4 years as he's a buffoon (in the nicest possible way).
Assa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2008, 12:50 PM   #828
Astounded
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 429
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox View Post
With a whole 2 years before the core rises, it's worrying to read about the new Mayor's plans.

Let's hope the Shard is unaffected...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3908506.ece
Come on wjfox, stop the propaganda, there's not one mention of the Shard in this article.
__________________
skyscraper - "light sail at the top of a mast" (1794)
Astounded no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2008, 03:59 PM   #829
Myster E
Registered User
 
Myster E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,286
Likes (Received): 73

Quote:
Originally Posted by Assa View Post
There are height restrictions on tall buildings outside of London which effedct the other major cities - Birmingham in particular. The restrictions are measured from sea level and Birmingham has the highest elevation of the major UK cities, therefore new tall buildings cannot be as tall as in other cities, notably Manchester. There are of course exceptions where planning is given.

In the case of London, the general trend is towards taller and taller buildings with the biggest hurdle now being the new city mayor who is rather more anti-tall buildings than the last. However, I suspect he won't be in the job more than 4 years as he's a buffoon (in the nicest possible way).
Errm Assa...have you actually visited the Birmingham forums lately post HCT (Beetham Tower Birmingham to the world forumers)? The height restrictions have been eased since and taller projects and proposals have been put forward since.

Sorry to go off topic Mods, and don't worry, the Shard is getting built. @ Astounded and others, ignore British pessimism at all times!!
Myster E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2008, 08:40 PM   #830
dirtydog
Registered User
 
dirtydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astounded View Post
Come on wjfox, stop the propaganda, there's not one mention of the Shard in this article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the article
Skyline review

Boris Johnson is planning to topple Ken Livingstone’s schemes for skyscrapers in London.

Johnson’s team are determined to preserve the capital’s skyline, but privately fear that hopes of blocking some projects could descend into a legal quagmire, with developers and architects seeking compensation.

The new mayor has appointed Sir Simon Milton to lead a review of all high-rises planned for the capital. The Westminster councillor became a strident critic of Livingstone’s plans.

Milton said earlier this year: “[Livingstone] has made it very clear that he and his people want more tall buildings.

“This fetish for tall buildings anywhere and everywhere will be a disaster for London.”
dirtydog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2008, 04:05 AM   #831
TamHavPolis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampa, FL/Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 129
Likes (Received): 0

This marks me as a foreigner (which I most assuredly am), but is the Mayor of London the executive for the whole of Greater London, or is he the executive for The City (the financial district)?

I thought I had read somewhere that the Mayor of London was largely a ceremonial office without much in the way of political power.

Hope you can indulge a Yank with an earnest question. Here in America mayors can range in power from chief executive and head of the city council to guy (or gal) who cuts the tape for parades.

[EDIT] I retract my question. I was thinking of the Lord Mayor of the City of London, which is different than the London Mayor. (Just as the Judean People's Front will have nothing to do with the People's Front of Judea - if anyone gets the reference).

Man, you Brits can be confusing some times [/EDIT]
TamHavPolis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2008, 07:31 AM   #832
pennster
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 391
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamHavPolis View Post
This marks me as a foreigner (which I most assuredly am), but is the Mayor of London the executive for the whole of Greater London, or is he the executive for The City (the financial district)?

I thought I had read somewhere that the Mayor of London was largely a ceremonial office without much in the way of political power.

Hope you can indulge a Yank with an earnest question. Here in America mayors can range in power from chief executive and head of the city council to guy (or gal) who cuts the tape for parades.

[EDIT] I retract my question. I was thinking of the Lord Mayor of the City of London, which is different than the London Mayor. (Just as the Judean People's Front will have nothing to do with the People's Front of Judea - if anyone gets the reference).

Man, you Brits can be confusing some times [/EDIT]
The confusion is due to the fact that "London", officially, is not a city. There are many ways to define the area of London, most of which I won't get into here.

"Greater London" is the closest thing to defining the urban area of London, consisting of the 32 boroughs now generally believed (officially) to define where London begins and ends. The area of Greater London is about 609 square miles (1580 square km)--about the same size as Houston--and it's population is about 7.5 million and mainly stagnant for a density of 12,300 people per square mile. For comparison's sake, New York City is about 470 square miles (1214 square km) and has 8.3 million people for a density of over 27,200 people per square mile.

British boroughs are most similar to U.S. counties, though London's are much smaller than most in the U.S. They could be compared best with New York City's boroughs, which, confusingly, are officially classified as counties.

Greater London is also actually a "county" of the UK (closest thing to a U.S. state that the UK has). This makes London (not to be confused with the City of London) really a conurbation of areas, some of which historically were not considered part of London until relatively recently.

So...as TamHavPolis correctly pointed out, the Mayor of London (more commonly known as just the London Mayor) is the top level elected official who governs Greater London. The position was only created 8 years ago in 2000 to better help manage the growth of London and to better shape it for the future.

On top of that, within Greater London, there are two areas that are officially classified as cities (administratively on par with Birmingham or Manchester, for example). They are the City of London, mentioned above, and the City of Westminster.

I'm hoping (not very confidently) that this clears up any confusion amongst the foreigners in the forum. I lived in London for a while while studying city planning at University College London, so I got to know quite well the arrangement of administrative areas in the UK. Visiting City Hall and meeting with London's planners was a regular activity for students in my program.
pennster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 04:58 AM   #833
TamHavPolis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampa, FL/Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 129
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by pennster View Post
The confusion is due to the fact that "London", officially, is not a city. There are many ways to define the area of London, most of which I won't get into here.

"Greater London" is the closest thing to defining the urban area of London, consisting of the 32 boroughs now generally believed (officially) to define where London begins and ends. The area of Greater London is about 609 square miles (1580 square km)--about the same size as Houston--and it's population is about 7.5 million and mainly stagnant for a density of 12,300 people per square mile. For comparison's sake, New York City is about 470 square miles (1214 square km) and has 8.3 million people for a density of over 27,200 people per square mile.

British boroughs are most similar to U.S. counties, though London's are much smaller than most in the U.S. They could be compared best with New York City's boroughs, which, confusingly, are officially classified as counties.

Greater London is also actually a "county" of the UK (closest thing to a U.S. state that the UK has). This makes London (not to be confused with the City of London) really a conurbation of areas, some of which historically were not considered part of London until relatively recently.

So...as TamHavPolis correctly pointed out, the Mayor of London (more commonly known as just the London Mayor) is the top level elected official who governs Greater London. The position was only created 8 years ago in 2000 to better help manage the growth of London and to better shape it for the future.

On top of that, within Greater London, there are two areas that are officially classified as cities (administratively on par with Birmingham or Manchester, for example). They are the City of London, mentioned above, and the City of Westminster.

I'm hoping (not very confidently) that this clears up any confusion amongst the foreigners in the forum. I lived in London for a while while studying city planning at University College London, so I got to know quite well the arrangement of administrative areas in the UK. Visiting City Hall and meeting with London's planners was a regular activity for students in my program.
I knew that Greater London was a metro area made up of smaller municipalities and neighborhoods, and that the City of London proper was quite small (I think its borders are those of the Roman settlement). I was just confused about which London mayor had political power over the metro, and which London mayor gets to wear fancy outfits and ride around in carriages.

The concept of London not as an actual city but a metropolitan area is common in the United States as well. In many of the big "cities," the actual city limits account for only a small land area, and the metro area can have 10-20 times as many citizens as the city itself - but the boundaries blur because all the townships and neighborhoods have grown together organically. Boston is much like London in that way.

I spent a wonderful summer in London back in 2004 studying comparative law and staying at some dormitories of UCL. It deserves its status as one of the world's great cities (or conurbations, or whatever). My home city of Tampa, Florida is not tiny, but London made it feel like a quaint suburb by comparison.

Art, theater, museums, great places to booze and phenomenal Indian food... I miss it I'd get a job in London if I could find one from over here.
TamHavPolis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 12:21 PM   #834
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,334
Likes (Received): 13285

Oh Jesus...


http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/05...50m_shard.html

Shard busts budget

Published: 14 May 2008 15:56 Author: David Rogers

Mace has been given more time to work up costs on plans for London's tallest building after blowing its £350 million budget by more than 10 per cent.

The firm was due to have delivered cost details on the Shard of Glass to developer Teighmore yesterday. The proposal was timed to coincide with the arrival of a delegation of investors from the Qatari banks funding the scheme, which have insisted on a £350 million fixed-price contract.

The current figure is understood to be around £400 million. Mace now has until the end of the month to get the figure down - although it is expected to be still well above the £350 million demanded.

John Doyle is being lined up for the concrete contract, which includes the basement, sub and superstructure work.

Mace is believed to have asked the firm to redraw designs for the substructure to get the cost of the concrete package down. This has come in at around Ł45 million Đ more than 20 per cent higher than Mace was expecting.

Mace declined to comment but one source said: "There are a few areas that need to be rebid and re-engineered. It is tight on budget and whether they get it on budget is a big question."

The main problem is with the basement works - because of its proximity to London Bridge railway station - and these are expected to take up to a year to complete. The source added: "The real risk is in the basement and Doyles and Mace are trying to work out how to carry this without carrying too much exposure."

Keltbray has already begun tearing down the existing building at London Bridge that will make way for the Shard and is also carrying out groundworks ahead of Stent moving in for piling work. The official completion date is still the end of 2011.

But news of the latest budget problems raises fresh fears that Teighmore, which is led by the chairman of Sellar Property Group, Irvine Sellar, will have to pay more for the 310 m high structure or risk it never getting off the ground.

Teighmore has a month to decide what to do with Mace's offer. The most likely outcome is that it asks Mace to retender some of the bigger packages such as M&E and steel. These are priced at £60 million and £28 million respectively.

Last autumn, Teighmore turned its back on Mace when it asked Laing O'Rourke to come up with proposals for the building after deciding the original route of construction management would be too expensive.

But the country's largest private contractor never actually came up with a firm bid - after being trumped by Mace which agreed to carry out the deal on a fixed-price.



Who's won what

Demolition/groundworks Keltbray
Piling Stent
Concrete John Doyle
Steel Cleveland Bridge
M&E Hotchkiss (mechanical); Phoenix (electrical); Balfour Kilpatrick (electrical)
Cladding Scheldebouw


Analysis: Will fear of risk cut down the project?

By David Rogers

Right now, it is fair to say that two questions arise with the Shard. First, is this ever going to get built?

And if it does, who will build it?

Nobody can give a definite answer to either question. It's likely that the best answers would be "probably - but we've no idea when" and "at the moment Mace, but who knows?".

There was a certain inevitability that a new method to build the Shard - beset by budgetry problems for years now - would end up costing more than the bankers would ideally like.

It is up to Mace to get the figure down to what it wants. If not, it and the developer face a terrible dilemma - pull it now or go ahead and build it knowing it could end up costing even more than they ideally want to pay.

The trouble, as ever with a project like this, is the risk. No one wants to catch a cold. Not Mace, not its subcontractors and not the banks. A state of impasse or a rethink - lopping some floors off perhaps? - is looming.
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 03:22 PM   #835
HD
°°°°°°°°°°°°
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,596
Likes (Received): 906

a blurry vision of the future?

__________________
Welcome to COLORADO
More than Kobe and Columbine
HD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2008, 04:11 PM   #836
capslock
Ho hum
 
capslock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,597
Likes (Received): 1655

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox View Post
Oh Jesus...


http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/05...50m_shard.html

Shard busts budget

Published: 14 May 2008 15:56 Author: David Rogers

Mace has been given more time to work up costs on plans for London's tallest building after blowing its £350 million budget by more than 10 per cent.

The firm was due to have delivered cost details on the Shard of Glass to developer Teighmore yesterday. The proposal was timed to coincide with the arrival of a delegation of investors from the Qatari banks funding the scheme, which have insisted on a £350 million fixed-price contract.

The current figure is understood to be around £400 million. Mace now has until the end of the month to get the figure down - although it is expected to be still well above the £350 million demanded.

John Doyle is being lined up for the concrete contract, which includes the basement, sub and superstructure work.

Mace is believed to have asked the firm to redraw designs for the substructure to get the cost of the concrete package down. This has come in at around Ł45 million Đ more than 20 per cent higher than Mace was expecting.

Mace declined to comment but one source said: "There are a few areas that need to be rebid and re-engineered. It is tight on budget and whether they get it on budget is a big question."

The main problem is with the basement works - because of its proximity to London Bridge railway station - and these are expected to take up to a year to complete. The source added: "The real risk is in the basement and Doyles and Mace are trying to work out how to carry this without carrying too much exposure."

Keltbray has already begun tearing down the existing building at London Bridge that will make way for the Shard and is also carrying out groundworks ahead of Stent moving in for piling work. The official completion date is still the end of 2011.

But news of the latest budget problems raises fresh fears that Teighmore, which is led by the chairman of Sellar Property Group, Irvine Sellar, will have to pay more for the 310 m high structure or risk it never getting off the ground.

Teighmore has a month to decide what to do with Mace's offer. The most likely outcome is that it asks Mace to retender some of the bigger packages such as M&E and steel. These are priced at £60 million and £28 million respectively.

Last autumn, Teighmore turned its back on Mace when it asked Laing O'Rourke to come up with proposals for the building after deciding the original route of construction management would be too expensive.

But the country's largest private contractor never actually came up with a firm bid - after being trumped by Mace which agreed to carry out the deal on a fixed-price.



Who's won what

Demolition/groundworks Keltbray
Piling Stent
Concrete John Doyle
Steel Cleveland Bridge
M&E Hotchkiss (mechanical); Phoenix (electrical); Balfour Kilpatrick (electrical)
Cladding Scheldebouw


Analysis: Will fear of risk cut down the project?

By David Rogers

Right now, it is fair to say that two questions arise with the Shard. First, is this ever going to get built?

And if it does, who will build it?

Nobody can give a definite answer to either question. It's likely that the best answers would be "probably - but we've no idea when" and "at the moment Mace, but who knows?".

There was a certain inevitability that a new method to build the Shard - beset by budgetry problems for years now - would end up costing more than the bankers would ideally like.

It is up to Mace to get the figure down to what it wants. If not, it and the developer face a terrible dilemma - pull it now or go ahead and build it knowing it could end up costing even more than they ideally want to pay.

The trouble, as ever with a project like this, is the risk. No one wants to catch a cold. Not Mace, not its subcontractors and not the banks. A state of impasse or a rethink - lopping some floors off perhaps? - is looming.

When you work on these projects you'll know that budgets are always too small, costs always too high, plantrooms and structure too big, finishes too expensive and programmes too ambitious. Additionally, contractors never make any profit and neither do developers.

I'm not going to worry just yet.
__________________
"I'd rather be a rising ape, than a falling angel", Terry Pratchett RIP
capslock no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2008, 11:59 AM   #837
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,334
Likes (Received): 13285

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/imageGallery...m18-731561.jpg




Shard drafts in T&T

Published: 22 May 2008 09:07

Project manager Turner & Townsend has been drafted onto the Shard of Glass project in London to help get the scheme on budget.

A half dozen strong team led by UK director Tim Coleman formally began working on the job this week and will report to the man in charge of the whole development - known as London Bridge Quarter - Bernard Ainsworth.

Mr Ainsworth said the T&T team would be staffed up to around 15 people.

He said: "It is a fairly rapid appointment but we need an expansion of my role and T&T will report to me.

"Every major project needs a project manager and they will be getting involved in all aspects of the job."

T&T will be working with Mace, the firm appointed by developer Teighmore to make sure the scheme is built for £350 million, as well as cost consultant Davis Langdon and engineers WSP and Arup.

Bids for most of the major packages have come back to Mace but Construction News understands that some of these have helped blow the Shard's budget by around 10 per cent.

It is believed the concrete package Đ which John Doyle is slated for - and the M&E deal, which is heading for a team featuring MJN, Phoenix and Hotchkiss, have caused the most headaches.

Mr Ainsworth, who joined the project last month from Atkins and whose previous jobs include running the 2002 Commonwealth Games and working on the Millennium Dome for John Laing, declined to comment on the specifics of the budget. But he said: "I can see a picture that is emerging that is going in the right direction.

"We will be reviewing the picture over the next four or five weeks and it will be a very intensive four or five weeks ahead of us."

Mace had been expected to provide a final figure for the building work this month but Mr Ainsworth said the slip would not affect the main building programme, which is scheduled to start by next January and finish in March 2012.

He said: "A lot of the bids only came back two or three weeks ago but we're still on course to start by the end of the year."

Demolition contractor Keltbray has already taken down three floors of the existing site building, which sits next door to London Bridge station, and is due to finish this work later this year.


Who's who on the Shard

Teighmore is the developer on the project and this is made up of four banks from the Gulf state – Qatari National Bank, Qatar Islamic Bank, Q Invest and Barwa International – and Sellar Property Group, headed by Irvine Sellar. Each owns a 20 per cent slice.

The team charged with building the 310 m-high tower is Mace, while the cost consultant is Davis Langdon, the structural engineer WSP and M&E engineer Arup. A Paris-based company called Tyrrell is advisor to the banks.

London Bridge Quarter is the name of the entire redevelopment – which includes the Shard – and is headed by Bernard Ainsworth, who reports to Teighmore. This week Turner & Townsend was appointed project manager.
__________________
FutureTimeline.net...
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2008, 01:12 PM   #838
Marco Polo
Registered User
 
Marco Polo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,532

Jeeezzz, maybe it will be never built...
Marco Polo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2008, 05:42 AM   #839
Dallasbrink
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas/Amarillo TEXAS
Posts: 1,105
Likes (Received): 38

so wait. Is this being built as a square design or triangle?
__________________

Zefire liked this post
Dallasbrink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2008, 02:07 PM   #840
zfreeman
Registered User
 
zfreeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cork City, formally SY,UK/LDN,UK and CT,SA
Posts: 739
Likes (Received): 1

The triangle is the one that has been accepted by the planners but currently is running overbudget as made clear above, if they are to change the design then it would have to be OK'd by the relevant authorities such as the GLA and LB Southwark.
zfreeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
32 london bridge street, london, london bridge tower, renzo piano, southwark, the shard, the shard of glass

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 02:14 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