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 17th, 2007, 05:01 PM   #201
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
No, modernism is fine, around the corner. I think the intent was to have new townhouses along Prairie to complement and, in some sense, reconstruct the "street of millionaires." The stuff on the northeast corner of 18th/Prairie turned out rather clumsy, but the new mansions in the 1800 block are very well done, and will be a much-admired streetscape in future years.
^ Granted. However, I truly think that this formula of putting neo-historic next to true historic is completely off. In my own viewing experience, the best way to complement an existing (or well done neo-) historic structure is to build something of quality contemporary design next to it. Also, 90% of PoMo is complete garbage, so why must we promote it? Look at River North--do those PoMo buildings look purty next to those remaining historic mansions, etc that still exist there? A resounding NO. Do they "tip their hat" to the historic architecture around them (a concept that I assume is being promoted in the Prarie District)? No.

Quote:
Chicago has no shortage of places to build tall, or to build modern.
^ Right, but wrong. For now, it doesn't, but if every community organization becomes as headstrong as the ones in the south loop waving their 'New South Community Plan' in the air like it's the Bible, then Chicago certainly will hit a wall with highrise development. Listen, it is not fair for you to say "hey, don't build highrises here, build them over there instead", pointing to another already more densely built up and expensive neighborhood. To designate that every building south of Congress (half of the potentially developable downtown, if you really think about it) should be under so-and-so feet is completely unreasonable and won't stand the test of time. Even SOAR has come to accept that tall highrises will get built in most of those remaining vacant lots.

They may not be perfect, but I'm actually beginning to respect that organization, and I'm hoping that the south loop people will take a page from their book or else they'll keep being at odds with reality.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 17th, 2007, 06:44 PM   #202
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Issues with Prairie District Townhomes

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Ugh... Not this again. Why on earth must we insist on forcing developers to build things that look "historic" just because many newly built structures next to them look like a cheaper version of the actual "historic" structures that originally existed in the area? In other words, modernism is out? Do we really have to follow this silly formula? I for one don't care much for it.
If you have such issue with the Prairie District Townhomes design, why do you not take it out on the city who allowed it (DPD), and the developers (Warman, Barr, Dipiazza) who continue to build the style in the South Loop? Many of the same developers building the junk high rises. These guys were not forced to do anything...

The difference with the Mansions and Townhomes at the Commonwealth (across from the Woman's park) is that the city spent more time up front defining the requirements and look before construction (part of Historic District). This took 4-5 years from design to construction completion to get complete (from 2001 to 2006). Warman and Barr (Legacy) did design, sales, and construction of Prairie District Lofts in about 2 years - the Legacy development required little city review or input. They broke ground 6 months after the sales opening...it was their rush that was the problem.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 06:51 PM   #203
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Reality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Right, but wrong. For now, it doesn't, but if every community organization becomes as headstrong as the ones in the south loop waving their 'New South Community Plan' in the air like it's the Bible, then Chicago certainly will hit a wall with highrise development. Listen, it is not fair for you to say "hey, don't build highrises here, build them over there instead", pointing to another already more densely built up and expensive neighborhood. To designate that every building south of Congress (half of the potentially developable downtown, if you really think about it) should be under so-and-so feet is completely unreasonable and won't stand the test of time. Even SOAR has come to accept that tall highrises will get built in most of those remaining vacant lots.

They may not be perfect, but I'm actually beginning to respect that organization, and I'm hoping that the south loop people will take a page from their book or else they'll keep being at odds with reality.
1. "Odds with Reality" - this coming from a guy who lives in New Jersey...rock
on Bon Jovi.

2. "Hit the Wall" - What's wrong with taking more time for the DPD, City,
and residents taking time up front to review the design and infrastructure
impacts correctly up front? DPD and Lori Heally have publically admitted
it is not reviewing each design properly, or individually to seehow it fits
in the area. These quick approvals, and every "Tom, Dick, and Harry"
thinking they are developers, hiding behind an LLC is leading to the poor
design and poor construction quality.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 07:05 PM   #204
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

I personally dont have any problems with the townhomes, except maybe that theres a ton of them. I would prefer the south loop to have a good mix of housing styles, townhomes, lofts, mid-rises and of course, hi-rises. People have to remember though, that the south loop is basically a part of downtown Chicago, and therefore should be as dense as neighborhoods north along the lake; like gold coast or east lakeview, or even streeterville. Clearly south loop has a ways to go in this regard, so i dont know what people are so afraid of - especially with X/O. I agree with TUP, that Chicago has tons of places for development, but may be limited by backward thinking orgs (who only have their own personal agendas in mind). If they continue to have their way, we will stunt the growth of the central area. Shit look at what WLCO has done to the west loop, it reminds me of DC not chicago.

Anyways, something bold like the X/O will really stand out in design and height (which is great to me), but I honestly think they could go even higher on S Michigan, and make a 1000' eventually (when the demand is there) to balance out the hancock to the north. And why not? Theres still tons of space for development, and room for the area to grow. The south loop should balance out whats north of grant park. People need to stop being so afraid, and so goddamn selfish. There is no reason for it, the entire city will benefit. And so, if it really doesnt allow for this growth as some suggest, its probably time to take the near South community plan back to the drawing board .
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 09:29 PM   #205
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
People need to stop being so afraid, and so goddamn selfish. There is no reason for it, the entire city will benefit. And so, if it really doesnt allow for this growth as some suggest, its probably time to take the near South community plan back to the drawing board .
1. Selfish? How so? If the developer wants to build and determine zoning
(many of the zonign changes are driven by developers) to increase sales
and profits, how is it that the residents are being selfish?

2. If DPD, the residents, and developers provided the input to the Near
South Community Plan, and a few 'buster' developers are trying to skirt
around it, why do we need to go back to the drawing board? It was
completed in 2003.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
I personally dont have any problems with the townhomes, except maybe that theres a ton of them. I would prefer the south loop to have a good mix of housing styles, townhomes, lofts, mid-rises and of course, hi-rises. People have to remember though, that the south loop is basically a part of downtown Chicago, and therefore should be as dense as neighborhoods north along the lake; like gold coast or east lakeview, or even streeterville."
1. The South Loop is one of the few places to have mix. If anything,
there is more than enough highrises compared to any of the locations
on your list. Go through the list of Lofts, mid-rises, high-rises, super
high-rises, high-end homes, townhomes, rental, etc. None of those areas
is close to the South Loop diversity Mix. Why does no one complain about
the other neighborhoods mix? Why isn't the South Loop allowed to
develop it's distinct Districts like the Nrar North with Gold Coast,
Streeterville, etc. Should we tear down Astor street in favor of glass
towers?

2. Density and development are ideal in a fantasy world, however in this
case, with City Services, DPD corruption, Alderman corruption, and some
of these Developers in question (Giles, Warman, Barr) leaving multi-million
dollar problems for buyers in the South Loop, the reality is more problems
and poor development, with money wasted on lawyers instead of
infrastrucure. Also, Big-Box retail phylosophy has sadly changed the
neighborhood business mix.

3. The mix while desirable is not a requirement. The issue at hand is
where you place some of these gigantic monsters - would you place
a high rise in the middle of Dearborn Park? Many developers have been
respective of the NEar South Community Plan, despite "right to build",
yet the and marginal developers are the problem. Case in point, X/O
developer Kargil/Giles talks about committment to community, yet while
dropping a 45 story building in a low-rise area, they are quitely converting
a Loft building nextdoor where they intend to take away all of the
parking and move 80 buyers to the streets. Great density improvement
idea, no?

4. Do you not think that many people settled in the South Loop because
they did not want the density of Lakeview or Gold Coast? It seems many
of the complaints about restaurant's and services, and the desire for
density come from South Loop outsiders...many of the South Loopers,
while they appreciate new service businesses, have learned to appreciate
what we do have, and learn to live with what we do not.

Last edited by Steely Dan; May 17th, 2007 at 09:58 PM.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 10:25 PM   #206
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:21 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 10:58 PM   #207
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Congestion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
I moved to the South Loop because I could see it's potential. Now all I'm seeing is bunch of selfish bastards squander that potential in order to ameliorate some imaginary "congestion".
Ditto...been here since 1997. So my prospective is better planning as the congestion has gotten here. Imaginary? Just take a look at the State & Roosevelt area every day for and example of what is happening. Where is it written that the manifest destiny of the South Loop has to match the potential of the Near North or North side...many people moved to get away from that...let the South Loop be the South Loop.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 11:33 PM   #208
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
Ditto...been here since 1997. So my prospective is better planning as the congestion has gotten here. Imaginary? Just take a look at the State & Roosevelt area every day for and example of what is happening. Where is it written that the manifest destiny of the South Loop has to match the potential of the Near North or North side...many people moved to get away from that...let the South Loop be the South Loop.
I moved here for the South Loop's potential too, as well as to be a part of a neighborhood and see it grow over time.

There are probably a few people who moved to the South Loop, a while back, to live in a "quiet" area that lacked any vibrancy. The majority of people have moved to the South Loop as they see it as an increasingly exciting place to live in. And this majority will become decidedly more so when construction is completed on the Columbian, Vision, 1720 South Michigan, Vetro, Printers Corner, Burnham Pointe, and numerous other high-rises in the South Loop under development, as they are moving to the South Loop because they want to live in an exciting, vibrant neighborhood.

If there are South Loop residents who want peace and quiet, there's nothing stopping them from moving to the burbs, or at least a neigbhorhood much further away from downtown (and sell their home at a nice profit as all of the development going up around them that they complain about has greatly increased their property values over the last few years). However, the South Loop is pretty much part of Chicago downtown. While I'm not saying that the South Loop should be a mirror counterpart to River North in any way, given that it is so close to the Loop, it should be very dense. There are only so many areas where there can be extremely dense neighborhoods full of high-rises (pretty much anything within 2 (maybe 3 tops) miles of the Loop). If someone wants to be in a neighborhood that is a little more low-key and less dense, they can live in any one of the neighborhoods that is not within a 2-3 mile radius of the Loop, which includes roughly 90% of the city limits.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 12:10 AM   #209
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:20 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 12:57 AM   #210
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Nexus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
I should add that my wife and I moved here without any vehicles either. Yep, car-free. The South Loop is a nexus of transport opportunities, and I have never regretted not having wheels. So, the people that are complaining about the traffic are just part of the problem, they're not innocent victims.
We could talk about how crappy the Chicago CTA is relative to other major World Class or North American cities, and come to agreement. But to say there is a nexus is really looking at relative crapiness in general. For being "downtown", as you claim, describing it as a nexus may be overstating it. It's one thing to be bad now, but it is even worse when the improvements are not even in the books to be done in the future. No connections south of Roosevelt on the Orange, Green, Red is not a nexus; no Lakefront transit is not a nexus.

The city should toss the affordable housing fund donations, and put the money into funding additional transit improvements. As well, for all the money going into the Near South TIF, you may want to see (Chicago CIP) how much is actually being put back into the South Loop. The money is ending up in West Loop and South of I-55.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 01:22 AM   #211
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Chicago's public transportation is much better than most cities in the United States (although worldwide is a different story), but I will agree with you in that making improvements to the El should be a top priority for Chicago. If and when these improvements are made (and if and when the Circle Line gets built), Chicago mass transit will be better than almost all cities in the US.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 02:38 AM   #212
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 07:20 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 08:52 AM   #213
Cullertonian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12
Likes (Received): 0

PDNA (and Erm's) points about holding developers accountable for what they build: good.

Erm's offshoot of the above view that the entire district should be filled with townhouses: bad. The best thing that could happen to this neighborhood is for the parking lots (Prairie District Lofts included) to be replaced with a mix of townhomes, mid-rise- and high-rise development. I personally don't want to have to go a mile and a half to Jewel forever, so bring on the density and bring on the commercial development.

On the South Loop transit side of things, the adding El stops would be a great improvement. I'm sure that Olympic planning would include improvement to the South Loop's rain infrastructure. On the other hand, the South Loop benefits from excellent bus services. 5 different bus routs run on Michigan during rush hour, and our formerly industry-friendly block layout means the buses are actually faster than walking (take that, North Side).
Cullertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 03:02 PM   #214
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Whooaaa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cullertonian View Post
PDNA (and Erm's) points about holding developers accountable for what they build: good.

Erm's offshoot of the above view that the entire district should be filled with townhouses: bad. The best thing that could happen to this neighborhood is for the parking lots (Prairie District Lofts included) to be replaced with a mix of townhomes, mid-rise- and high-rise development. I personally don't want to have to go a mile and a half to Jewel forever, so bring on the density and bring on the commercial development.

On the South Loop transit side of things, the adding El stops would be a great improvement. I'm sure that Olympic planning would include improvement to the South Loop's rain infrastructure. On the other hand, the South Loop benefits from excellent bus services. 5 different bus routs run on Michigan during rush hour, and our formerly industry-friendly block layout means the buses are actually faster than walking (take that, North Side).

Never have I advocated all Townhomes...an appropriate mix & location to maintain the "character district" per the 2003 Central Plan is what I advocate, especially if they link up North & South Prairie at 16th street eventually. But come on, 45 stories on Prairie? How dumb and illogical. Every other developer with projects in the Distric stayed at the 285 feet recommendation.

That developer could have put it on Indiana, Calumet, or Cermak (also per the plan recommendation), and now one would have said a peep about the height, even though it is more than the recommended 285 feet for the remainder of the District.

The funny thing is that the city is doing everything opposite as opposed to the 1350 S. Lake Shore Drive court case a few years back (City vs. LAS), where they argued it was important to protect "character" despite developer zoning rights, and even conceded "community plans" are an important tool to accomplishing.

And despite the high rises, you will not see a Jewel type place built in any of these, so keep dreaming. The only chance is at Cermak.

As to developer quality, why is developer history of quality not part of the permit review process? Why should developers be given more permits if they bilk existing developments out of money? Why can't the city require a an escrow for 2 years after closing to keep these developers from disloving the LLC, even when the work is not finished?


As to the CTA, how sad is it when, gas is hovering at $3.50 per gallon, and
your here more dire news about the CTA today...?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 08:23 PM   #215
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
1. "Odds with Reality" - this coming from a guy who lives in New Jersey...rock
on Bon Jovi.
^ Getting petty, are we? Oh, and I live in Manhattan--big difference. When you stop using your car for a year then we can talk. Until then, keep pretending you know what living in a city means

Quote:
2. "Hit the Wall" - What's wrong with taking more time for the DPD, City,
and residents taking time up front to review the design and infrastructure
impacts correctly up front? DPD and Lori Heally have publically admitted
it is not reviewing each design properly, or individually to seehow it fits
in the area. These quick approvals, and every "Tom, Dick, and Harry"
thinking they are developers, hiding behind an LLC is leading to the poor
design and poor construction quality.
^ Another non point. You haven't addressed anything I've said, except resort to name-calling. I'll be around when you're ready to explain why the south loop is entitled to being a bastion of lower density amidst future market forces.

Last edited by The Urban Politician; May 18th, 2007 at 08:32 PM.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 02:00 AM   #216
RavenWolf55
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

I'd love to see the townhouses be given a futuristic look.
RavenWolf55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 08:39 AM   #217
Chitowner245
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Paradise
Posts: 278
Likes (Received): 0

ERM, look up "urban metropolis" or "city" in the dictionary. I respect your concerns about the community, but the city is THE one place where high density development is supposed to occur. Look at what a mess has been made by the suburbs being so damn huge (more people driving/ polluting, traffic nightmares, and land that could be home to wildlife and farms- ethanol anyone?- has been developed because of people not liking "high density.") This is the one place where we need to sacrifice personal space and comfort just a little bit in order to keep people from destroying every inch of beautiful land in this country. Look at how inconvenient it has become. the CTA sucks because not enough people LIVE in the city. So much money is spent on suburban infrastructre instead of the city because of how large the suburbs are now- almost 9 million now!! I think it's ridiculous that people commute an hour to work here, when they could just live here, and take the cta to work. And if more people did that, the cta wouldn't suck so much ass. We need density to be here; it's for the good of society and the planet, especially since we have an eco-progressive, get-shit-done mayor calling the shots.
Chitowner245 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 03:45 PM   #218
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chitowner245 View Post
ERM, look up "urban metropolis" or "city" in the dictionary. I respect your concerns about the community, but the city is THE one place where high density development is supposed to occur. Look at what a mess has been made by the suburbs being so damn huge (more people driving/ polluting, traffic nightmares, and land that could be home to wildlife and farms- ethanol anyone?- has been developed because of people not liking "high density.") .
Chitown, I agree with most of your point and respect your comments, but my issue is not about the density, but about the establishment and protection of the "character districts", which is one of the pillers of the Chicago Central Plan. The density is going to be there regardless, and the Prairie District was one of the few locations in the city consistently called out in the plans for protection as a "character district" surrounding a "Landmark District". Much of this was designed in mind to create a collection point (via foot traffic) for surrounding neighborhood residents and guests for escape and greenspace. The density would surround the district; otherwise, with McCormick Place to the south, Michigan Ave to the west, Central Station to the North, you give no respite to residents.

All it takes is walking around one Saturday to see why the area is different than Central Station, or other parts of the South Loop, but complimentary and an extension.

From the Central Plan "...the scale and density of new development will require special attention to the effect on the neighborhood, district, and Central Area. The most signiificant buildings must be protected, the distinctive identity of special areas maintained,....Key Recommendations: Preservation and sensitive infill in the Prairie Avenue District respecting the scale and character of this important Landmark District" (this is the entire District) This doesn't even include the more targeted comments in the Near South Community Plan.

For those who say the market forces have changed, and are calling for it, that's catagorly false and misleading. The success of the development in this area is consistent with the plan, and everthing already planned or on the books is predicted or projected in the plan for the Prairie District (Prairie Point, 2100, Museum Park Tower I & II, Lexington), except X/O. All one has to do is look at the 2003 Central Plan renderings to see these buildings predicted since 2000. If eveyone is so concerned about density, where is the outcry for construction of some of the smaller stuff on Cermak, when this is supposed to be high-rise city.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 05:57 PM   #219
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
For those who say the market forces have changed, and are calling for it, that's catagorly false and misleading. The success of the development in this area is consistent with the plan, and everthing already planned or on the books is predicted or projected in the plan for the Prairie District (Prairie Point, 2100, Museum Park Tower I & II, Lexington), except X/O. All one has to do is look at the 2003 Central Plan renderings to see these buildings predicted since 2000. If eveyone is so concerned about density, where is the outcry for construction of some of the smaller stuff on Cermak, when this is supposed to be high-rise city.
^ Small stuff can be built an area that will eventually warm up and be replaced with denser projects--why should there be any uproar? But this "opposition" to dense projects can often start out rational but become a finger pointing frenzy when in the wrong hands. I see a huge slippery slope here, and I see no reason to trust these matters in anyone else's hands except the Dept of Planning & Development, who does this for a living and has the economic interests of the city as a whole at heart.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 07:04 PM   #220
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Economic interests of city?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ Small stuff can be built an area that will eventually warm up and be replaced with denser projects--why should there be any uproar? But this "opposition" to dense projects can often start out rational but become a finger pointing frenzy when in the wrong hands. I see a huge slippery slope here, and I see no reason to trust these matters in anyone else's hands except the Dept of Planning & Development, who does this for a living and has the economic interests of the city as a whole at heart.
Wow, ye with Blind faith in the New York Model...I guess you must not have been reading all of the recent stories about some of the DPD payoff's including inspectors, the Sun-Times stories about Developers taking city money (Rezko & others) and delivering crap, etc.. As long as Daley is in charge, how can you claim DPD will not be used like a cheap hooker? Throw in some of Lori Healey's strange antics, and a Plan Commission that is allowed to accept donations from developers, and the crux of the problem is corruption.

As well, quite nieve that "the corporate headquarters" (DPD) can layout and execute the plan, with little or no support from "the field or project locations" (i.e. the Wards). The crux of the problem is DPD is out of step with reality, and does not bother to go and check the work they approve...hence why the issue with shotty work, and disappearing LLC's.
ErmDiego 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 07:14 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