280m is the limit for singapore? - Page 28 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Asian Forums > Asian Skyscraper Forums > South East Asia > Singapore Skyscraper Forum

Singapore Skyscraper Forum » Projects | Heritage | Transport | Skyscrapers & Cityscapes | Skybar


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 July 23rd, 2016, 12:22 PM   #541
WingWing
Registered User
 
WingWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,799
Likes (Received): 7069

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddes View Post
I'm not exaggerating. The 2010s has ushered in the era of skyscrapers exceeding 600m, beginning with the Shanghai World Financial Centre, One World Trade Centre and right up to the Burj Khalifa.

So, you're saying the Petronas Towers aren't tropical?


I think come 2035, the Singapore skyline will start to be significantly changed as the height restrictions from the Paya Lebar Air Base are removed, coinciding with possible enbloc and redevelopment opportunities for the existing skyline.

The fact of the matter is that Singapore doesn't have enough land, and the population projections while slowed now due to nationalist concerns and a slowing economy, will surely pick up when the economy grows again. We will see supertalls, not just one or two, but many, and after that, the megatalls.
Yes with constraint of land, the only way is to go up. The relocation of paya lebar airbase will remove the height restriction, allowing supertalls to be built. Those land banks between mbfc and mbs are suitable for tall developments.
__________________
Singapore, A Skyline Like No Others
WingWing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old July 29th, 2016, 01:16 PM   #542
ddes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,833
Likes (Received): 1039

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingWing View Post
Yes with constraint of land, the only way is to go up. The relocation of paya lebar airbase will remove the height restriction, allowing supertalls to be built. Those land banks between mbfc and mbs are suitable for tall developments.
I think Marina East and especially the part of Cecil Road around Lau Pa Sat is primed for a supertall - the Raffles Place MRT area was once a hill and thus has the best ground conditions for taller buildings. To a large extent, the Singapore skyline actually reflects the best soil conditions - it is no accident that the skyline has two peaks centered around TPC and ORP.

Of course, they can also build in Marina South but the method of construction is different - MBFC and MBS are effectively ships.
__________________

WingWing liked this post
ddes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 01:39 PM   #543
WingWing
Registered User
 
WingWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,799
Likes (Received): 7069

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddes View Post
I think Marina East and especially the part of Cecil Road around Lau Pa Sat is primed for a supertall - the Raffles Place MRT area was once a hill and thus has the best ground conditions for taller buildings. To a large extent, the Singapore skyline actually reflects the best soil conditions - it is no accident that the skyline has two peaks centered around TPC and ORP.

Of course, they can also build in Marina South but the method of construction is different - MBFC and MBS are effectively ships.
Yup better build on normal land than reclaimed land.

I think tanjong pagar also good, still got a few space and height restriction lesser is better than raffles and marina bay area. Maybe near TPC can construct a supertall. Hopefully soon there will be 300m since its 10m away from 290m
__________________
Singapore, A Skyline Like No Others
WingWing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 06:53 PM   #544
ddes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,833
Likes (Received): 1039

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingWing View Post
Yup better build on normal land than reclaimed land.

I think tanjong pagar also good, still got a few space and height restriction lesser is better than raffles and marina bay area. Maybe near TPC can construct a supertall. Hopefully soon there will be 300m since its 10m away from 290m
There's also another strategic reason why Singapore needs to build a supertall or megatall - defence. Say we built the 636m Shanghai World Financial Centre at that plot diagonally to MBFC - do you know that you'll be able to see that building with no difficulty at all from any corner of Singapore? From Changi Airport, the SWFC will look like it's in Bedok or something. From the 98 glass-floor observation deck of the SWFC, I can very clearly see Yangshan Port more than 45km away.

There are several megatalls coming up - all but the one except the one coincidentally right by the Causeway is delayed - dotted around just off the northern coast of Singapore creating a virtual ring around much of the mainland. SAF cannot object to IDR building megatalls, but we will eventually need the same vantage point capability as well. We also need stronger smartphone signal inhibitors to block Malaysia and Indonesia's very strong LTE signal - that's the reason why our telcos suck from time to time, the wave overpowered by LTE signal bursts.
ddes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 07:53 PM   #545
WingWing
Registered User
 
WingWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,799
Likes (Received): 7069

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddes View Post
There's also another strategic reason why Singapore needs to build a supertall or megatall - defence. Say we built the 636m Shanghai World Financial Centre at that plot diagonally to MBFC - do you know that you'll be able to see that building with no difficulty at all from any corner of Singapore? From Changi Airport, the SWFC will look like it's in Bedok or something. From the 98 glass-floor observation deck of the SWFC, I can very clearly see Yangshan Port more than 45km away.

There are several megatalls coming up - all but the one except the one coincidentally right by the Causeway is delayed - dotted around just off the northern coast of Singapore creating a virtual ring around much of the mainland. SAF cannot object to IDR building megatalls, but we will eventually need the same vantage point capability as well. We also need stronger smartphone signal inhibitors to block Malaysia and Indonesia's very strong LTE signal - that's the reason why our telcos suck from time to time, the wave overpowered by LTE signal bursts.

I think megatall will hit the cloud? Probably 400-500m supertall is good. Other than for observatory deck, it can serve as telecommunication signal so it improves LTE coverage in sg. I am not sure how it can block Malaysia and Indo signal but i believe it will benefit us alot.

For defence issue, i think nowadays we use radar to detect any anynomous flight incoming. But it can be a good place for military outlook. But i believe the most benefit will goes to developer. Can set higher price than its neighbouring plots haha
__________________
Singapore, A Skyline Like No Others
WingWing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 10:17 PM   #546
singa-knight
Registered User
 
singa-knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 189
Likes (Received): 175

I think HK would be the best example to follow.
This is up to us because we are the generation that will build Super/Megatalls in SG
singa-knight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 29th, 2016, 11:05 PM   #547
WingWing
Registered User
 
WingWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,799
Likes (Received): 7069

Quote:
Originally Posted by singa-knight View Post
I think HK would be the best example to follow.
This is up to us because we are the generation that will build Super/Megatalls in SG
Hk has larger space area, lesser airbase hence no height restriction in cbd

Unless paya lebar relocated, cant possibly restriction removed
__________________
Singapore, A Skyline Like No Others
WingWing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 12:54 PM   #548
ddes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,833
Likes (Received): 1039

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingWing View Post
I think megatall will hit the cloud? Probably 400-500m supertall is good. Other than for observatory deck, it can serve as telecommunication signal so it improves LTE coverage in sg. I am not sure how it can block Malaysia and Indo signal but i believe it will benefit us alot
Singapore's buildings above 240m already reach the height of the lowest rain clouds. Thunderstorm clouds are 1000m while those pretty cirrus clouds are 11,000m, which is way higher than commercial aircraft cruising height.

I believe Singapore's aviation laws and height restrictions are not in accordance with ICAO standard regulations, considering that... Kowloon is about 20km directly east of the airport and they still managed to build the ICC where you don't really need to look far up from the Ritz Carlton bar to see aircraft passing by. The approach from the south into Beijing Capital Airport flies over the Guomao CBD area, and that's 18km. And Tokyo Haneda has the Skytree less than 12km away.
__________________

WingWing liked this post
ddes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2016, 03:18 PM   #549
WingWing
Registered User
 
WingWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,799
Likes (Received): 7069

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddes View Post
Singapore's buildings above 240m already reach the height of the lowest rain clouds. Thunderstorm clouds are 1000m while those pretty cirrus clouds are 11,000m, which is way higher than commercial aircraft cruising height.

I believe Singapore's aviation laws and height restrictions are not in accordance with ICAO standard regulations, considering that... Kowloon is about 20km directly east of the airport and they still managed to build the ICC where you don't really need to look far up from the Ritz Carlton bar to see aircraft passing by. The approach from the south into Beijing Capital Airport flies over the Guomao CBD area, and that's 18km. And Tokyo Haneda has the Skytree less than 12km away.
Yeah

They also build nina tower. Though planned for 500m plus but still end up as supertall. About 20km too. I think ICC is further than nina tower

Thats why once paya lebar airbase once relocated, then we can see high chances supertall built in cbd area. Its not changi airport that limit them
__________________
Singapore, A Skyline Like No Others
WingWing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2016, 02:59 PM   #550
ddes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,833
Likes (Received): 1039

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingWing View Post
Yeah

They also build nina tower. Though planned for 500m plus but still end up as supertall. About 20km too. I think ICC is further than nina tower

Thats why once paya lebar airbase once relocated, then we can see high chances supertall built in cbd area. Its not changi airport that limit them
I wonder what are the regulations and rules regarding height limits though especially when you look at Changi's arrivals from the north, and SISPEC.
ddes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2016, 06:56 PM   #551
horlick97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 32

There is no need to compete on having more or taller supertalls and megatalls.

The quality of a city, be it in terms of lifestyle and comfort it can support or the beauty of the skyline does not depend on having such tall buildings.

It is easy to cite the limited land in Singapore to advocate for having taller buildings. But, tall buildings, especially when they reach the supertall and megatall levels will be very inefficient in terms of GFA effciency. A significant proportion of the floor plate will be taken by the life and central core.

Furthermore, having a couple of supertall or megatall will yield negligible addition to the overall stock of built space in the island.

From the overall perspective, it is also important to consider what is the optimal population the island of Singapore can support. At the moment, the official planning target of the government is 6.9mil. Personnally, my thoughts are more aligned to former MM Lee Kuan Yew's view of 5.5 mil.

I would however support the idea of having a one or a couple of taller building if there are strategic benefits to doing so.
__________________

WingWing, y2koh, DowntownKidz liked this post
horlick97 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2016, 06:52 AM   #552
ddes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,833
Likes (Received): 1039

Quote:
Originally Posted by horlick97 View Post
There is no need to compete on having more or taller supertalls and megatalls.

The quality of a city, be it in terms of lifestyle and comfort it can support or the beauty of the skyline does not depend on having such tall buildings.

It is easy to cite the limited land in Singapore to advocate for having taller buildings. But, tall buildings, especially when they reach the supertall and megatall levels will be very inefficient in terms of GFA effciency. A significant proportion of the floor plate will be taken by the life and central core.

Furthermore, having a couple of supertall or megatall will yield negligible addition to the overall stock of built space in the island.

From the overall perspective, it is also important to consider what is the optimal population the island of Singapore can support. At the moment, the official planning target of the government is 6.9mil. Personnally, my thoughts are more aligned to former MM Lee Kuan Yew's view of 5.5 mil.

I would however support the idea of having a one or a couple of taller building if there are strategic benefits to doing so.
Singapore's overall population is already 5.56 million. I don't believe in only counting Singapore citizens because that number is not realistic at all. We need to include Permanent Residents and foreign labour on various Work Permits living in Singapore as well. Bearing this in mind, Singapore's overall population estimate should hover around 7 to 7.5 million around 2030, and closer to 9 million by 2050.

The main reason for increasing the population is strategic: we need a self-sustainable "domestic economy" to reduce the risk associated with being so exposed to the global economy. The Lehman Brothers collapse and the GFC that followed, as well as the China recession and the immediate overnight effects on the Singapore economy reflects a need to reduce the risk.

In addition, due to the lack of a sustainable "local economy", a lot of management decisions for the Singapore market are often based as an extension of demand from Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur or Bangkok market. For example, H&M's merchandising for Singapore and Johor Bahru is made out of H&M's Jakarta office - I can tell you first-hand that the "Singapore merchandising" doesn't even have a single full-time staff dedicated to it. For a long while, this was thought to be acceptable. After all, up till recently, the Singaporean "local economy" was primarily dominated by tourist shopping revenues. The top foreign buyers of H&M in Singapore are Indonesians, so it made sense to combine merchandising in Jakarta. Similarly, a lot of the luxury brands here have their merchandising teams in Hong Kong, because a lot of the luxury retail sales in Singapore are made by the Chinese.

The way Singapore ran itself is no longer viable today, much less the future. This is why the government has been so desperate to raise the Singapore citizen and Permanent Resident population to the 7th million mark, which economists agree is the minimum number for a world city like Singapore to gain its own "local economy". This is very important, considering that the HSR and RTS in the late 2020s will expose Singapore a lot more to the very volatile Malaysian (Kuala Lumpur, to be specific) economy.

And yet, we have to make sure that the 6.9 million mark doesn't exhaust all the available land in Singapore. If we do exhaust the land, Johor Bahru's property prices and economy will skyrocket to Shenzhen levels of amazing as Johor Bahru stands at the ready to backfill all the people that Singapore doesn't want to house. This again, further emphasizes my point on exposing Singapore to Malaysia. Remember, there's no Schengen Agreement-style policy planned for ASEAN. Singapore and Malaysia are completely different sovereign nations, albeit very good friends. It's ultimately about maintaining Singapore's interest, really.

I agree with you. For up to 2030, I don't think we will see megatalls in Singapore. I don't think there will be a proliferation of supertalls either. Considering that Shanghai's Lujiazui was modeled after Singapore's CBD, I'm sure URA has a live example in Pudong to demonstrate the CBD densities required to make supertalls fit aesthetically pleasing in a skyline. Based on Lujiazui, Singapore's CBD would need to be at least 2 times larger to ensure the supertall(s) complement the skyline well. Having said that, Beijing's Guomao CBD demonstrates that if a supertall is necessary, the best method is to go for a marginal increase over the current tallest building.

I think it'd be more optimal to raise Singapore's height restrictions across the board incrementally, i.e. allowing HDB heights to increase as they get closer to CBD; skyscrapers in the future CBD at Jurong be allowed for up to 200m. With JB Sentral, Tebrau Bay and Danga Bay all hosting skyscrapers that at their tallest, range from 400m to 700m, I think that Woodlands North and the Innovation Corridor can certainly go at least 150-250m. This is in line with former PM Lee Kuan Yew's vision of a distributed density as opposed to the Hong Kong method of setting green spaces surrounding a super high density city core where most of the population lives.

I'm sure that like Hong Kong, Singapore has also resigned to the fate that its northern neighboring city, will eventually host taller buildings than the south, and that's okay. I don't think TPC will be Singapore's tallest building for long, but I don't think it will be beaten by a significantly taller building.

But never say never. I think Singapore in 2050 will be a lot more different than today.
__________________

WingWing, Qweoiu liked this post
ddes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2016, 08:32 AM   #553
WingWing
Registered User
 
WingWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 8,799
Likes (Received): 7069

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddes View Post
Singapore's overall population is already 5.56 million. I don't believe in only counting Singapore citizens because that number is not realistic at all. We need to include Permanent Residents and foreign labour on various Work Permits living in Singapore as well. Bearing this in mind, Singapore's overall population estimate should hover around 7 to 7.5 million around 2030, and closer to 9 million by 2050.

The main reason for increasing the population is strategic: we need a self-sustainable "domestic economy" to reduce the risk associated with being so exposed to the global economy. The Lehman Brothers collapse and the GFC that followed, as well as the China recession and the immediate overnight effects on the Singapore economy reflects a need to reduce the risk.

In addition, due to the lack of a sustainable "local economy", a lot of management decisions for the Singapore market are often based as an extension of demand from Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur or Bangkok market. For example, H&M's merchandising for Singapore and Johor Bahru is made out of H&M's Jakarta office - I can tell you first-hand that the "Singapore merchandising" doesn't even have a single full-time staff dedicated to it. For a long while, this was thought to be acceptable. After all, up till recently, the Singaporean "local economy" was primarily dominated by tourist shopping revenues. The top foreign buyers of H&M in Singapore are Indonesians, so it made sense to combine merchandising in Jakarta. Similarly, a lot of the luxury brands here have their merchandising teams in Hong Kong, because a lot of the luxury retail sales in Singapore are made by the Chinese.

The way Singapore ran itself is no longer viable today, much less the future. This is why the government has been so desperate to raise the Singapore citizen and Permanent Resident population to the 7th million mark, which economists agree is the minimum number for a world city like Singapore to gain its own "local economy". This is very important, considering that the HSR and RTS in the late 2020s will expose Singapore a lot more to the very volatile Malaysian (Kuala Lumpur, to be specific) economy.

And yet, we have to make sure that the 6.9 million mark doesn't exhaust all the available land in Singapore. If we do exhaust the land, Johor Bahru's property prices and economy will skyrocket to Shenzhen levels of amazing as Johor Bahru stands at the ready to backfill all the people that Singapore doesn't want to house. This again, further emphasizes my point on exposing Singapore to Malaysia. Remember, there's no Schengen Agreement-style policy planned for ASEAN. Singapore and Malaysia are completely different sovereign nations, albeit very good friends. It's ultimately about maintaining Singapore's interest, really.

I agree with you. For up to 2030, I don't think we will see megatalls in Singapore. I don't think there will be a proliferation of supertalls either. Considering that Shanghai's Lujiazui was modeled after Singapore's CBD, I'm sure URA has a live example in Pudong to demonstrate the CBD densities required to make supertalls fit aesthetically pleasing in a skyline. Based on Lujiazui, Singapore's CBD would need to be at least 2 times larger to ensure the supertall(s) complement the skyline well. Having said that, Beijing's Guomao CBD demonstrates that if a supertall is necessary, the best method is to go for a marginal increase over the current tallest building.

I think it'd be more optimal to raise Singapore's height restrictions across the board incrementally, i.e. allowing HDB heights to increase as they get closer to CBD; skyscrapers in the future CBD at Jurong be allowed for up to 200m. With JB Sentral, Tebrau Bay and Danga Bay all hosting skyscrapers that at their tallest, range from 400m to 700m, I think that Woodlands North and the Innovation Corridor can certainly go at least 150-250m. This is in line with former PM Lee Kuan Yew's vision of a distributed density as opposed to the Hong Kong method of setting green spaces surrounding a super high density city core where most of the population lives.

I'm sure that like Hong Kong, Singapore has also resigned to the fate that its northern neighboring city, will eventually host taller buildings than the south, and that's okay. I don't think TPC will be Singapore's tallest building for long, but I don't think it will be beaten by a significantly taller building.

But never say never. I think Singapore in 2050 will be a lot more different than today.

Having more population will increase gdp, maintaining constant growth as well as creating larger local market. It will also prevent singapore from turning into aging population and keep singapore competitive in region. Moreover, neighbouring countries began to have what singapore has, hence alot tourists no longer spend money at singapore but just here for sightseeing.


I agree height restriction need to be relax. Currently jurong tallest JTC tower is about 153m. Hence 200m should be viable. Govt knows our land limitation, hence they building taller HDBs such as in clementi and toa payoh. These HDBs about 35-40 storey high. In city area, there will be taller tower than TPC in future but i believe shouldnt be above 320m. Moreover relocation of paya lebar airbase will only completed ard 2030 hence need another 15 years to take effect
__________________
Singapore, A Skyline Like No Others

DowntownKidz liked this post
WingWing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2016, 10:59 AM   #554
horlick97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 32

Bigger population means larger economy for self sustainability.
No argument about it. This is basic economics.
But, how large is enough for the case of Singapore?
Last time, it was 4 mil.
Then, suddenly, it was 6.9 mil.
As it is, there are those who are suggested numbers more than 6.9m, and even 10 mil.
But, how do these square in with Singapore's land size?
It is not just housing for people, but also industries and jobs for people. It is also infrastructure like water reclamation, power generation, space for recreation, etc.
All the energy and food that is needed to sustain the ecosystem need to be imported.
What do these mean from the strategic perspective?
Does building higher and higher provide solution?
What about the building efficiency, the associated risks and complexity of rescue from highrise?
What about the recent incident of potential rocket threat from Batam?

The question is, where is the optimal point within the constraints. This is a constrained programming problem that requires the recognition of planning, economy, way of life, security, comfort, sustainability, etc.

I do not have the answer. I just thought that the 4 mil population master plan developed by the earlier planners must have been done with due considerations of various issues. The 6.9 mil figures have yet to be substantiated with substantive plans. Even the govt had to tone it down to say that was not the target and was just a planning figure.

Anyway, back to this topic of building height, I do not think Singapore need to compete with other cities or even JB in terms of building height. The well being of a city state and its citizen depend on so many other things. Higher is not better.
__________________

y2koh liked this post
horlick97 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2016, 04:53 AM   #555
y2koh
Moderator
 
y2koh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,057
Likes (Received): 595

While building taller may be a solution, that does not equate to building supertalls. You can theoretical achieve plot ratio 15 for any building taller than 40 storeys, but any taller and the building setbacks, fire safety regulations, etc will prevent you from going anywhere higher on average on an urban planing scale.

It is however possible to increase development intensity to house a larger population through better optimisation. Shifting of airbases and military areas is one possible solution. This will allow areas such as Jurong West, Woodlands, Sembawang, Ubi, Paya Lebar and Punggol to be redeveloped through land intensification with a relaxation of building height limits to allow 40-45 storey buildings. However, this will have to be studied holistically and strategically so as to not severely impact our defence capabilities, while responding to changing defence needs in a world where countering the threat of terrorism takes precedence.

And then there is the possible solution of going downwards, creating artificial ground levels in underground spaces, or even artificial ground level 20m above the ground. This is being studied in conjunction with climate change too. Building supertalls is not the only solution, in fact I believe that much more can be achieved by having more integration between buildings, and also with infrastructure.
y2koh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2016, 08:50 PM   #556
singa-knight
Registered User
 
singa-knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 189
Likes (Received): 175

Never seen that old pictures
https://www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyli...gskyline1.html



Sorry for posting in this thread, but I didn't really know if there is a more suitable one
__________________

DowntownKidz liked this post
singa-knight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2016, 04:13 AM   #557
DowntownKidz
Registered User
 
DowntownKidz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 946
Likes (Received): 311

Looking at those old pictures, it may be time to consider conserving some of the early era skyscrapers, as they are of a different style to what we have now and are also part of the narrative of Singapore's post independence history. Similarly, New York's cityscape is richer for the different variety and styles of skyscrapers.
__________________

singa-knight liked this post
DowntownKidz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us