LONDON - Stamford Bridge (41,631 -> 60,000) - Page 7 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Proposed


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 January 22nd, 2014, 07:55 PM   #121
West12Rangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London
Posts: 235
Likes (Received): 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post



never thought i'd see the words "Chelsea" and "charm" in the same sentance
__________________

JimB, Darloeye, AfricanWeezal liked this post
West12Rangers no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 22nd, 2014, 07:58 PM   #122
West12Rangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London
Posts: 235
Likes (Received): 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMB2007 View Post
The club screwed themselves by failing to submit the highest bid for the Battersea Power Station site. There's still some debate over the redevelopment of Earls Court, but that seems a long shot.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/updat...-plan-rethink/
blimey,that must be the briefest news story i've ever read....you wonder why ITV bothered
West12Rangers no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 11:30 AM   #123
mckeenan
Registered User
 
mckeenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Bilbao
Posts: 1,009
Likes (Received): 691

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
I know, I know, but that's the idea that most people have out of Britain. Chelsea had managed very well the marketing thing. I know that both Arsenal and Spurs had been probably the most supported teams in the City.

I just wanted to explain that Chelsea's location is very important to Chelsea's image and identity. They only will move away from Stamford Bridge if they can relocate nearby, specially if the new spot is a widely known area, like Battersea.
mckeenan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old January 23rd, 2014, 04:27 PM   #124
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,844
Likes (Received): 7359

Quote:
Originally Posted by mckeenan View Post
I know, I know, but that's the idea that most people have out of Britain. Chelsea had managed very well the marketing thing. I know that both Arsenal and Spurs had been probably the most supported teams in the City.

I just wanted to explain that Chelsea's location is very important to Chelsea's image and identity. They only will move away from Stamford Bridge if they can relocate nearby, specially if the new spot is a widely known area, like Battersea.
It might be how you see it but I very much doubt that many others, let alone "most", see it like that.

I understand what you're saying about Chelsea being relatively central but, in fact, both Millwall and Arsenal are probably as close to the very centre of London as Chelsea. Chelsea (or rather Fulham - because that's where Stamford Bridge is) is just a smarter area.

But, regardless, being closer to the centre of a city doesn't make a club more representative of that city than a club that is further from the centre - especially in such a large and diverse city like London with a wealth of professional football clubs.

As to Chelsea's image and identity, I don't think that their location is all that important to them now. They have Abramovich's money. That's what's made Chelsea the club that it now is.

By the way, you mention the Battersea Power Station site that Chelsea tried to buy as being "nearby". What is your definition of "nearby"? Because that site is more than 3 kilometres from Stamford Bridge, as the crow flies. Even further by actual road or rail. That's a long distance within any city. And a move there would have taken Chelsea FC south of the river Thames. It would certainly have been a good site for a stadium (especially given the massive Nine Elms redevelopment that will transform the surrounding area into one of London's most desirable addresses). In fact, I think that it might very well become an even better area than the area around Stamford Bridge. But it isn't an area that has anything to do with Chelsea Football Club's "identity".
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 05:38 PM   #125
mckeenan
Registered User
 
mckeenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Bilbao
Posts: 1,009
Likes (Received): 691

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
It might be how you see it but I very much doubt that many others, let alone "most", see it like that.
Ok, maybe it was just my impression. My point is, London right now has a great image overseas, and London clubs have some advantadges from being located there. For example, Man UTD has lost a bit of its appeal (in the business/marketing sphere, I mean), and I think that this is caused to some extent by the weaker international image of Manchester compared to London. Besides, of all the clubs in London, I got the impression that Chelsea was specially interested in marketing themselves as londoners. That doesn't mean thay they are more or less londoner than Arsenal, Spurs, or Fulham.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
By the way, you mention the Battersea Power Station site that Chelsea tried to buy as being "nearby". What is your definition of "nearby"? Because that site is more than 3 kilometres from Stamford Bridge, as the crow flies. Even further by actual road or rail. That's a long distance within any city. And a move there would have taken Chelsea FC south of the river Thames. It would certainly have been a good site for a stadium (especially given the massive Nine Elms redevelopment that will transform the surrounding area into one of London's most desirable addresses). In fact, I think that it might very well become an even better area than the area around Stamford Bridge. But it isn't an area that has anything to do with Chelsea Football Club's "identity".
In such a big city as London, to relocate 3 km away from SB is very reasonable, I think. Building their new home in a spot that is widely known (Battersea) will serve to strenght the bonds between Chelsea and London as "brands", despite of being away from Chelsea/Fulham area.
mckeenan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 10:18 PM   #126
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,246
Likes (Received): 11371

I also took an interest in Chelsea back before the age of easy access to information, sometime around '96-'97. The only impressions I could have on clubs were the ones I could extract from seeing the teams play on TV and on hearing the commentators (who were still concerned mainly on telling the names of the players in possession of the ball).

I wouldn't have been able to tell who's more London, I was probably aware only of the New-York neighbourhood named Chelsea; for sure I knew the name as a person's name, because of Chelsea Clinton. However, there were two other much more important factors that made Arsenal an archtypical English club, while Chelsea was much less so, more of a club with a cosmopolitan(-wannabe) identity. One was the stadium - Highbury was an archtypical English stadium with four rectangular and unconnected stands, without track and with those hoodie-like roofs. That while Stamford Bridge was taking on a completely different direction at the same time. The second factor was the style of play; Arsenal was still very English: intensity, speed, running around a lot, moving the ball around the team and reacting as a team. Chelsea however were slower and more preoccupied to get the ball to the most talented international stars (of whom they were getting more and more) who would go on to take the opponent in one on ones with the ball at feet. A much more "continental" approach that made sense to me, who at the time I wasn't "getting" the English style. I liked that they, as a (still) smaller club were trying to reach the top level by taking a different path to the normal one and one that involved football that I liked, I liked that they were blue (my colour), and most importantly they had Dan Petrescu.

Needless to say, those feelings vanished in time.
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 10:54 PM   #127
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,844
Likes (Received): 7359

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru.mircea View Post
I also took an interest in Chelsea back before the age of easy access to information, sometime around '96-'97. The only impressions I could have on clubs were the ones I could extract from seeing the teams play on TV and on hearing the commentators (who were still concerned mainly on telling the names of the players in possession of the ball).

I wouldn't have been able to tell who's more London, I was probably aware only of the New-York neighbourhood named Chelsea; for sure I knew the name as a person's name, because of Chelsea Clinton. However, there were two other much more important factors that made Arsenal an archtypical English club, while Chelsea was much less so, more of a club with a cosmopolitan(-wannabe) identity. One was the stadium - Highbury was an archtypical English stadium with four rectangular and unconnected stands, without track and with those hoodie-like roofs. That while Stamford Bridge was taking on a completely different direction at the same time. The second factor was the style of play; Arsenal was still very English: intensity, speed, running around a lot, moving the ball around the team and reacting as a team. Chelsea however were slower and more preoccupied to get the ball to the most talented international stars (of whom they were getting more and more) who would go on to take the opponent in one on ones with the ball at feet. A much more "continental" approach that made sense to me, who at the time I wasn't "getting" the English style. I liked that they, as a (still) smaller club were trying to reach the top level by taking a different path to the normal one and one that involved football that I liked, I liked that they were blue (my colour), and most importantly they had Dan Petrescu.

Needless to say, those feelings vanished in time.
Ah, yes, the path of which you speak is called the "spending-massively-beyond-your-means-on-player-transfers-and-wages-for-eight-years-and-consequently-earning-limited-success-but-finding-yourself-£150-million-in-debt-and-on-the-brink-of-going-into-administration-before-being-baled-out-at-the-eleventh-hour-by-a-Russian-"businessman"-who-needed-to-launder-a-large-proportion-of-his-wealth-in-the-relative-safe-haven-that-is-the-UK" path.

Yes, that is certainly a different path to the normal one.
__________________

Immunda Leodis, GunnerJacket liked this post

Last edited by JimB; January 24th, 2014 at 01:30 AM.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2014, 11:14 PM   #128
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,844
Likes (Received): 7359

Quote:
Originally Posted by mckeenan View Post
Ok, maybe it was just my impression. My point is, London right now has a great image overseas, and London clubs have some advantadges from being located there. For example, Man UTD has lost a bit of its appeal (in the business/marketing sphere, I mean), and I think that this is caused to some extent by the weaker international image of Manchester compared to London. Besides, of all the clubs in London, I got the impression that Chelsea was specially interested in marketing themselves as londoners. That doesn't mean thay they are more or less londoner than Arsenal, Spurs, or Fulham.
Agreed that London clubs do have an advantage over other English clubs because of the lure of the city.

I haven't noticed, though, that Chelsea have especially marketed themselves as Londoners. Certainly, I would think that more people think of Chelsea as a cosmopolitan or international club rather than a specifically London club. I'm not suggesting, by the way, that that is necessarily a bad thing.

If I was pressed to choose which is the most "London" of London clubs, I'd probably say West Ham or Millwall - largely because they're from the East end and docklands area. Those are the areas that most people (whose knowledge of London originates from the likes of Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady, Oliver Twist or Jack The Ripper) think of as being quintessentially working class London.

Quote:
In such a big city as London, to relocate 3 km away from SB is very reasonable, I think. Building their new home in a spot that is widely known (Battersea) will serve to strength the bonds between Chelsea and London as "brands", despite of being away from Chelsea/Fulham area.
Absolutely, it would be entirely reasonable for Chelsea to relocate to Battersea, if they could find a suitable site. I was simply pointing out that it wouldn't preserve Chelsea's identity, as you claimed it would. For better or for worse, such a move would change Chelsea's identity.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 12:16 AM   #129
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,246
Likes (Received): 11371

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Ah, yes, the path of which you speak is the spending-massively-beyond-your-means-on-player-transfers-and-wages-for-eight-years-and-consequently-finding-yourself-£150-million-in-debt-and-on-the-brink-of-going-into-administration-before-being-baled-out-at-the-eleventh-hour-by-a-Russian-"businessman"-who-needed-to-launder-a-large-proportion-of-his-wealth-in-the-relative-safe-haven-that-is-the-UK path.

Yes, that is certainly a different path to the normal one.
Err, no, the path of which I speak is that of bringing in talented continental players of great skill and letting them play their way. I didn't follow enough to see the implosion in the late years of Bates' reign, by 2001 I was at university, without a TV and completely disconnected from football. I didn't even bother to check out how the implosion actually happened - were the foreign signings overpriced, were there just too many of them, was the business management of the club poor, were there malicious actions detrimental to the club from the inside etc. I don't know how I would have felt back then if the club would have been doing obviously outrageous things, but the signings they made certainly didn't register anywhere near the top level of European clubs (think of the Milanese clubs, or the two top Spanish clubs). If you look on Chelsea's squad in the CWC winning year, the foreign "flair" would be represented by a 30 year old Uruguayan coming in from Zaragoza, a pacey Nigerian wingback from Anderlecht, a former Lazio midfielder (before Lazio become truly good) in his prime and, saved the best for last, two ageing Italian forwards, one coming at the club at 32 the other at 30. And there was a WC squad French player, but he was a centreback (tho some of his long balls were amazing, I wouldn't completely rule him out of a discussion about flair). So it wasn't Zidane, Shevchenko, Ronaldo etc in their prime.
Maybe there were outrageous things happening, I don't know but as I said in the previous post, if so then they didn't register from such a distance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post

I haven't noticed, though, that Chelsea have especially marketed themselves as Londoners. Certainly, I would think that more people think of Chelsea as a cosmopolitan or international club rather than a specifically London club. I'm not suggesting, by the way, that that is necessarily a bad thing.
I don't know if they insist on it themselves, but in this day when you can have sports journalists blabbing in your ear all day long (tv shows, podcasts etc) it will be impossible not to hear the London lifestyle (especially that in its fancier Western side) mentioned on a regular basis as an important reason for which players come or stay at certain clubs. Stuff like Shevchenko not moving back to Italy despite his move to Chelsea was a flop, because his wife didn't want to leave London; or Berbatov going to Fulham because of where it is (and some good cash), despite looking like a step back professionally and in terms of ambitions. These two clubs in particular seem to be associated with this notion, and I don't know if them residing in the area of London in which they reside is a coincidence or not.

Last edited by alexandru.mircea; January 24th, 2014 at 12:52 AM.
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 12:50 AM   #130
Leedsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,617
Likes (Received): 612

What seems odd to me is that every london team comes out to "London calling" (by the clash or someone similar), like they all think it's their song.
I probably see Fulham as the most 'london' team, but I guess it depends on what your perception of london is. Since areas are very different to others.
Leedsrule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 01:29 AM   #131
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,844
Likes (Received): 7359

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leedsrule View Post
What seems odd to me is that every london team comes out to "London calling" (by the clash or someone similar), like they all think it's their song.
I probably see Fulham as the most 'london' team, but I guess it depends on what your perception of london is. Since areas are very different to others.
Eh?

Which London clubs play "London Calling" as entrance music? I've not come across it at any of the London stadiums I've been to.

And, yes, "London Calling" is by the Clash. It's a ******* classic. And really not an appropriate anthem for a football club, if you bother to listen to the lyrics.
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 02:09 AM   #132
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,844
Likes (Received): 7359

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexandru.mircea View Post
Err, no, the path of which I speak is that of bringing in talented continental players of great skill and letting them play their way. I didn't follow enough to see the implosion in the late years of Bates' reign, by 2001 I was at university, without a TV and completely disconnected from football. I didn't even bother to check out how the implosion actually happened - were the foreign signings overpriced, were there just too many of them, was the business management of the club poor, were there malicious actions detrimental to the club from the inside etc. I don't know how I would have felt back then if the club would have been doing obviously outrageous things, but the signings they made certainly didn't register anywhere near the top level of European clubs (think of the Milanese clubs, or the two top Spanish clubs). If you look on Chelsea's squad in the CWC winning year, the foreign "flair" would be represented by a 30 year old Uruguayan coming in from Zaragoza, a pacey Nigerian wingback from Anderlecht, a former Lazio midfielder (before Lazio become truly good) in his prime and, saved the best for last, two ageing Italian forwards, one coming at the club at 32 the other at 30. And there was a WC squad French player, but he was a centreback (tho some of his long balls were amazing, I wouldn't completely rule him out of a discussion about flair). So it wasn't Zidane, Shevchenko, Ronaldo etc in their prime.
Maybe there were outrageous things happening, I don't know but as I said in the previous post, if so then they didn't register from such a distance.
Chelsea were two days short of having to go into administration and were facing meltdown before Abramovich rode into town on his white horse.

While the signings that Chelsea had made were not, as you say, the biggest world superstars, the fees and wages paid for them were far in excess of what the club could afford. It continued and accumulated over an 8 year period - during which time, the club enjoyed its first ever sustained period of moderate success. And throughout that time, there was a veil of secrecy surrounding their accounts and ownership structure. There was a determined group of Chelsea fans at the time who persistently warned of what was happening and demanded that Ken Bates come clean. But he never did, of course. It was only when the creditors called time on the £150m debts that some Chelsea fans finally realised that the club had been living on borrowed time (and money).

Any other club which has been so badly mismanaged and gained such a competitive (on field) advantage by living far beyond its means has eventually paid the price and suffered years of subsequent hardship. But Chelsea got away with it, scot free. Incredibly lucky for them that, at that very moment, a dodgy Russian businessman was looking to divert much of his wealth from his homeland to the UK.

Quote:
I don't know if they insist on it themselves, but in this day when you can have sports journalists blabbing in your ear all day long (tv shows, podcasts etc) it will be impossible not to hear the London lifestyle (especially that in its fancier Western side) mentioned on a regular basis as an important reason for which players come or stay at certain clubs. Stuff like Shevchenko not moving back to Italy despite his move to Chelsea was a flop, because his wife didn't want to leave London; or Berbatov going to Fulham because of where it is (and some good cash), despite looking like a step back professionally and in terms of ambitions. These two clubs in particular seem to be associated with this notion, and I don't know if them residing in the area of London in which they reside is a coincidence or not.
Chelsea is indeed a good area, if players choose to live there. From what I understand, most choose to live near the training ground at Cobham - which is nowhere near Chelsea.

But there are equally desirable areas - Hampstead, Highgate - in north London for Spurs and Arsenal players (though they, too, most likely choose to live closer to their clubs' training grounds).
__________________

alexandru.mircea liked this post
JimB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 10:32 AM   #133
West12Rangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London
Posts: 235
Likes (Received): 41

QPR play "London Calling"...but that might be to do with the fact that Mick Jones was/is a QPR fan(apparently)
West12Rangers no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 10:34 AM   #134
West12Rangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London
Posts: 235
Likes (Received): 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Ah, yes, the path of which you speak is called the "spending-massively-beyond-your-means-on-player-transfers-and-wages-for-eight-years-and-consequently-earning-limited-success-but-finding-yourself-£150-million-in-debt-and-on-the-brink-of-going-into-administration-before-being-baled-out-at-the-eleventh-hour-by-a-Russian-"businessman"-who-needed-to-launder-a-large-proportion-of-his-wealth-in-the-relative-safe-haven-that-is-the-UK" path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post

Yes, that is certainly a different path to the normal one.
West12Rangers no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 12:44 PM   #135
mckeenan
Registered User
 
mckeenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Bilbao
Posts: 1,009
Likes (Received): 691

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Chelsea is indeed a good area, if players choose to live there. From what I understand, most choose to live near the training ground at Cobham - which is nowhere near Chelsea.

But there are equally desirable areas - Hampstead, Highgate - in north London for Spurs and Arsenal players (though they, too, most likely choose to live closer to their clubs' training grounds).
I find annoying that most players use to choose super posh exclusive manor-sowed complexes to settle in. I'm thinking in "manor parks" such as La Moraleja in Madrid (I don't know if it's the same case as in Cobham). If I were living in a city like London, and earning tons of money, I'll look for lively areas within the city. Xabi Alonso is one of the rare exceptions, he lives within Madrid historical center, a lively area with plenty of shops, bars, activities, sociallly ongoing... full of life, in other words.
mckeenan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 01:08 PM   #136
West12Rangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: London
Posts: 235
Likes (Received): 41

Quote:
Originally Posted by mckeenan View Post
I find annoying that most players use to choose super posh exclusive manor-sowed complexes to settle in. I'm thinking in "manor parks" such as La Moraleja in Madrid (I don't know if it's the same case as in Cobham). If I were living in a city like London, and earning tons of money, I'll look for lively areas within the city. Xabi Alonso is one of the rare exceptions, he lives within Madrid historical center, a lively area with plenty of shops, bars, activities, sociallly ongoing... full of life, in other words.
i think its just normal for players to live near training grounds,seeing as that's where they spend most of their time.Cobham is quite a distance away from the center of London,as travelling there(especially in the rush hour)can be a nightmare..i know from personal experience of travelling on the A3.(the main road that runs out towards Cobham)
There is a train station right next to Cobham,which runs into London,but modern players seem to have a reluctance to use public transport
West12Rangers no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2014, 11:15 PM   #137
alexandru.mircea
Ars longa, vita brevis
 
alexandru.mircea's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,246
Likes (Received): 11371

Saturday:



The view from the press area:



https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney
__________________
The Death of a Once Great City

Ranma Saotome, will101, mckeenan liked this post
alexandru.mircea no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2014, 07:52 PM   #138
will101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: silicon valley or Salem
Posts: 5,311
Likes (Received): 2496

Any plans for a new ground floating around?
will101 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2014, 11:08 PM   #139
RMB2007
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,034
Likes (Received): 22419

For some reason, the last three or four rows of seats in the upper tier of the Matthew Harding Stand are not in use tonight:



Health and safety officers must be shitting themselves seeing those Galatasaray fans standing on the edge of the second tier in the away end.
__________________

will101 liked this post
RMB2007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2014, 11:35 PM   #140
johnnycakes
Registered User
 
johnnycakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 122
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMB2007 View Post
For some reason, the last three or four rows of seats in the upper tier of the Matthew Harding Stand are not in use tonight:



Health and safety officers must be shitting themselves seeing those Galatasaray fans standing on the edge of the second tier in the away end.
They reduce the capacity of that stand for european games due to the number of TV trucks parked behind it.
johnnycakes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
london, stadiums

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Surat - Roads | Bridges | Flyovers India101 Surat 1243 May 19th, 2019 05:24 PM
KAOHSIUNG | World’s second-longest bridge : Taiwan’s Changhua-Kaohsiung Viaduct Taiwan Capital Bridges 0 September 15th, 2018 09:03 PM
World’s second-longest bridge : Taiwan’s Changhua-Kaohsiung Viaduct Taiwan Capital Projects & infrastructure / 工程和基礎設施 0 June 4th, 2018 03:46 PM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:48 AM.


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