HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #12741  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 1:47 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan View Post
Not only was I raised in West Philly, but I spend a lot of time in that area--especially since I still live nearby as a resident of Francisville. I think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with demanding better density and design standards from the PHA, an organization that has no business being a developer in many parts of the city. North Philly is historically dense and transit-oriented, and properties located close to transit (not just rail transit) should be built out at the maximum allowable density, especially since the PHA still has a years-long waiting list. That surface parking lot could be developed to provide additional units to prospective residents; instead, the PHA still believes that space for lifeless, inanimate cars is more important than space for humans to live.

This is also the huge problem I have with what stands where the Allen Homes used to be (although, back in the 90s, people believed that the area would never attain land values high enough to warrant new construction from the private market), new PHA housing in Cecil B. Moore/Templetown, and their taking of Sharswood.

If I were a Councilmember, I would ensure that the PHA would not be able to develop in my district, less they cut the suburban-style crap with a ton of parking from their plans. I would also try to free up as much land from City hands as possible, which is another huge problem that hinders the progress of this city.
The city has no control over PHA- I will restate it is a federally chartered agency that is primarily funded by HUD. In addition, what it builds and renovates is based on funding available. During the 90s they went on a development binge because there was ample grant money available and thats why several hi rise projects were leveled and replaced with rowhouse height developments. THey do not have the budget to build as many units as they want- hence the shortage you are speaking of. I looked at the CDR images- I dont see anything particularly cheap looking about the design- it easily could pass for a developer funded project. I also dont see single family suburban style housing in the render- are you looking at something else?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12742  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 3:05 PM
Larry King Larry King is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 913
I wish PHA wouldn't demolish the Fairhill apartment towers, how could demo and building new be more cost effective than rehabbing the apartments and replacing the elevator?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12743  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 3:54 PM
Insoluble Insoluble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndifferentiatEd View Post
I'm pretty sure if you ask any long time Philadelphian, and not a recent transplant/gentrifier, they'd agree with my sentiment. Maybe people say they don't care for the sake of appearances but nobody wants to live next to PHA housing if they have the choice. It negatively affects property values for surrounding homes, and it does increase litter and crime. That should be obvious, and there is a lot of research showing that programs like housing vouchers increase crime in their host neighborhoods.
Just because some long time Philadelphians believe something doesn't make it true. PHA housing does not increase litter and crime. You mention "a lot of research" without actually citing any. The PHA developments I'm familiar with don't seem to have any more crime or litter than other surrounding neighborhoods though. It may be that some lifelong residents have a serious dislike for them. But I'll bet you that there are WAY more long time residents that detest any development denser than a 3-story row home. I doubt that most of the folks on this forum would actually be happy if Philadelphia was developed based on what the majority of long term residents want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
Any intelligent person who has actually seen the projects developed in the 90s and 2000s would absolutely disagree. Have you seen the area around the former MLK development in South Philly?
This is one of the two that I live closest to, the other being the one on the south end of Queen Village. The irony is that both these developments have way less litter than the surrounding mid to high income neighborhoods. I check crime stats regularly and there doesn't seem to be a higher concentration of crime in these projects than in the neighborhoods to the east and west. That being said, Londonee has a point in that these developments do feel very out of tune with their surrounding neighborhoods due to how much space in them is dedicated to parking and to the strange way the layouts do not actually have housing fronting all streets. These projects are still much better than older pubic housing developments, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be improved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12744  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 5:39 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insoluble View Post
Just because some long time Philadelphians believe something doesn't make it true. PHA housing does not increase litter and crime. You mention "a lot of research" without actually citing any. The PHA developments I'm familiar with don't seem to have any more crime or litter than other surrounding neighborhoods though. It may be that some lifelong residents have a serious dislike for them. But I'll bet you that there are WAY more long time residents that detest any development denser than a 3-story row home. I doubt that most of the folks on this forum would actually be happy if Philadelphia was developed based on what the majority of long term residents want.



This is one of the two that I live closest to, the other being the one on the south end of Queen Village. The irony is that both these developments have way less litter than the surrounding mid to high income neighborhoods. I check crime stats regularly and there doesn't seem to be a higher concentration of crime in these projects than in the neighborhoods to the east and west. That being said, Londonee has a point in that these developments do feel very out of tune with their surrounding neighborhoods due to how much space in them is dedicated to parking and to the strange way the layouts do not actually have housing fronting all streets. These projects are still much better than older pubic housing developments, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be improved.
Yea I think the nonsense people are posting about increased crime and this and that is nothing more than... well let's not even start something and go there, but it is not a fact based argument.

Over a decade back I actually rented a place directly across from that Queen Village development. All of the places in that development were very well maintained, were always decorated for the holidays and graduations etc. Honestly across the street on my side of the block, which I think may have consisted entirely of rentals was in much worse shape aesthetically and in terms of litter. I think in general, whether you're talking about PHA homes or market rate development if the person living in the unit has some type of ownership stake, they're going to care for their home much better than a landlord just concerned with the bottom line. Money is a factor with maintenance of course, but I assure you, poor people can sweep a broom and trim a bush. You'd think stuff like this would be obvious to people, but it seems some people need to be reminded that just because someone qualifies for PHA housing, that doesn't mean they're some type of drug addled incompetent.

My criticism with these types of projects is strictly architecturally. In a city in which developers just can't help but build houses that all look the same, PHA always manages to stand out and not in a good way. There is nothing explicitly wrong with the houses, I'm not saying they're built poorly or they're ugly, but they always manage to make it abundantly clear that they're subsidized housing. You just look at it and know there is no way anyone would build a market rate home with so much parking and open space.

I just mentioned that the perception that these places are some type of public nuisance is unfounded. But perception really matters. A big reason why I rented that apartment out of college is because I was looking in the area, and I couldn't find anything else that was remotely as cheap. I'm sure there was no shortage of people who looked at that apartment and were scared off by the projects across the street.

I'm glad that PHA doesn't just follow the boring trends that market rate developers mostly follow these days, but I wish they fit in with their surroundings a bit more. I think the best case scenario for PHA housing is PHA housing where no one would even know it is PHA housing. They're come along way from the flat out suburban styled housing they once built, but I hope they continue to improve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12745  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 7:14 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry King View Post
I wish PHA wouldn't demolish the Fairhill apartment towers, how could demo and building new be more cost effective than rehabbing the apartments and replacing the elevator?
no one really wants to live in cramped mid or high rise projects- it generally hasn't worked out well nationally. Placing people in government funded housing that clearly sticks out like a sore thumb isolates the residents and makes it clear they are "different". PHA has been removing high rises for the last 25 years. I'd say in every single case the area has gotten better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12746  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 7:21 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
Yea I think the nonsense people are posting about increased crime and this and that is nothing more than... well let's not even start something and go there, but it is not a fact based argument.

Over a decade back I actually rented a place directly across from that Queen Village development. All of the places in that development were very well maintained, were always decorated for the holidays and graduations etc. Honestly across the street on my side of the block, which I think may have consisted entirely of rentals was in much worse shape aesthetically and in terms of litter. I think in general, whether you're talking about PHA homes or market rate development if the person living in the unit has some type of ownership stake, they're going to care for their home much better than a landlord just concerned with the bottom line. Money is a factor with maintenance of course, but I assure you, poor people can sweep a broom and trim a bush. You'd think stuff like this would be obvious to people, but it seems some people need to be reminded that just because someone qualifies for PHA housing, that doesn't mean they're some type of drug addled incompetent.

My criticism with these types of projects is strictly architecturally. In a city in which developers just can't help but build houses that all look the same, PHA always manages to stand out and not in a good way. There is nothing explicitly wrong with the houses, I'm not saying they're built poorly or they're ugly, but they always manage to make it abundantly clear that they're subsidized housing. You just look at it and know there is no way anyone would build a market rate home with so much parking and open space.

I just mentioned that the perception that these places are some type of public nuisance is unfounded. But perception really matters. A big reason why I rented that apartment out of college is because I was looking in the area, and I couldn't find anything else that was remotely as cheap. I'm sure there was no shortage of people who looked at that apartment and were scared off by the projects across the street.

I'm glad that PHA doesn't just follow the boring trends that market rate developers mostly follow these days, but I wish they fit in with their surroundings a bit more. I think the best case scenario for PHA housing is PHA housing where no one would even know it is PHA housing. They're come along way from the flat out suburban styled housing they once built, but I hope they continue to improve.
There is new housing in areas outside of the core of the city- the developments in places like Roxborough or Manayunk are not identical to what you get in South Philly. You will see things such as 1 or 2 car garages, front driveways, decently sized rear yards or shared rear driveways on these homes. Outside of CC and the adjacent older neighborhoods people EXPECT parking with their new home or apt. There was a big battle in Mt Airy over a proposed apt building and the limited parking planned in the original proposal. Even older apt buildings in the NW and NE parts of the city often come with ample parking. I think post brothers is building a multi-story garage for their conversion near 9th and Poplar. Not to mention the huge garage going up at 1300 Fairmount- only 10 blocks or so from the PHA site.

Check out the parking provided here by MM partners

https://philly.curbed.com/2019/8/30/...ject-the-civic
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12747  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 11:17 PM
Larry King Larry King is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
no one really wants to live in cramped mid or high rise projects- it generally hasn't worked out well nationally. Placing people in government funded housing that clearly sticks out like a sore thumb isolates the residents and makes it clear they are "different". PHA has been removing high rises for the last 25 years. I'd say in every single case the area has gotten better.
I guess so, I'm just personally a fan of high rises. Would rather see PHA sell them then demo, they're so hard to get built and they're not making any more of those mid-century era high rises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12748  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 12:44 AM
eixample eixample is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
no one really wants to live in cramped mid or high rise projects
You're right, that's why developers keep building them over and over and over again in Philadelphia.

I get your point that we have a bad history with high rise towers in the park public housing, but I don't think you can say the same thing about mid rises. Or if for some reason you can't have mid rises, just build dense rowhomes at the same density as the surrounding neighborhoods (ie if you absolutely have to have parking, do it with drive aisles and built in garages like other row home developments). No more surface parking. I don't get the concept that public housing has to be different than market rate housing. There is something vaguely patronizing about the idea that people in need of housing assistance can't live like their neighbors who don't need assistance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
You just look at it and know there is no way anyone would build a market rate home with so much parking and open space
I agree - for an example, take a look at the MLK homes replacement, which looks nice but could probably be twice as dense without all of the surface parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12749  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 12:44 AM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
There is new housing in areas outside of the core of the city- the developments in places like Roxborough or Manayunk are not identical to what you get in South Philly. You will see things such as 1 or 2 car garages, front driveways, decently sized rear yards or shared rear driveways on these homes. Outside of CC and the adjacent older neighborhoods people EXPECT parking with their new home or apt. There was a big battle in Mt Airy over a proposed apt building and the limited parking planned in the original proposal. Even older apt buildings in the NW and NE parts of the city often come with ample parking. I think post brothers is building a multi-story garage for their conversion near 9th and Poplar. Not to mention the huge garage going up at 1300 Fairmount- only 10 blocks or so from the PHA site.

Check out the parking provided here by MM partners

https://philly.curbed.com/2019/8/30/...ject-the-civic
We're not talking about outside the core. We're talking queen village. A suburban style development is just as out of place as a high rise, maybe more so.

It seems we agree that the best subsidized housing developments don't stick out and aren't readily apparent as a pha project. I think we just disagree on what stands out. What works well in mount airy won't work closer to the core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12750  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 1:12 AM
Urbanthusiat's Avatar
Urbanthusiat Urbanthusiat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: South Philly
Posts: 1,013
PHA has come a long way, but still needs to improve. The “tower in the park” concept of the urban renewal era was an absolute failure on all levels. Architecturally, PHA’s past projects have been lackluster, but Norris Square is a huge impzrovement. It’s a very visible location so I really hope they nail the execution. However I know that this project has been in the planning stages for quite a long time, and any decent developer would have had a project like this completed by now, which doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence. So I’m on the fence. Overall I think it’s a good project, but my expectations are low.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12751  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 12:21 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample View Post
You're right, that's why developers keep building them over and over and over again in Philadelphia.

I get your point that we have a bad history with high rise towers in the park public housing, but I don't think you can say the same thing about mid rises. Or if for some reason you can't have mid rises, just build dense rowhomes at the same density as the surrounding neighborhoods (ie if you absolutely have to have parking, do it with drive aisles and built in garages like other row home developments). No more surface parking. I don't get the concept that public housing has to be different than market rate housing. There is something vaguely patronizing about the idea that people in need of housing assistance can't live like their neighbors who don't need assistance.



I agree - for an example, take a look at the MLK homes replacement, which looks nice but could probably be twice as dense without all of the surface parking.
There is parking provided with private developments ALL OVER the city. Have you ever been outside of Center City? The 3 tower condo complex on the Delaware has a huge parking garage attached. THey are building one parking space for every 3 units in this PHA complex and folks are irate that there is "too much" parking being provided and poor people don't need or deserve parking because some well of people chose to live in parts of the city where parking is virtually non-existent. I don't follow the logic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12752  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 12:25 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanthusiat View Post
PHA has come a long way, but still needs to improve. The “tower in the park” concept of the urban renewal era was an absolute failure on all levels. Architecturally, PHA’s past projects have been lackluster, but Norris Square is a huge impzrovement. It’s a very visible location so I really hope they nail the execution. However I know that this project has been in the planning stages for quite a long time, and any decent developer would have had a project like this completed by now, which doesn’t inspire a ton of confidence. So I’m on the fence. Overall I think it’s a good project, but my expectations are low.
Do you really think its as simple as relating the timeline to PHA incompetence? First of all, TONS of marketrate developments a)don't start on time b) don't finish on time or c)stall after being announced with much fanfare. PHA is heavily dependent on grants and funding schemes that cobble together money from public and private sources. They can't just go out and get a construction loan for money losing ventures. I believe this project is related to a competitive grant the City got when Nutter was still in office- can't remember the amount but I think it was over $20m. Nothing comes quickly or easily when you are getting an infusion of federal money- they always have many strings attached- sometimes you need to find matching funding to get the federal money released.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12753  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 12:31 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
We're not talking about outside the core. We're talking queen village. A suburban style development is just as out of place as a high rise, maybe more so.

It seems we agree that the best subsidized housing developments don't stick out and aren't readily apparent as a pha project. I think we just disagree on what stands out. What works well in mount airy won't work closer to the core.
Southwark would not fit in in the suburbs- at all. Any structure with a parking spot isn't automatically "suburban". Do you realize half of the rowhomes in this city have off street parking? You woudn't mistake any of these homes for suburban dwellings (unless you consider Upper Darby the burbs). This narrow definition of "urban" is absurd. The arbiters of urban credibility have established there should be no place to put cars in a "real" urban neighborhood. Almost any part of Philadelphia built after the Depression (and in NW philly you can go back farther) has housing built to accommodate parking. Almost the entire NE features housing with rear drive aisles and off street parking. In fact, 40-50% of the rowhouses in this city don't have rear yards because developers decided to yield that space to concrete for driving and parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12754  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 12:57 PM
allovertown allovertown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
Southwark would not fit in in the suburbs- at all. Any structure with a parking spot isn't automatically "suburban". Do you realize half of the rowhomes in this city have off street parking? You woudn't mistake any of these homes for suburban dwellings (unless you consider Upper Darby the burbs). This narrow definition of "urban" is absurd. The arbiters of urban credibility have established there should be no place to put cars in a "real" urban neighborhood. Almost any part of Philadelphia built after the Depression (and in NW philly you can go back farther) has housing built to accommodate parking. Almost the entire NE features housing with rear drive aisles and off street parking. In fact, 40-50% of the rowhouses in this city don't have rear yards because developers decided to yield that space to concrete for driving and parking.
What I'm saying is simple: Pha developments should look like their neighbors. Not in terms of aesthetics, but they should be of similar scope. If the pha housing is being built in the northeast, then fine, whatever, parking spots for everyone. In and around the core though, where hardly anyone has off street parking, pha should similarly have very limited if any off street parking.

The Southwark pha development may not be at home in the suburbs, i honestly don't care about that. What i care about is that it is not at home just south of queen village where they built it. If you want to commend that development as sound urban design than let's just move on because I have no interest in debating something that is plainly obvious to anyone who looks at it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12755  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 3:59 PM
cardeza cardeza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
What I'm saying is simple: Pha developments should look like their neighbors. Not in terms of aesthetics, but they should be of similar scope. If the pha housing is being built in the northeast, then fine, whatever, parking spots for everyone. In and around the core though, where hardly anyone has off street parking, pha should similarly have very limited if any off street parking.

The Southwark pha development may not be at home in the suburbs, i honestly don't care about that. What i care about is that it is not at home just south of queen village where they built it. If you want to commend that development as sound urban design than let's just move on because I have no interest in debating something that is plainly obvious to anyone who looks at it.
1300 Fairmount is being built with a huge garage attached- that is CLOSER to the core than the PHA property with its 44 spots. If you look around the neighborhood where this is located (I see it every day) you will find a Temple parking garage, PHA built housing, vacant lots, temple hi-rises, standard rowhouses and mostly abandoned factory/commercial buildings. This is far from some in tact tightly, knit residential area packed to the gills with multifamily housing. The only seriously dense housing in this area is for temple students and PHA residents aside from the Paseo Verde project adjacent to the tracks. That property is surrounded by PGW office buildings (with a huge surface lot) and rowhouses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12756  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 4:32 PM
Raja Raja is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
1300 fairmount is being built with a huge garage attached- that is closer to the core than the pha property with its 44 spots. If you look around the neighborhood where this is located (i see it every day) you will find a temple parking garage, pha built housing, vacant lots, temple hi-rises, standard rowhouses and mostly abandoned factory/commercial buildings. This is far from some in tact tightly, knit residential area packed to the gills with multifamily housing. The only seriously dense housing in this area is for temple students and pha residents aside from the paseo verde project adjacent to the tracks. That property is surrounded by pgw office buildings (with a huge surface lot) and rowhouses.
1487???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12757  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 4:36 PM
ScreamShatter ScreamShatter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown View Post
What I'm saying is simple: Pha developments should look like their neighbors. Not in terms of aesthetics, but they should be of similar scope. If the pha housing is being built in the northeast, then fine, whatever, parking spots for everyone. In and around the core though, where hardly anyone has off street parking, pha should similarly have very limited if any off street parking.

The Southwark pha development may not be at home in the suburbs, i honestly don't care about that. What i care about is that it is not at home just south of queen village where they built it. If you want to commend that development as sound urban design than let's just move on because I have no interest in debating something that is plainly obvious to anyone who looks at it.
I wish the city had arranged for all this property to be sold to Temple. Giving Temple the entire area where all the PHA properties were, including the ones in front of the football practice field, would have helped reduce TUs expansion into the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12758  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 5:17 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fitler Square (via London)
Posts: 1,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeza View Post
1300 Fairmount is being built with a huge garage attached- that is CLOSER to the core than the PHA property with its 44 spots. If you look around the neighborhood where this is located (I see it every day) you will find a Temple parking garage, PHA built housing, vacant lots, temple hi-rises, standard rowhouses and mostly abandoned factory/commercial buildings. This is far from some in tact tightly, knit residential area packed to the gills with multifamily housing. The only seriously dense housing in this area is for temple students and PHA residents aside from the Paseo Verde project adjacent to the tracks. That property is surrounded by PGW office buildings (with a huge surface lot) and rowhouses.
FWIW, you're all over the place.

Allovertown's point is spot on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12759  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 10:17 PM
jsbrook jsbrook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Bala Cynwyd
Posts: 3,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raja View Post
1487???
Have been thinking the same thing. Too dogmatic and know-it-all despite being cocooned in a something limited, myopic bubble. Definitely not going to get a nuanced discussion on parking and good public policy in core and far from core neighborhoods here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12760  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 10:22 PM
Frontst17 Frontst17 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londonee View Post
FWIW, you're all over the place.

Allovertown's point is spot on.
It’s immensely more complex than his point. Your qualms are with the developers telling you what you should be paying for what you get. What’s the difference between PHA offering off street parking with 1500sqft and another developer offering off street parking with 1500sqft? The tax base? There’s complaints about it being too suburban but that’a apparently not the case because they pop up all over the city. There’s complaints about it not fitting in with the surrounding stock but now apparently it’s not about aesthetics. Is it that we should stick poor people in as densely a packed space as possible? Is it that people don’t deserve it because their housing is subsidized? I’m honestly not finding sound counterpoints that are NOT all over the place. There’s a lot of “Make Philly Great Again” going on here
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.