HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #13901  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 6:45 PM
le calmar's Avatar
le calmar le calmar is offline
613er
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,261
I would not consider those St.John's examples snout houses.

At least compared to something like this.

From certain angles all you can see is the freaking garage:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2354...7i13312!8i6656
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13902  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 6:50 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 33,526
This street in the east end Ottawa suburb of Orleans is particularly bad. The front door is actually *behind* the garage so you can't even see it from the street!

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4723...7i13312!8i6656
__________________
The end of the world ain't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13903  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 6:51 PM
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
With centenarian trees, this neighborhood would look even better. I'm with mistercorporate that it's fine even as is, though. People have cars, hence garages. This architecture is a product of its era.
Completely agree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13904  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 7:01 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by TownGuy View Post
Yep, 80s/90s subdivisions anyways.

Here is a newer suburban house for sale, and to my point, beautiful from the front but look at the backyard. I'd rather have the protruding garage at the front and larger backyard.



[/url]
Unless your house is nowhere near any green space, parks, or recreation areas I see no need for a large backyard. I'd rather your example where most urban planners will agree lead to healthier neighborhoods. It's also been show to make neighborhoods safer as people tend to get to know their neighbors more so then those who use the front of their house as a parking garage entrance.

The house you've shown looks almost perfect to me. I love the idea of a patio and no lawn to maintain in the back.

Last edited by TorontoDrew; Jun 18, 2018 at 7:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13905  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 7:35 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 33,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Unless your house is nowhere near any green space, parks, or recreation areas I see no need for a large backyard. I'd rather your example where most urban planners will agree lead to healthier neighborhoods. It's also been show to make neighborhoods safer as people tend to get to know their neighbors more so then those who use the front of their house as a parking garage entrance.

The house you've shown looks almost perfect to me. I love the idea of a patio and no lawn to maintain in the back.
I have some neighbours who are like this, and open/close the garage with the remote opener all the time and enter and exit the house only that way. Even on a bright sunny summer day.
__________________
The end of the world ain't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13906  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 7:49 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 25,972
My parents sit and socialize in theirs, mostly Dad. He plays ches and crib there with whichever neighbour happens to walk by. Shirtless, of course.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13907  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2018, 9:43 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 15,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Unless your house is nowhere near any green space, parks, or recreation areas I see no need for a large backyard. I'd rather your example where most urban planners will agree lead to healthier neighborhoods. It's also been show to make neighborhoods safer as people tend to get to know their neighbors more so then those who use the front of their house as a parking garage entrance.

The house you've shown looks almost perfect to me. I love the idea of a patio and no lawn to maintain in the back.
I agree.
__________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

https://clockzillakingoflaval.tumblr.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13908  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 2:39 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman23 View Post
Snout houses are the rule in North AMErica, not just Toronto. If they’re somehow less common in TB, it’s because less housing was built there in the last 30 years.
No, as a proportion of what was built in the past 30 years, there are still fewer of them here than in other places, because we have wider lots. Until recently, you couldn't get a building permit for lots smaller than 30 feet; recent changes to provincial law eliminated that and we've seen construction resume in the inner city and snout houses begin to appear more frequently in our suburbs, but the vast majority of houses built in this city from the mid 1980s to the early 2010s have detached garages in the back yard, on 30 to 50 foot wide lots, because that is what the city dictated/what the market wanted. Our newest subdivisions still have 50+ foot lots. Thunder Bay's suburban houses, built in the past few years, have side yards.

Our built form is different from Toronto's, it shouldn't be difficult or conflicting for you to accept that.
__________________
Toronto & HamiltonThunder Bayother photos | my geofiction | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13909  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 5:37 AM
Ontario1's Avatar
Ontario1 Ontario1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
No, as a proportion of what was built in the past 30 years, there are still fewer of them here than in other places, because we have wider lots. Until recently, you couldn't get a building permit for lots smaller than 30 feet; recent changes to provincial law eliminated that and we've seen construction resume in the inner city and snout houses begin to appear more frequently in our suburbs, but the vast majority of houses built in this city from the mid 1980s to the early 2010s have detached garages in the back yard, on 30 to 50 foot wide lots, because that is what the city dictated/what the market wanted. Our newest subdivisions still have 50+ foot lots. Thunder Bay's suburban houses, built in the past few years, have side yards.

Our built form is different from Toronto's, it shouldn't be difficult or conflicting for you to accept that.
The last time that I was in TB, in 2008, it was larger than it is now. How many new houses would they have built since then? http://www.chroniclejournal.com/news...156923416.html
__________________
ZAP
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13910  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 1:42 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Unless your house is nowhere near any green space, parks, or recreation areas I see no need for a large backyard. I'd rather your example where most urban planners will agree lead to healthier neighborhoods. It's also been show to make neighborhoods safer as people tend to get to know their neighbors more so then those who use the front of their house as a parking garage entrance.

The house you've shown looks almost perfect to me. I love the idea of a patio and no lawn to maintain in the back.
I'm with you - just a nice courtyard out back would be enough for me. That particular house seems to me like a reasonable way to deal with a fairly small, sloping lot. I'd certainly take faux Ontario Gothic Cottage over snout nose any day of the week!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13911  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 2:33 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is online now
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brockton Village, Toronto
Posts: 8,002
The house pictured looks like it has a decent sized enclosed patio - that kind of private space is ideal to me. We had a fairly large yard in Calgary growing up that I never used as a kid. You aren't allowed to actually walk on the grass of course, it will ruin it!
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13912  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 11:11 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Car-oriented Toronto
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by TownGuy View Post
Yep, 80s/90s subdivisions anyways.

Here is a newer suburban house for sale, and to my point, beautiful from the front but look at the backyard. I'd rather have the protruding garage at the front and larger backyard.



[/url]
I'm joining the chorus a little late here, but that is a really great house.

I like old Victorians as much as the next person, but I also want to be spoiled with the interior amenities that a new house comes with: large open concept kitchens, spacious bathrooms with a large vanity, a furnace and HVAC system that's still under warranty, etc. What I don't like about new houses is their ungainly ugliness - especially from the front, and the fact that they're marooned in car-dependent suburbs. That building, thankfully, has a nice human scale, puts the garage in the back and, knowing a town like Cobourg (or Port Hope?), you can probably walk downtown from there in half an hour. I like the walled-off back patio (which should be private), while the generous front porch looks neighbourly and inviting. I'd love to live there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13913  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 11:17 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
I'm joining the chorus a little late here, but that is a really great house.

I like old Victorians as much as the next person, but I also want to be spoiled with the interior amenities that a new house comes with: large open concept kitchens, spacious bathrooms with a large vanity, a furnace and HVAC system that's still under warranty, etc. What I don't like about new houses is their ungainly ugliness - especially from the front, and the fact that they're marooned in car-dependent suburbs. That building, thankfully, has a nice human scale, puts the garage in the back and, knowing a town like Cobourg (or Port Hope?), you can probably walk downtown from there in half an hour. I like the walled-off back patio (which should be private), while the generous front porch looks neighbourly and inviting. I'd love to live there.
A minor thing, but that front porch is my only quibble with that house. To me it should have been extended across the full front of the house or made into a smaller two pillar portico. Either would be more in keeping with that style of house, istm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13914  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 4:08 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,992
Yes it could have but as is it the size is actually big enough to be used by two chairs and a lounger. If anything it could be a bit deeper but because the house itself is quite small the scale of the porch they put on it is probably as big as it should be without making the house look silly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13915  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 11:27 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoDrew View Post
Yes it could have but as is it the size is actually big enough to be used by two chairs and a lounger. If anything it could be a bit deeper but because the house itself is quite small the scale of the porch they put on it is probably as big as it should be without making the house look silly.
A front porch extending across the full front of a (real) Ontario Gothic Cottage is not unusual.

This one is in Belleville:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13916  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2018, 4:08 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 15,604
The amount of seemingly normal people (some with young kids) that I have argued with on Facebook the last week about the child detention centres south of the border has shown me the ugliest side of humanity. The justifications, denials, conspiracy theories and victim blaming has been both breathtaking and depressing.
__________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

https://clockzillakingoflaval.tumblr.com

Last edited by O-tacular; Jun 23, 2018 at 7:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13917  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2018, 5:15 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Car-oriented Toronto
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post
The amount of seemingly normal people (some with young kids) that I have argued with on Facebook the last week about the child internment camps south of the border has shown me the ugliest side of humanity. The justifications, denials, conspiracy theories and victim blaming has been both breathtaking and depressing.
O-tac, I think you're a decent former who cares deeply about the injustices of the world, but I also think you have a tendency to look at problems as a Manichean struggle of good vs. evil, black (as in: darkness) vs. white. It's been a while since we've been presented with a tragedy that's so black and white, but when it happens, you can be assured that almost everybody regardless of political affiliation or upbringing will vehemently object to one side, and gravitate to the other. I still believe most people are decent and reasonable.

The last example of that that I remember vividly was the man who killed 9 black worshippers in Charleston. The black worshippers were completely 100% innocent, and the racist shooter was 100% guilty. Condemnation was swift and uncontroversial.

I think it's a tragedy that children are being ripped from their parents and put in cages, but I think that there's much more than pure evil at work.

For starters, illegal immigration is illegal and it is known that people who are caught crossing into the US illegally will be prosecuted for a criminal offence. It's criminal because our modern society - where we are all documented subjects, contributors and beneficiaries of a vast state apparatus from the moment we are born to the moment we die - cannot sustain the mass movement of millions of undocumented people. Weak states, or pre-modern societies can deal with that - no big deal if thousands of cattle herders migrate between the countries nominally known as Somalia and South Sudan (the herders may not be aware of this, even). But modern, "strong" states cannot. The collapse of East Germany and necessary unification with West Germany became a fait accompli once tens of thousands of East Germans were allowed to cross over. Had the two countries remained sovereign and independent, both would have likely collapsed under this pressure.

For these reasons, borders must be enforced. That's the first thing that makes this problem murky. It's not an issue of people quietly and peacefully living their lives as it was with civil rights or gay rights. There is some existential threat to us if this phenomenon continues, however small it might seem at this time.

Then there's the acknowledgment that maybe American border officials are in this position not because they're tyrants, but because they've never had to deal with a problem of this scope before. Historically, most illegal immigrants were adult men and women seeking better economic opportunities. We probably never heard of children being separated because, if it happened, it happened on a far smaller scale. If children were separated, they may have had the infrastructure to house them more humanely and the challenge of reuniting families after processing was probably considerably easier. Give the border agents this benefit of the doubt. They're not trained social workers. They're trained policemen who have historically apprehended adults. How would you cope with an exponential increase in the number of children under your care with no infrastructure or prior experience? Nobody has yet articulated a viable strategy for how to house and take care of these thousands of children of illegal immigrants. Having them stay with their parents in adult jail is not very humane, either.

And then there's the thorniness of the motives of the immigrants themselves. Why are they dragging their children with them across the entirety of Mexico? If you're a mother with children fleeing your San Salvador slum because your boyfriend's gang lost their turf and now you're
on the wrong side, wouldn't it suffice to maybe move to neighbouring Chiapas state, live in another shantytown, blend in linguistically and make 50 cents/hour rather than risk life and limb to travel another 3,000 km in the hopes of making $12/hr under the table in Los Angeles? Somewhere there's a fine line to cross where meeting the needs of survival moves into opportunism. And are we to believe that all these children are indeed the legitimate offspring of the people who choose to cross the border illegally? The world is a bad, venal place. I'm not saying this is true of even the majority of children, but the idea that Snakeheads may traffic in orphans to sell a "premium" package to would-be migrants who want to have a better success of crossing the border is not out of the realm of possibility.

It goes to say that the only people who we can confirm are victims in this whole tragedy are the children, themselves, who are too young to have agency over their parents' decisions and can't defend or protect themselves. Policymakers need to find a way to care for these children in humane ways immediately. Unfortunately, getting offended and yelling at Trump supporters is not policy, and won't actually help these children.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13918  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2018, 7:30 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 15,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
O-tac, I think you're a decent former who cares deeply about the injustices of the world, but I also think you have a tendency to look at problems as a Manichean struggle of good vs. evil, black (as in: darkness) vs. white. It's been a while since we've been presented with a tragedy that's so black and white, but when it happens, you can be assured that almost everybody regardless of political affiliation or upbringing will vehemently object to one side, and gravitate to the other. I still believe most people are decent and reasonable.

The last example of that that I remember vividly was the man who killed 9 black worshippers in Charleston. The black worshippers were completely 100% innocent, and the racist shooter was 100% guilty. Condemnation was swift and uncontroversial.

I think it's a tragedy that children are being ripped from their parents and put in cages, but I think that there's much more than pure evil at work.

For starters, illegal immigration is illegal and it is known that people who are caught crossing into the US illegally will be prosecuted for a criminal offence. It's criminal because our modern society - where we are all documented subjects, contributors and beneficiaries of a vast state apparatus from the moment we are born to the moment we die - cannot sustain the mass movement of millions of undocumented people. Weak states, or pre-modern societies can deal with that - no big deal if thousands of cattle herders migrate between the countries nominally known as Somalia and South Sudan (the herders may not be aware of this, even). But modern, "strong" states cannot. The collapse of East Germany and necessary unification with West Germany became a fait accompli once tens of thousands of East Germans were allowed to cross over. Had the two countries remained sovereign and independent, both would have likely collapsed under this pressure.

For these reasons, borders must be enforced. That's the first thing that makes this problem murky. It's not an issue of people quietly and peacefully living their lives as it was with civil rights or gay rights. There is some existential threat to us if this phenomenon continues, however small it might seem at this time.

Then there's the acknowledgment that maybe American border officials are in this position not because they're tyrants, but because they've never had to deal with a problem of this scope before. Historically, most illegal immigrants were adult men and women seeking better economic opportunities. We probably never heard of children being separated because, if it happened, it happened on a far smaller scale. If children were separated, they may have had the infrastructure to house them more humanely and the challenge of reuniting families after processing was probably considerably easier. Give the border agents this benefit of the doubt. They're not trained social workers. They're trained policemen who have historically apprehended adults. How would you cope with an exponential increase in the number of children under your care with no infrastructure or prior experience? Nobody has yet articulated a viable strategy for how to house and take care of these thousands of children of illegal immigrants. Having them stay with their parents in adult jail is not very humane, either.

And then there's the thorniness of the motives of the immigrants themselves. Why are they dragging their children with them across the entirety of Mexico? If you're a mother with children fleeing your San Salvador slum because your boyfriend's gang lost their turf and now you're
on the wrong side, wouldn't it suffice to maybe move to neighbouring Chiapas state, live in another shantytown, blend in linguistically and make 50 cents/hour rather than risk life and limb to travel another 3,000 km in the hopes of making $12/hr under the table in Los Angeles? Somewhere there's a fine line to cross where meeting the needs of survival moves into opportunism. And are we to believe that all these children are indeed the legitimate offspring of the people who choose to cross the border illegally? The world is a bad, venal place. I'm not saying this is true of even the majority of children, but the idea that Snakeheads may traffic in orphans to sell a "premium" package to would-be migrants who want to have a better success of crossing the border is not out of the realm of possibility.

It goes to say that the only people who we can confirm are victims in this whole tragedy are the children, themselves, who are too young to have agency over their parents' decisions and can't defend or protect themselves. Policymakers need to find a way to care for these children in humane ways immediately. Unfortunately, getting offended and yelling at Trump supporters is not policy, and won't actually help these children.
I don’t want to rehash all the arguments I had before so let’s get to brass tacks.

1) The policy to separate children from parents was enacted by Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration back in May.

2) There is clinical data showing that the trauma such separations can cause leads to irreparable brain damage in children.

3) Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor (like a parking ticket) and asylum seekers are perfectly within their rights under international law.

4) This entire thing was cravenly enacted by the Trump administration to play hardball politics to try and get funding for the wall. Furthermore the administration wants to change the laws so they can detain children indefinitely according to leaked documents.

So to summarize, this is inhumane, cruel, uses children as political pawns, leads to lifelong trauma for victims, is suspect under international law and is ultimately a racist atrocity in the same vein as the Japanese internment camps. I don’t care if immigration is a problem. This is not a solution. I mean they just detained a black french girl visiting her mother in Surrey for unknowingly crossing the border for 2 weeks! The U.S. is going insane.

We are watching some of the most shameful chapters of history repeat themselves in real time and people are justifying or denying it. It’s like a massive case of cognitive dissonance or something.
__________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

https://clockzillakingoflaval.tumblr.com

Last edited by O-tacular; Jun 23, 2018 at 8:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13919  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2018, 10:24 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Car-oriented Toronto
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post

1) The policy to separate children from parents was enacted by Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration back in May.

...

3) Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor (like a parking ticket) and asylum seekers are perfectly within their rights under international law.



So to summarize, this is...ultimately a racist atrocity in the same vein as the Japanese internment camps.

I mean they just detained a black french girl visiting her mother in Surrey for unknowingly crossing the border for 2 weeks!
Note: I'm selectively quoting you, because I don't take issue with anything else in your post.

Wrt 1, the policy was not to separate children from parents and house them in cages. The policy was to treat the misdemeanor of illegal entry as a prosecutable offence. Parents who are charged with a prosecutable offence are transferred to criminal custody and, obviously, their children who cannot be charged, are treated as unaccompanied minors and are separated from their parents.

Having the children housed in cages is heinous, and I'm hoping that that will be resolved swiftly, but the cages, per se, were not part of the official policy.

Wrt 2, asylum seekers have an international right...to declare themselves at a recognized port of entry. Obviously, if people would apply for asylum through the official diplomatic channels, or even present themselves as asylum seekers at a US border crossing, they won't be prosecuted for illegal entry. It's people who hop the fence and get caught who do.

Re the woman (not girl) from Surrey: At face value, it seems like the US border guards completely overreacted, and they probably did, but we don't really know the full story. Also, I know that crossing well, and you would have to be a complete idiot not to know that you've crossed over into the US. Here's the actual border. There's a small beach below the tracks beside a lineup of vehicles waiting to cross over to somewhere and the peace arch looming above you. Ignorance only goes so far when you're a 19 year old adult.

While the manner in which children are forcibly separated from their parents is horrible and will have lasting effects on the children, this moment in history cannot be equated to Japanese internment. Japanese interment involved stripping the property and incarcerating US and Canadian citizens solely on their racial background (i.e. on pseudo-scientific grounds).

The separation of children from parents who have been charged with a prosecutable offence is accepted practice in most Western countries. Now it happens to apply to children of parents caught illegally crossing the US border, because that has become a prosecutable offence.

Again, I must reiterate that I don't support Trump, I don't condone the manner in which ICE is housing and caring for these children, and I think that what is going on is appalling and will have tragic ramifications for these children, most of whom are too young to understand what is going on or to have had any say in their parents' actions.

Last edited by hipster duck; Jun 23, 2018 at 10:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13920  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 12:22 AM
Blader Blader is offline
Calgary Martindale
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Saskatoon-Toronto-Calgary
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post

The separation of children from parents who have been charged with a prosecutable offence is accepted practice in most Western countries. Now it happens to apply to children of parents caught illegally crossing the US border, because that has become a prosecutable offence.
That said:
They arrive at a legal point of entry and are turned away and told to return mañana (which could mean days). They are, on the Mexican side of the border, faced with organized crime and cartels further victimizing them. They're frightened, confused and with backs to the wall, choose to cross the border illegally. If the legal points of entry had adequate manpower they could be processed in a reasonable amount of time.

Is the slow processing at the border deliberate? I wonder. I don't know, but I beg the question.
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 > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:41 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.