HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2010, 12:11 AM
kickser kickser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 106
Well i think the best solution is to continue the way, that hearst did with its midtown tower. Keep the old structure and build towers ontop, if its feasible and doable. So you keep the street level feeling, add new towers, enhance the quality of the outside of the old structure and modernise an area. IMO this way you also have less nimbys against you....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2010, 4:09 AM
Ordo_'s Avatar
Ordo_ Ordo_ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffstuff129 View Post
It has to do with economics, there is no reason to waste money on ornaments, and very few companies are willing to do it.
Which is why I thinks New York's larger examples of modern architecture are mostly souless and pedantic.

The reason to spend money on high quality development? Its called architecture. And people pay more to live and work in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffstuff129 View Post
Agreed. Progressive people who want the city to develope will never agree with people who want the city to become a museum for them to fawn over when they come once every 5 years.
Sorry but this is strikes me as BS. Why can't you do both? Why should we destroy neighborhoods like Soho to make life for souless towers that are rented as 2 week summer homes for Europeans? Thats not progress...its development... and they don't always overlap. New York should protect its freaking unique architectural heritage. People LIVE in this museum. Am I the only person on this forum who actually lives on this island? It would suck if it was all 1,000 ft towers. It would be a dead CBD.

Does this mean that EVERYHTING needs to be preserved? No. I'm a big fan of adaptive reuse and facadectomy where appropriate. I'm pro-developement as long as its SMART development. Big towers ahve their uses, as to mid and low-rises. All of them together make a city...and they are the reason New York is an awesome place to LIVE, not just look at.

Should we develop central park because its profitable to do so? Hell no. Does that mean the entire city should be park? Hell no. I don't know why it is so hard for people to conceptualize a balance between the two.
__________________
"Postmodernism was literally the greatest joke ever played on architecture."

Last edited by Ordo_; Jun 11, 2010 at 5:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2010, 3:54 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/the-aging-apple

The aging apple
Older office stock, little commercial construction puts NYC behind global competitors when it comes to new office space




November 01, 2010
By Peter Kiefer


Quote:
With a rapidly aging pool of commercial towers, New York has fallen behind dozens of other international cities, which are adding state-of-the-art office space to their building stock at far faster rates than the Big Apple.

Just 2.6 million square feet of office space was under construction here as of the end of June, ranking Manhattan an abysmal 34th in a list of international cities producing new, modern commercial space, according to a review by Colliers International. That number only includes 1 World Trade Center, but if 4 World Trade Center, which is also under construction now, is factored in, the number jumps to 4.9 million square feet.

Still, according to Cassidy Turley, in 2009, just two office buildings were delivered in New York: One Bryant Park and 510 Madison. So far in 2010, 11 Times Square, the Goldman Sachs tower, 41 Cooper Square, and 400-404 First Avenue have all been finished, and 450 West 14th Street is expected to be completed by the end of the year. That means by year's end, 3.73 million square feet of space will have been delivered in Manhattan.

Yet even with that combined with the more than 10 million square feet planned to come online over the next five to 10 years at the World Trade Center site, New York City is still lagging behind many of its international counterparts.

Overall, the construction of new office towers, like all construction, has been depressed in New York. That reality has some observers worried about whether New York will be able to compete globally to attract international corporate tenants.

The reasons for the lack of commercial construction are varied. For starters, the economic downturn has put a freeze on credit and the brakes on construction. In addition, while lower than they were during the boom, land and construction costs remain relatively high compared to a number of other cities -- and political red tape and bureaucracy in the city are notoriously messy.

There are projects on the drawing board, but many of them don't have shovels in the ground yet. For example, the Related Companies, which has delayed its development plans for the Hudson Yards on Manhattan's Far West Side because of the downturn, is now beginning to consider some development projects there.

At The Real Deal's annual forum last month, company president Jeff Blau said the firm won't start new construction in New York for at least 18 months, but he said there has been a "tremendous amount of corporate interest," and Related is working with several potential commercial tenants who would look to take more than 1 million square feet of space.


At present, though, both New York and London -- which have been locked in a head-to-head struggle for the title of the world's "financial capital" -- must reckon with surging cities like Shanghai, Singapore, Moscow and Sao Paulo, among others. Those cities are leaving London and New York in the dust when it comes to adding new, state-of-the-art office supply. Technology may be making the world smaller, but these other emerging cities -- hungry for their share of the global economic pie -- are only getting bigger.

"I wouldn't call it alarming yet, but it is of great concern to me. I think we live on a larger playing field than we used to," said Vishaan Chakrabarti, the head of the Real Estate Development Program at Columbia University's School of Architecture. "What I see is a leapfrogging taking place [by other cities] in terms of new buildings."

Take Shanghai, which ranked at the top of Colliers' list with 37 million square feet of office space being constructed right now -- and what research manager Colin Bogar of Colliers calls a "never-ending stream of new construction over the coming years."

In Shanghai's Pudong District alone, the city will soon have the world's second-tallest tower -- the Shanghai Tower at 2,073 feet -- which is part of a trifecta of new office buildings being built. (The two others are the 88-story Jin Mao Tower and the 101-story Shanghai World Financial Center.) All three structures are incorporating the newest in sustainability technology, like rainwater recycling systems for heating and cooling and built-in wind turbines to create on-site power. Colliers believes the market will "adequately absorb the new supply" with an office vacancy rate of around 10 to 15 percent, Bogar said.


For its part, Moscow (which ranked second in terms of building, with about 30 million square feet under construction)[/color][/b] will have the City Palace Tower, a mixed-use development with 860,000 square feet of offices due for completion in summer 2011. Meanwhile, Dubai (ranked third, with 28 million square feet under construction) is currently developing the massive Business Bay complex, which by the end of this year will have 3.6 million square feet of additional space, 7 million by the end of 2011, and 11 million by the end of 2012, though that space will likely be hard to fill. Last month, Bloomberg News reported that the overall office vacancy rate in the emirate is 40 percent.

To be fair, unlike many of these other urban centers, Manhattan has already gone through several building booms over the past 80 years.

But New York's existing pool of office space, while extremely large and enviable by most standards, poses its own set of problems. Almost 90 percent of the 450 million square feet of existing Manhattan office space was built before 1970, according to the Real Estate Board of New York. That means 40 years of environmental, technological and engineering advances were not factored into the construction of a huge portion of New York's office buildings (with the exception of office retrofitting).

This comes at a time of heightened concerns about sustainability among multinational corporations. More and more Fortune 500 companies are imposing stricter criteria for the sustainability of their corporate headquarters, looking to boost their environmental bona fides and cut operating costs by occupying state-of-the-art, LEED-certified towers.

Last year, the Bloomberg Administration passed legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing government, commercial and residential buildings in New York. When the legislation passed, the mayor's office predicted 85 percent of the existing buildings will be in use in 2030 -- a clear indication that it expects much of the current stock of office towers will be retrofitted.

Margaret Castillo -- president-elect of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, and a leading proponent of retrofitting -- said New York's stock of Class A buildings are all designed well enough to be upgraded through a reexamination of their insulation, airflow, lighting, carbon dioxide monitoring and building controls. The problem, she said, is with Manhattan's Class B buildings.

Others, like Columbia's Chakrabarti, think building new towers might be more efficient.

"I do think that we have to consider a world further out where we ask what kind of zoning and tax policy do we need in place which would then make it more sensible to tear down a skyscraper and put up a new one," he said. "We can't stick our heads in the sand like ostriches."
__
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2010, 4:36 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,703
Keep the best of the old stock...at any price. Even if that means conversion to condos/lofts. Imagine living in the Flatiron bldg.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2011, 11:37 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/w...XHguVWaXvB7HiJ

A wake-up call to build a modern Manhattan

By STEVE CUOZZO
December 16, 2011

Quote:
The horrific death of Young & Rubicam executive Suzanne Hart in a jinxed elevator at 285 Madison Ave. raises a big question beyond the tragedy’s specific cause. Namely: What’s a great advertising agency, a name synonymous with “Madison Avenue,” doing at an antiquated 1925 property unsuited to modern commercial use?

The answer: Lots of companies in New York work out of creaky, obsolescent buildings put up more than 50 years ago. The biggest reason is the scarcity of newer ones — an imbalance that severely limits options for businesses wanting to move. If ever there was an argument for new commercial construction — despite whiners who venerate pre-World War II Manhattan — it’s the prevalence of lousy buildings like 285 Madison.

...Manhattan’s office stock, engine of the state’s economy, is woefully dated compared with other world capitals. Despite a handful of glamorous projects like One Bryant Park and One World Trade Center, very few new towers have been built here in recent decades — thanks to political and economic challenges that stunt development. Old brick towers look romantic in Berenice Abbott’s 1930s nighttime photos, but they’re near-useless for today’s financial firms and “creative” enterprises.

As real-estate company CBRE’s regional CEO, Mary Ann Tighe, first trumpeted, an astounding 65 percent of the island’s office buildings are at least 50 years old. Heavily concentrated in the Wall Street area and the West 30s and 40s, they’re cursed with awkward floor plates, small windows and infrastructure pitiably unsuited to the digital age.

Y&R...has occupied 285 Madison since 1926. Y&R long wanted out of there, and last month signed up for modern space at 3 Columbus Circle, where it will move in 2013. So why did Y&R stay so long? One big reason was the relative scarcity of affordable newer places to go. Recent vacancy rates of plus or minus 10 percent are misleading. Most available space is in older buildings; vacancies in more contemporary ones, even those built after 1960, are in the single digits.

No other world capital has anything like New York’s antique office stock. Shanghai’s business districts are mostly brand new. In London, an office market with barely half of Manhattan’s 400-odd million square feet, 57 million square feet in new buildings have come on line in the last 10 years, according to CBRE — versus under 10 million in Manhattan.

No wonder Tighe recently said that as she flew home from China, the sight of the Manhattan skyline made her think, “What a romantic 20th-century city.”
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2011, 6:44 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
http://www.observer.com/2011/12/what...s-the-problem/

What to Do With 285 Madison: Are Our Crumbling Office Buildings the Problem?


Could 3 Columbus be the answer? (NYC Architecture)



Should we tear down 285 Madison? (Property Shark)


By Matt Chaban
December 16, 2011

Quote:
The cause of the elevator accident at 285 Madison is still being investigated, and it looks like faulty maintenance may have been the cause. Not so for Post real estate sage Steve Cuozzo. He blames the city’s bureaucracy for saddling us with outdated building stock. It’s an intriguing argument, one the Cuozz drives home by pointing out that New York has only built 10 million square feet of office space in the past decade, compared to 57 million square feet in the equally august London.

A lot of that has been built in formerly industrial areas like Canary Wharf, not in the heart of old commercial districts, like Madison Avenue. That is why Hudson Yards is getting off the ground, along with the rest of the West Side. Bringing down construction costs and finding new places to build—perhaps Long Island City deserves another look, or LoLo should become a reality—is the key, not destroying the historic fabric of the city...where is Y&R moving? Into a building originally built in 1928. It might not look it anymore, but it only took a little bit of work to make it work. With Y&R moving out, why not do the same at 285 Madison?
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2011, 7:20 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,280
So.....

You know old buildings can be upgraded and perform very well as modern office buildings.

Just though I'd state the obvious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2011, 7:48 PM
donoteat donoteat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 67
Looking at that 3 Columbus project... how exactly does re-cladding affect the performance of the building? Surely it would have been adequate just to gut the interior and install whatever infrastructure is necessary for modern functional office space?

The fusion of the modernist cladding with the art deco shapes and masses just doesn't look right...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2011, 6:50 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
fak, i hate LEED....its so often used as justification for stupidity.....i'll move my office building from downtown to suburbs, but it will be LEED certified so it is all good...of course my 300 employees will all have to drive there now.

....i'll demolish a heritage building but its replacement will be LEED certified so its all good.

anybody ever heard of embodied energy?....the greenest building is one that isn't built....or re-built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2011, 1:52 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
I have no idea why in the world someone would want to intentionally remove any of NYC's GORGEOUS old timey building stock. I'm all for new stuff as well but not if it's the cause to getting rid of some beautiful buildings.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2011, 3:56 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh n’ at
Posts: 15,476
^
Exactly, so many American cities destroyed most of their old historic stock of buildings, its so important for NYC to preserve what it has left. There should be new buildings but they should be carefully integrated. The NYC Landmark Preservation Commission does an incredible job of preserving large swaths of the city.
__________________
There’s no greater abomination to mankind and nature than Ryan Home developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2011, 11:36 AM
Tyler Xyroadia's Avatar
Tyler Xyroadia Tyler Xyroadia is offline
Architect Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 161
The call to tear down even ONE Of the historical buildings, not just in NYC but ANYWHERE in the world makes ill to the stomach.

"Oh it's old, it's out of date! Wah! lets DESTROY It and build something new!"

Well excuse me but I would imagine the cost of renovating, re-wiering and installing new equipment is going to be just a WEE BIT less then the cost of building a whole new building FROM SCRATCH

I mean ye gods, we had this conversation in the 60's and 70's and look where THAT got us.

Penn Station anyone???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2011, 4:16 PM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,071
I fail to see why a poorly maintained elevator would justify a need to tear down older commercial buildings. If owners properly maintained their equipment (as they should have) this sort of accident never would have happened. It has nothing to do with the bones of the structure. I hope vapid developers don't heed this call to tear down historic New York.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2011, 8:57 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
How much new space would be added to Manhattan if all the definite proposals and u/c projects are done?
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 8:37 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...028027142.html

Big Midtown Rezoning Eyed
Skyline Could Change Under Plan Being Mulled to Spur Investment Around Grand Central Terminal.


By ELIOT BROWN
Jan 14, 2012

Quote:

New York City officials are weighing an ambitious plan aimed at remaking a large swath of the Midtown skyline by encouraging building owners to demolish aging structures and replace them with new office towers, according to people familiar with the matter.

The plan, still being hashed out internally, would likely involve a major rezoning of arteries such as Park and Madison avenues, the people said. The new regulations would allow owners to erect larger, modern towers in what officials hope would be an incentive to knock down buildings that no longer draw A-list tenants.

...Privately, city officials have said they expect to complete a study of eastern Midtown—running between about East 40th and 57th streets and Fifth and Third avenues—by the spring, according to people briefed on the plan. Should the city go ahead with the concept, officials intend to bring it before the City Council for approval before the end of Mr. Bloomberg's term next year.

The effort, being directed by Deputy Mayor Robert Steel, comes as the Bloomberg administration is concerned about the city's aging stock of office buildings. Rising costs and a scarcity of development sites have limited construction since the 1980s.

According to real estate brokerage CBRE Group Inc., 71% of large office buildings in Manhattan are more than 50 years old. And developers claim that's made it hard to attract companies that want modern touches such as higher ceilings, more natural light and more efficient energy use.

City officials and real estate executives have worried for years that other major urban centers—including London and Singapore—could vault ahead in their office offerings.

The concept was born out of a pitch made to the city in mid-2011 by the Real Estate Board of New York, which argued for a more limited rezoning plan that wouldn't have added additional office space.

City officials came back showing interest in a more elaborate version that could build up the area, people familiar with the matter said.

Since then, the real-estate board, which represents developers and other real estate executives, has pushed the plan behind the scenes, pointing out that the area north of Grand Central is particularly concentrated with older buildings.

Steven Roth, chairman of developer Vornado Realty Trust, has called for the city to dramatically increase the size of buildings allowed on Park Avenue.

...if the plan goes ahead, it would mark the third modern office district the city is fostering at the same time. The city already has directed billions of dollars of investment in building up two other parts of Manhattan—the area around the World Trade Center site and the far West Side of Manhattan—which could potentially compete for the same tenants. Real-estate executives respond by saying that a rezoned Midtown would likely develop gradually, and wouldn't be a significant competitor to those other districts.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2012, 9:01 PM
Tyler Xyroadia's Avatar
Tyler Xyroadia Tyler Xyroadia is offline
Architect Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 161
If that plan goes through...

It will be another Holocaust unparalleled since what we were forced to endure in the 60's and 70's.

Everything they are talking about.
More space, better energy use, more lights...

it can all be done be investing in the existing structures. The thought that you would have to level a treasure like any of the longs in that area of Manhattan makes me physically ill.

You can't tell me that it is ONLY older buildings standing in their way either. I am sure there are plenty of atrocities built in the past 20 years we could sweep aside if they are in that dire need of space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 3:41 AM
skyhigh07 skyhigh07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...028027142.html

Big Midtown Rezoning Eyed
Skyline Could Change Under Plan Being Mulled to Spur Investment Around Grand Central Terminal.


By ELIOT BROWN
Jan 14, 2012
I dont think preservationalists will particularly alarmed by this, considering that most office buildings north of grand central are mid rise, mid twentieth century, glass/steel eyesores. Besides, most of the prewar structures along Park ave have been landmarked and will most likely be imune to demolition.

Last edited by skyhigh07; Jan 15, 2012 at 4:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 4:47 AM
Eidolon's Avatar
Eidolon Eidolon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia View Post
If that plan goes through...
It will be another Holocaust unparalleled since what we were forced to endure in the 60's and 70's.
Nearly everything of value has been landmarked or will be soon, and it will mostly be obsolete, dull, post-war boxes going down. If some pre-war stuff gets taken down with the rest, I won't mourn because we will get plenty of nice new towers to replace them.

Last edited by Eidolon; Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 10:15 AM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
What has been unspoken is the vacancy rate in many of these older buildings is already alarmingly high. They are just not very desirable for most businesses.

The company I work for looked at a building built in 1949 that was absolutely incredible, since most of the internal solid oak fixtures on the floor were original and had been meticulously refinished in the 90's by the previous tenant, a top shelf law firm. It however took the IT Manager about half an hour to eliminate it since there was no practical way to bring fibre or PRI telephone lines to the floor, the floor load limit was also too low to accommodate the server racks.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2012, 12:36 PM
Tyler Xyroadia's Avatar
Tyler Xyroadia Tyler Xyroadia is offline
Architect Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eidolon View Post
Nearly everything of value has been landmarked or will be soon, and it will mostly be obsolete, dull, post-war boxes going down. If some pre-war stuff gets taken down with the rest, I won't mourn because we will get plenty of nice new towers to replace them.
That is, Somewhat heartening to hear.

I will admit, for obvious reasons, my knowledge of post war buildings is far from comprehensive, so I am not fully aware of what is considered in that area aside from the historical buildings.

If most of the buildings considered are post war Big Boring Boxes then I shall hardly shed a tear to see them go to be replaced by something modern. While I have little faith in modern architects, they have at least the chance to build something better then the Big Boring Boxes of the 60's and 70's.

I think my big fear is that, 'some day," something already listed as historical could have it's status revoaked and be plowed under.
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 > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.