HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 30, 2018, 11:28 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
Thanks Jono, I appreciate your optimism. I would truly like to see this happen, but I'm not sure how to get politicians onside. If the 'friends of' type groups would demand better quality buildings rather than 'no buildings' there might be sufficient political pressure to improve the standards (or create standards). It would require a very persuasive person with a very convincing argument to ever make this happen, though (IMHO).

What is "better quality"? Some would want red-brick faux-Victorians. Some would say all precast should be banned when in some cases it is perfectly appropriate and better than many alternatives. Do we wish to mandate materials and finishes so expensive that it will act as a barrier to development like we had all though the '90s? One person's attractive building is another's eyesore. Be very careful calling for things like this. Ultimately it is the market that determines whether a building is a success or a failure.

Last edited by Keith P.; May 30, 2018 at 6:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 30, 2018, 3:46 PM
Jonovision's Avatar
Jonovision Jonovision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,742
The Centre Plan will encompass this area, but this is pre centre plan so unfortunately the design controls will not be in place on this one. My understanding as of now is that Centre Plan will use DRC in an advisory role for the Centre Plan area. So it will not have the approval power it has downtown, but will act similar to the planning advisory committee. Which, on a side note I read was doing some really great work when reviewing some of the other pre centre plan work (article in that place that we are not allowed to talk about) so that gives me hope.

And to talk to Keith's point, I think you can mandate some material qualities and some simple urban design guidelines that can create better design that everyone can appreciate. The Downtown Design Manuel does this to an extent already, but it all comes down to enforcement on all levels. Staff have to enforce it, the DRC (or approval body) have to enforce it and then even the public can play a role. If a member of the public sees a building has been built in a way that as not approved they can contact 311 or staff and open a file for them to investigate. I currently have one open on The Maple because the columns on the podium were not clad in the approved brick.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 30, 2018, 9:56 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
What is "better quality"? Some would want red-brick faux-Victorians. Some would say all precast should be banned when in some cases it is perfectly appropriate and better than many alternatives. Do we wish to mandate materials and finishes so expensive that it will act as a barrier to development like we had all though the '90s? One person's attractive building is another's eyesore. Be very careful calling for things like this. Ultimately it is the market that determines whether a building is a success or a failure.
It's this very quandary that prompted my original post on the subject.

I think there are extremes that are obvious, like vinyl siding on the low end and polished granite on the high, for example. It's a no-brainer to say vinyl siding is a low-quality exterior finish for a new condo building downtown, and probably 99% of people would agree. But where do you draw the line?

In my opinion, the finish on many new buildings using multi-coloured panels has a poor appearance, and I don't like it, but maybe you love it - who decides which is right?

To Jono's point, though, there has to be a set of standards that are agreed to be reasonable, and that are enforceable.

While it's an interesting discussion point, I try not to involve myself in worrying about other peoples' property, so while I would like to see high quality finishes on most buildings to enjoy their attractiveness, in the end it's not all that big of a deal, which is why I've resigned myself (and perhaps have become defeatist) to accepting whatever the people spending the money and making the rules decide to put up. If it falls apart in 20 years they can put up something else. Won't matter to me as long as it's not my money being spent on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2018, 7:15 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,227
An article about this proposal going to the local PAC: https://www.thestar.com/halifax/2018...f-the-top.html

Impossible to know if the article is capturing the gist of what the committee members said or picking out specific themes, but the focus on height is unfortunate. I also dislike how some people involved in the planning process seem to think that they are doing market planning, trying to match demand to supply through picking the right number of units to approve. They will not do a better job of this than the city's vibrant housing market will. The job of planners is to manage coordination issues that developers will not, e.g. make sure the public services needed for a development can be provided and make sure a development doesn't have an outsized negative impact on neighbours.

The height focus is annoying because the choice of 26 vs 20 storeys is arbitrary and unimportant. Of course nobody mentioned or was quoted mentioning that this proposal looks like it's from 2002, and there was no talk of materials, quality, or urban design. Planning is not only about height and density.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 1:17 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,906
Meanwhile those two paragons of progress and growth, Peggy Cameron and Howard Epstein, weigh in.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/new...unters-245035/

Quote:
“Over 50 per cent of the buildings (in that area) are heritage protected,” said Peggy Cameron, co-chairwoman of the Friends of Halifax Common. “Another 11 have been identified as potential, or what would qualify as, heritage buildings. The city has never worked on that request, they’ve only worked on what the developers want.”

...

“Most of the comments at the committee meeting were around the mapping, the density that would be added to the neighbourhood,” said Coun. Lindell Smith, who represents Halifax Peninsula North on regional council and sits on both the planning advisory committee and the Halifax and west community council.

Smith said the block is a prime corner but said the question arises about too much density, especially with a Drexel Developments project slated for the same block. That proposal for the Spring Garden Road side consists of two towers of 30 and 16 storeys with 250 residential units and 60,000 square feet of office space and 21,000 square feet of ground floor retail space. In August, the peninsula planning committee recommended that the Halifax and west community council approve the development with lowered tower heights of 16 to 20 storeys to conform to the municipal Centre Plan, still in its own development stage.

The Robie, College and Carlton application would require amendments to the municipal planning strategy and land-use bylaw. The applicant has proposed substantial alterations to three registered municipal heritage properties, including moving two of them, one from 5969 College St., to a nearby College location in the near yards of two other municipal heritage properties.

Proposed alterations to heritage properties upset Cameron, who says requests in 2012 and 2016 from her group to establish an area conservation district in that area have been ignored by the city.

Cameron said that Howard Epstein, a former city councillor and former MLA, sent a letter to Mayor Mike Savage in August inquiring about the requests for a conservation district but received no reply.

“Proposals for the towers shouldn’t be proceeding until those requests are considered,” Cameron said. “All of this evidence that this is an historic neighbourhood and it should be a heritage conservation district has been ignored because a couple of developers have been playing monopoly on the block and they are going to spend a lot of money to be able to railroad through all the rules. That’s the only reason that block has ever been considered as a targeted growth area under the Centre Plan is that two developers want to do developments there. It hasn’t got anything to do with demonstrated need or even capacity.”

Cameron said an already approved 18-storey highrise to be developed by Killam Properties next to the Camp Hill Cemetery on Carlton Street will satisfy the bulk of HRM’s growth target of 400 additional residents for the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 1:50 PM
mleblanc mleblanc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 142
Ah yes, the parking lot and student slum conservation area must be protected at all costs. Our city will be a cultureless pit without them!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 1:52 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,538
The concern about heritage properties is a valid one, though it's been observed before that 'heritage protection' doesn't really protect anything, so even if she got what she was asking for it wouldn't mean that the buildings were safe from being torn down.

However, I don't believe that the density argument is valid. More density will not hurt the area - the opposite is true, I believe.

IMHO, these are mutually exclusive arguments, and they should both be able to be addressed. More height could be added to the towers to achieve density with a smaller footprint, and thus allow for preservation of the heritage properties.

Interestingly, they are both huge developments - collectively taking up most of the block in question - but the renderings of each one show the existing buildings in place (as would be expected). We don't really have an accurate rendition of what that area will be with both developments in place, and I think that leaves people lacking how significant the total change will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2019, 12:53 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,906
To what should be nobody's surprise, Peggy Cameron and co. return, this time with a new label for their anti-development group:

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...-group-274789/

Quote:
A Halifax citizens group doesn’t like the way two development proposals for the west end of Spring Garden Road are being presented.

“It’s a very dishonest process because no one has been able to see these buildings together,” said Peggy Cameron of the Development Options Halifax group.

The two proposed projects would create a combined four towers. Kassner Goodspeed Architects has applied to develop a 0.6-hectare lot at Robie, College and Carlton streets, to build separate towers of 26 and 20 storeys. The building, providing 400 residential units and 32,000 square feet of commercial space, would require the relocation of a registered heritage building at 5969 College St.

Dexel Developments wants to develop an adjacent half-hectare lot, providing 250 residential units, 60,000 square feet of office space and 21,000 square feet of commercial space. That development would feature two towers of 30 and 16 storeys.

Cameron said both projects are large, with a combined footprint that is more than three-quarters the size of Nova Centre. The proposed towers would abut the western edge of Carlton Street, a unique designated heritage streetscape recognized by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, she said.

“People know they are large but they haven’t been able to understand how large they are because there have been invididual meetings for each proposal but never anything that looked at them together.”

Separate public meetings were held a week apart this spring to discuss the two projects.

“Clearly, staff have acknowledged that the two are happening adjacent to each other and included that information in the public meetings,” said Waye Mason, municipal councillor for the area.

Staff presentations at the June 4 and 11 public meetings did provide slides that introduced the projects that were proposed for adjacent lots.

This weekend, Cameron and her group will display renderings of the adjacent developments created by Dalhousie University architecture students Hadrian Laing and Sara Haroun at the Glitter Bean Cafe on Spring Garden Road, across the road from the proposed developments.

“We are reimagining what this development could look like, providing alternatives,” Laing said Thursday.

Laing said a three-dimensional model that is in the works will allow stakeholders to view the proposed projects from different angles and to easily interpret what it will look like.

Laing, who lives in the area, said he would have expected the city or the developers to have already provided a rendering or model of what the streetscape would look like with both projects.

“We were shocked,” Laing said. “To go and look at the traffic assessments that have been done, the wind assessments, the sun assessments but for each building individually, it doesn’t make a lot of sense and it won’t result in an informed decision for the community.”

Laing said for stakeholders to make informed decisions, all proposed developments ought to be included in a model.

“That’s what we really are focused on,” he said. “What would the streetscape look like if all the developments were approved. That’s something we can literally render for people to see.”

Cameron said the public should see the whole picture in context, not just half of it.

“This is the kind of presetanation that should be going on at every public consultation where the people get to see what the actual outcome is going to be,” she said. “This is a game-changer. These two proposals together are ... almost 80 per cent of the square footage of the Nova Centre. So they are massive, unprecendented in this area. Everything in the neighbourhood is at risk from density creep to outright speculation by developers who are playing monopoly all over the city.”

Cameron said it’s time city planners start looking at the facts.

“There is statistical evidence that smaller, older, mixed-used neighbourhood areas are significantly higher in their returns for economics, jobs, for locally owned businesses, for diversity, for women-owned businesses, for affordability and for density,” she said. “They can be up to 40 per cent higher in density than new developments.”

Citing the Older, Smaller, Better report from an American research team that evaluated several U.S. cities in 2014, Cameron said the smaller and older neighbourhoods are where young people want to live.

The two proposals would require the demolition of a dozen buildings, mostly small-scale businesses like restaurants and hairdressing shops and small residential buildings along Spring Garden, Cameron said.

Cameron said the development proposals will go to the Heritage Advisory Committee, which offers regional council guidance on heritage buildings and streetscapes. From there, the proposals would go to community council, and if approved at that level, they would likely move on to a public hearing and regional council deliberation.
Perhaps Peggy is reusing the red "Godzilla" rendering that the Save the View bunch used to try to torpedo the Nova Center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2019, 5:26 PM
macgregor macgregor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
To what should be nobody's surprise, Peggy Cameron and co. return, this time with a new label for their anti-development group:

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...-group-274789/



Perhaps Peggy is reusing the red "Godzilla" rendering that the Save the View bunch used to try to torpedo the Nova Center.
Development Options Halifax?

DOH!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2019, 4:53 PM
Querce Querce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 40
Quote:
with a combined footprint that is more than three-quarters the size of Nova Centre.
just like to point out that this means it has the footprint of the average Sobeys or Superstore parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2019, 10:39 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
The concern about heritage properties is a valid one, though it's been observed before that 'heritage protection' doesn't really protect anything, so even if she got what she was asking for it wouldn't mean that the buildings were safe from being torn down.
It's valid to question why a relatively vibrant and historic area is being torn down for redevelopment when there are so many underused sites around. I don't think that is something individual developers can fix though, or that development of the city should be put on hold. That would just push more development out to the suburbs and put more strain on infrastructure.

I don't agree that this is a pair of enormous developments that should be considered out of scale for the city. The city is growing rapidly now and most land is off limits for redevelopment. Halifax can't grow by 8,000-10,000 people per year AND have stable inner-city neighbourhoods with at most tiny boutique developments AND have affordable housing AND limit suburban sprawl. Something has to give, and the best and most feasible option right now is to allow taller buildings. The expanded tax base that these buildings bring in can be used to pay for things like affordable housing and heritage preservation.

Folks like Peggy Cameron tend to argue against whatever they don't like without talking about the (bad) trade-offs. That comment about old mixed-use areas being "up to 40% denser" is BS. This debate is about a particular block and these developments will create far more residential units than what exists there now. That's part of the reason why these buildings are triggering NIMBYism.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2019, 12:32 AM
Acadie_1755's Avatar
Acadie_1755 Acadie_1755 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 16
This Jane Jacobs wannabe doesn't seem to have the welfare of the community or local economy in mind, unlike her inspiration. She consulted a single study that didn't even evaluate Canadian cities. Both buildings aren't being shown at once because they are presented by different groups. I don't see Cameron talking about real planning issues like the gentrification of the north end. I suppose folk who don't live in Victorian homes aren't on her mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2019, 1:59 AM
sk8tr sk8tr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 25
I work in the Tupper Building and frequent the neighbourhood businesses. Like most such developments, I don't care how tall the buildings are, but I really hope that good urban design elements are there at street level, and that quality materials are used. Based on past performance, I have more confidence in Dexel than Kassner-Goodspeed. We'll see.
Most of my students (and employees) live in the Barrington South neighbourhood or near Quinpool Road, and very few live in the mid-rises and high-rises that line Spring Garden Road. I suspect, once this block is built out, that more Dalhousie students and staff will choose to live where they study and work, respectively.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2019, 3:03 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
It's valid to question why a relatively vibrant and historic area is being torn down for redevelopment when there are so many underused sites around. I don't think that is something individual developers can fix though, or that development of the city should be put on hold. That would just push more development out to the suburbs and put more strain on infrastructure.

I don't agree that this is a pair of enormous developments that should be considered out of scale for the city. The city is growing rapidly now and most land is off limits for redevelopment. Halifax can't grow by 8,000-10,000 people per year AND have stable inner-city neighbourhoods with at most tiny boutique developments AND have affordable housing AND limit suburban sprawl. Something has to give, and the best and most feasible option right now is to allow taller buildings. The expanded tax base that these buildings bring in can be used to pay for things like affordable housing and heritage preservation.

Folks like Peggy Cameron tend to argue against whatever they don't like without talking about the (bad) trade-offs. That comment about old mixed-use areas being "up to 40% denser" is BS. This debate is about a particular block and these developments will create far more residential units than what exists there now. That's part of the reason why these buildings are triggering NIMBYism.
I've actually spoken to Cameron about issues like this, and she likes to cite the Stantec report from 2012 on population growth and peninsula development to argue that larger buildings aren't needed. That was a dodgy argument back then, but the city's recent population growth, and the much larger proportion of it that's begun accruing to the regional centre, has shot way up, pretty much invalidating the assumptions of the Stantec report.

She basically doesn't have a good answer as to how to accommodate the city's growth, just a lot of not-very-apt comparisons to other cities with denser historic development. I have no problem with her criticizing the current development paradigm, but if she can't propose feasible alternatives, I don't know what to say. She basically insists on mostly stable residential areas (she does seem fine with infill to some degree, and in-law suites, etc) but no significant change in building stock. And then she's advocated dor a six-storey maximum everywhere else. It's just not enough to house people.

Specific to this site, the argument that older neighbourhoods are denser doesn't hold here. This development will replace one very crappy 1980s-looking mid-rise apartment building, a fairly mediocre 1930s-looking building, and four historic houses. Of the four houses on the site, two will be preserved in-situ and one will be moved, so we'll end up losing only one historic house (the one right at the corner. The development proposal makes it sound as if this will be moved too, but I can't see it on the site plan or renderings.)

I actually think it's a great house, and would like to see it retained and restored. But ultimately, to build this entire project, we'll lose exactly one single good building. It seems like a pretty good heritage trade-off.

I've said it before, but my beef with this development has nothing to do with scale (this area is the most appropriate in the city for it) or heritage issues, but the ugly brown mish-mash of the towers. Especially contrasted with what's going up immediately to the north, it's pretty hideous. I'm hoping for a redesign, but not a scale-down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2019, 5:31 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
I actually think it's a great house, and would like to see it retained and restored. But ultimately, to build this entire project, we'll lose exactly one single good building. It seems like a pretty good heritage trade-off.
With a bit more coordination it might be possible to have more Morris House type projects in Halifax. The city is full of house-sized holes, particularly in the North End. HRM could maintain a list of potential host sites, give out some tax breaks to those property owners (e.g. you don't pay more tax if you replace your empty lot with a house; partly this just makes up for broken property tax incentives), and then get developers to pay the moving and restoration costs in exchange for their density bonus.

This is the kind of approach that is not economical with 6 storey infill projects but is very economical with 400 unit highrise redevelopments. It is something groups like the Heritage Trust can love, and even Peggy Cameron would probably be OK with these houses ending up in a stable residential area. It provides a path for Halifax to densify without losing as much heritage.

Example empty lot:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6562...7i16384!8i8192

What used to be there?


Source


The city also needs to get more serious about encouraging landlords to keep heritage buildings in good condition. This is another "bigger, growing city" adjustment. Some of these properties are worth millions and are huge cash cows whether they are developed or not. And they are valuable because of the quality of the environment they are in. It's not unreasonable to expect landlords to keep up with their neighbourhood.

This should not be acceptable:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6407...7i13312!8i6656

This ties in with the point about moving houses because landlords tend to neglect buildings for years and then conveniently argue that they are tear-downs.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2019, 5:50 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post

Example empty lot:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6562...7i16384!8i8192

What used to be there?



This should not be acceptable:

Several of the buildings are described in the Schmidtville Heritage District report. They look awful with crappy bland siding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2019, 5:58 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
It is something groups like the Heritage Trust can love, and even Peggy Cameron would probably be OK with these houses ending up in a stable residential area. It provides a path for Halifax to densify without losing as much heritage.
Unfortunately, I get the sense that Cameron et. al. are much less interested in heritage and more concerned with scale. Larry Haiven has even commented that the Schmidtville heritage district more of a hook to hang the bigger project on--i.e., the HCD is mostly about dictating the parameters of future development, less about saving old buildings.

So when these people make statements like "This massive new development is going up just adjacent to the Carleton heritage streetscape," a lot of us are like, "So? It's not destroying the streetscape, it's just nearby." Whereas to them, the adjacency itself is the problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2019, 7:04 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The city also needs to get more serious about encouraging landlords to keep heritage buildings in good condition. This is another "bigger, growing city" adjustment. Some of these properties are worth millions and are huge cash cows whether they are developed or not. And they are valuable because of the quality of the environment they are in. It's not unreasonable to expect landlords to keep up with their neighbourhood.
The problem of course is that many of those big Victorians were converted to rental apartments/rooms decades ago and are in very poor repair with most of their interior detail stripped out. There is very little left to save except the exterior shell.

Those large Victorians that used to be next to Hope Cottage were probably victims of the development of Uniacke Square across the street and the resultant descent of the district.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2019, 7:02 PM
JET JET is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,651
Those buildings next to Hope Cottage were there not that long ago.

It's a fair argument that the public should get to see what the Robie/Carlton block proposals would look like together, I have tried to imagine that myself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2019, 7:46 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by JET View Post
It's a fair argument that the public should get to see what the Robie/Carlton block proposals would look like together, I have tried to imagine that myself.
It would be nice if the city created some of these for upcoming developments, not just abstract planning exercises. It is technically easy to do these days (e.g. make a model and drop it into a Google Earth scene).

Coming from the NIMBY groups though it's a bit comical because they also complain if highrises are built next to non-highrises.

A highrise next to a non-hghrise is bad because it is out of scale.
A highrise next to another highrise is bad because it's even more overhwelming.

This reduces to "highrises are always bad".
__________________
flickr
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 > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:45 AM.

     

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