HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 4:57 AM
red-paladin's Avatar
red-paladin red-paladin is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,432
Wow... some of these demolitions are really ..immoral.
They may not be illegal but I really feel they are crimes against the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 8:49 AM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 26,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Maybe you should publish the name locally, it would seem to me that the owners must have purchased this property with only the destruction and profit in mind. Deliberate destruction of heritage should be a crime. What good are all the tourism ads if this antiquated attitude is still the reality?
Oh the local media have run with it. VOCM has named him and hounded him for an interview. CBC NL has named him. Presumably The Telegram will today.

Pity. He's hot except for the wonky eye and being Satan incarnate.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 11:47 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The Pacific Building was in reasonable condition. I'm not sure the Green Lantern Building is really a shell either; its ground floor is empty because the owner effectively kicked out his remaining tenants and refused to renew their leases. Apparently he didn't maintain or repair the upper floors because he wanted some kind of insurance payout, and then for a couple years he was waiting for heritage funding.

I wonder if the Green Lantern building owner isn't still in the highrise mindset even though his property is in a heritage district (and under a low height limit).
The guy frankly seems like a buffoon. No other property owners on the street are having the difficulties he seems to be having, and most of has been or is being restored. He doesn't want to abide by the agreed-upon community standards for the structure, and in the meantime he's personally responsible for keeping this half-block derelict, and letting the build get worse and worse. It's in situations like this I wish the city could exercise a firmer hand in ensuring buildings be kept in good repair. Webber's ownership is a blight not just for this building but the street.

5.3 mill sounds like a lot, but I wonder if this one would be cheaper than the Pacific (empty, probably in need of more work). And it is a major historic building in the commercial heart of the city. It's a lot, but properties are changing hands and renovations happening on the street, presumably at a profit, so it's probably borne by the market. And the street's very much on the way up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 12:42 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 26,282
From the obituary for the home in today's paper:

Quote:
In Glenn Colton’s biography of Frederick Emerson, “Newfoundland Rhapsody: Frederick R. Emerson and the Musical Culture of the Island,” a full chapter is dedicated to the role of 25 Winter Avenue in the development of Newfoundland music, folklore and geography.

The home that many of us know as Quinnipiac was described as a cultural centre, filled with literature, fine art and music and often filled with foreign guests and distinguished visitors.

Frederick Rennie Emerson (1895-1972) inherited the house from his father, Charles, nephew to the original owner Prescott Emerson (1840-1889), lawyer and representative for Burgeo-LaPoile in the Newfoundland House of Assembly from 1869-1878.

Frederick was widely recognized as one of Newfoundland’s unofficial cultural ambassadors who shaped Newfoundland’s image internationally.

Frederick R. Emerson was a multilinguist, a pianist, a composer and a well-read scholar. He spoke English, French, Italian, German, Greek, Latin, Hungarian, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian.

He served diplomatic posts for the Royal Norwegian consul (1949-1959), Icelandic consul (1947-1958) and vice-consul for the Netherlands in Newfoundland (1940-1958).

He travelled widely, and gave many lectures on his experiences, including time spent in Columbia, Cuba and much of Europe. During the Second World War, he taught German to Canadian troops awaiting deployment overseas.

Frederick corresponded frequently with Marius Barbeau (1883-1969), one of the founders of Canadian folkloristics and a specialist in Quebecois and First Nations folklore, and hosted the British folklorist Maud Karpeles (1885-1976) during her collecting expeditions in 1929 and 1930.

Karpeles came to Newfoundland in search of English and Scottish ballads, testing theories of cultural dispersion. Her book, “Folk Songs from Newfoundland,” is still considered one of the most important publications in the history of Newfoundland folklore.

Frederick took special interest in Karpeles’ work, helping guide and support her in her research. Through Karpeles, we can see a connection to one of England’s most famous composers. We also see a close connection with the founding of the Folk-Song Society in England, as well as the Canadian Folk Music Society, now known as the Canadian Society for the Study of Traditional Music.

Through these connections to the classical music world, Quinnipiac became the site not only of many performances of famous and influential musicians and composers, but also hosted Andreas Barban (a German pianist who fled Leipzig during the Nazi occupation), who was one of the founders of the St. John’s Kiwanis Music Festival in 1952.

Other guests included Ukrainian-born, internationally renowned pianist Benno Moiseiwitsch (1890-1963), and one of Canada’s most well-known composers, Healey Willan (1880-1968), who stayed at Quinnipiac in 1942 while giving examinations for Trinity College, and recorded an organ recital at Cochrane Street Church.

Frederick’s linguistic interests and philanthropic dedication led him to meeting Bogedar Nowosielski, a Polish teenager, whose family fled Poland for London early in the war. Through his work in the ship business, Nowosielski found himself in Newfoundland, adopted by the Emersons, living in Quinnipiac for two years. Emerson supported his education.

Nowosielski went on to become a professor of entomology at Dundee University and was bestowed the Polish Golden Cross.

Frederick also invited Leif Holt into his home, a Norwegian man who found himself in St. John’s, having not been paid by his employer for a full year, and seeking legal assistance. Frederick was interested in Holt in order to improve his Norwegian.

Holt later married Fredrick’s daughter, Anne. In 1933, he invited Italian aviator Italo Balbo (1896-1940) into his home, who was visiting Newfoundland as part of the second of two transatlantic flights. Balbo later became governor general of Libya and was known as an outspoken critic of Mussolini and his leader’s support for Adolf Hitler. He was allegedly assassinated by order of Mussolini.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 5:19 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 20,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Oh the local media have run with it. VOCM has named him and hounded him for an interview. CBC NL has named him. Presumably The Telegram will today.

Pity. He's hot except for the wonky eye and being Satan incarnate.
You guys should really try to shame any potential buyer of his future subdivided lots into passing on and choosing somewhere else!

Imagine a typical billboard not too far from the entrance to the site, paid for by pooled funds from a mix of heritage-minded residents and businesses, explaining that buying any of those lots is basically condoning heritage destruction in St. John's or something like that... staying of course within the bounds of the law for free speech...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 5:28 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 20,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
The guy frankly seems like a buffoon. No other property owners on the street are having the difficulties he seems to be having, and most of has been or is being restored. He doesn't want to abide by the agreed-upon community standards for the structure, and in the meantime he's personally responsible for keeping this half-block derelict, and letting the build get worse and worse. It's in situations like this I wish the city could exercise a firmer hand in ensuring buildings be kept in good repair. Webber's ownership is a blight not just for this building but the street.

5.3 mill sounds like a lot, but I wonder if this one would be cheaper than the Pacific (empty, probably in need of more work). And it is a major historic building in the commercial heart of the city. It's a lot, but properties are changing hands and renovations happening on the street, presumably at a profit, so it's probably borne by the market. And the street's very much on the way up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The Pacific Building was in reasonable condition. I'm not sure the Green Lantern Building is really a shell either; its ground floor is empty because the owner effectively kicked out his remaining tenants and refused to renew their leases. Apparently he didn't maintain or repair the upper floors because he wanted some kind of insurance payout, and then for a couple years he was waiting for heritage funding.

I have a feeling the downtown property values are extremely volatile and that buying property with the intent to develop it was, up until recently, a big gamble. Within a two block radius there is nearly a billion dollars in construction happening right now. 2 blocks over, there's a 30 year old office building assessed at around $80M. Then again, there are other lots where property owners were only allowed to go to 5 or 6 floors. Land suitable for highrise development in that area is extremely valuable, but up until recently it wasn't possible to tell ahead of time what you'd be allowed to build on your property. As a result of this, a lot of people hold out hoping to sell land to a big developer and get a windfall of millions of dollars. The planning rules are clearer now (the heritage district is in place and the height/density limits are set ahead of time), so hopefully this situation will improve. I wonder if the Green Lantern building owner isn't still in the highrise mindset even though his property is in a heritage district (and under a low height limit).
Prices in Halifax are pretty crazy then! I mean, we keep hearing that the Maritimes are declining... I wouldn't have expected Hali to be that expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 6:33 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 11,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
This morning:



This afternoon:



Legal loophole tied the City's hands and a developer was allowed to purchase the property, which he demolished ASAP because the uproar about the sale has been fierce here. He didn't even allow heritage organizations to map the floor plan, photograph the interior, or salvage the ornate interior/exterior woodwork.

130 years old. RIP, Quinnipiac. Ironically, former home to one of the founders of the heritage preservation movement here.

Its two-acre lot at the edge of the Old Town core will be subdivided, cul-de-sac and the works, I'm sure.
That's a bad one.

I'd out the SOB that did it. Property owners have certain obligations. And I don't believe that one person has the right to unilateral destroy shared history. He deserves all the scorn the community can throw at him, because that's a loss for the whole community.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 6:38 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 26,282
Yeah. He's been outed here by all major media outlets so there's no harm in sharing it now. It's common knowledge:

http://www.lasikmd.com/st-johns/our-...topher-jackman
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 7:15 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 4,905
Wtf. stick to being a doctor. Why is he also trying to be a developer
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 7:24 PM
HomeInMyShoes's Avatar
HomeInMyShoes HomeInMyShoes is offline
arf
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pile 'O Bones
Posts: 11,476
I suppose justice would be him dying from tetanus from a sliver he got at the demolition site.
__________________

-- “We heal each other with kindness, gentleness and respect.” -- Richard Wagamese
-- “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” -- Dr. Seuss
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 7:26 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 26,282
Great post from our section:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jthetzel View Post
What follows is a bit of a long-winded rant and can be safely ignored.

On the topic of Quinnipiac at 25 Winter Ave, I find myself confused as to the reasoning of City Council in denying the heritage designation after a strong recommendation from the Heritage Advisory Committee. City Council explained that heritage designation was denied because of concern that such designation could interfere with a pending sale, and the city could be liable for loss of compensation. Specifically, Councilman Dave Lane asked, "What says that, if we designate it heritage and the sale falls through, she can’t come in and say, ‘Well, you know, I had a $1.6-million sale, and here’s the bill, so pay up’? And I don’t know if she probably would have a good legal case to do that" (http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loca...ar-old-house/1).

Firstly, Councilman Lane is aware that the City Solicitor is available for legal consultation with City Council. Perhaps the media could have questioned why he did not seek such council and instead chose to settle with ignorance. Secondly, it does not take a legal scholar to know that municipal governments in Canada have broad powers to regulate private property for the general welfare. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Canadian Pacific Railway v. Vancouver that a municipal government is not obligated to compensate a property owner after regulation of land use so long as the regulation still allowed for some private use of the land. Heritage designation would certainly allow for continued private use ( https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...em/16/index.do ). There is also extensive US case law on the subject of regulatory taking that holds, briefly, that government is free to regulate private property for the general welfare provided that such regulation falls short of denying the property owner any economic use of property ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_taking ).

In light of the probable insincerity (or otherwise incompetence) of Councilman Lane's reasoning, I am surprised that the Heritage Advisory Committee had no recourse, either legally or through political pressure. Perhaps going forward, a statute can be enacted to provide the Historic Advisory Committee with a check and balance power against the City Council regarding demolition of built heritage in St. John's.

One popular ordinance in other cities (Chicago: http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...ion_delay.html , Boston: http://www.cityofboston.gov/landmarks/article85/ ) is an automatic 90 day demolition delay for any structure either older than a certain age or otherwise determined to have potential heritage importance (a lower threshold than municipal heritage designation). Such an ordinance would not necessarily have saved Quinnipiac from demolition, but would have empowered the Heritage Advisory Committee, perhaps through the Newfoundland and Labrador Historic Trust, to engage in a historical survey of the structure, provide the public opportunity to comment on the demolition, and consider alternatives to demolition. Appropriately, Boston's demolition delay ordinance seeks to reduce the number of demolitions of buildings with no immediate planned re-use of site. Owner Christopher Jackman has not yet submitted plans for re-development of the property.

Another possibility would be to tie demolition of a potential heritage building with an approved plan for re-development. A structure recommended to receive heritage designation by the Heritage Advisory Committee, regardless of designation by City Council, would have demolition delayed until a re-development plan has been approved. This would typically delay demolition simply due to the difficulty of getting development plans approved. Additionally, all discussion of the merits of proposed development would have to be made in light of the merits of preserving the current heritage structure. In the case of Quinnipiac, Dr. Jackman would have had to convince his community and City Council that, not only is either subdivision or construction of a single mansion (or whatever his eventual plan) appropriate for Winter Avenue, it is preferred to alternative plans which preserve the Quinnipiac structure.

Finally, a third approach would be to delegate the power of demolition permit approval to the Heritage Advisory Committee. I understand that in Boston, the Boston Landmarks Commission must first approve an application of demolition before the demolition process can move forward ( http://www.cityofboston.gov/isd/building/demolition.asp ). Currently, City Council has unilateral power to approve demolition permits. Given the irrevocable impact of a demolition on built heritage, this power should rest with an independent committee charged with protecting that heritage, the Heritage Advisory Committee (perhaps renamed simply the Heritage Committee).
(Just one thing to add: the quotes above are from Councillor Tom Hann, not Dave Lane, who is an SSPer and voted to save the home).

Quote:
Originally Posted by davelane View Post
Hi jthetzel,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. The first point I want to make is that you've misread the article. I'm not the one who made those quotes. In fact, you'll note earlier in the article it says I was one of only two Councillors to vote to save the structure. So I'd really like to make clear that I'm WITH you on this.

As for your suggestions, they are good ones. Here are some things we are currently exploring at City Hall:
  • Make use of the correct approach to designation which is to request 90 days to assess the structure before recommending designation or not (yes, we have this policy, but our Committee missed this when we reacted quickly to try and save the property last fall);
  • Build a comprehensive inventory of all properties of historical significance so we can begin to be proactive and designate in partnership with owners rather than against them. Good news: Council approved exploring this project on Monday past! and,
  • Divide the Heritage Advisory Committee into two groups: one focused on policy, another focused on expert issues such as designations and one-offs such as siding and window replacement appeals.

There's much more going on, and I'll take your notes into consideration as we explore policies to better support and celebrate our built heritage.

By the way, if you want to stay connected, I have blog and email newsletter. Click here to check them out.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

Last edited by SignalHillHiker; Mar 25, 2015 at 9:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 7:39 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 11,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by osirisboy View Post
Wtf. stick to being a doctor. Why is he also trying to be a developer
It looks like he works at three lasik clinics, so he probably has more money than he knows what to do with.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 7:53 PM
Echoes's Avatar
Echoes Echoes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 3,461
That's atrocious.

The owners of the Farnam Block, which was just demolished in Saskatoon last week and discussed a couple pages back, are chiropractors.

What's with medical professionals who, flush with cash to invest, think "Hey, I'll try my hand in real estate development!"
__________________
SASKATOON PHOTO TOURS
2013: [Part I] [Part II] | [2014] | [2016]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 8:13 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Yeah. He's been outed here by all major media outlets so there's no harm in sharing it now. It's common knowledge:

http://www.lasikmd.com/st-johns/our-...topher-jackman
Forevermore to be known by all in St Johns as "Doctor Jackassman".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2015, 1:48 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 16,481
Monsters at work in Toronto

https://vimeo.com/122898683
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2015, 5:28 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 20,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Prices in Halifax are pretty crazy then! I mean, we keep hearing that the Maritimes are declining... I wouldn't have expected Hali to be that expensive.
Yeah, this is part of why I complain about how the Maritimes are presented. Actually even some of the quaint-looking fishing villages are really mostly tourist areas with at times ultra-expensive real estate. The declining areas are 2-3 hours from the city and do not typically show up in postcards.

Real estate is cheap in, say, Glace Bay. Downtown Halifax, not so much. Retail spots along Spring Garden Road hit $70/square foot a couple years ago. Some of the suburbs, like Dartmouth, may still have bargains though and also have heritage buildings and urban neighbourhoods.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2015, 12:32 PM
jthetzel jthetzel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
There is definitely a strange, terrible social dynamic at play.
I agree, and I like the two points below that you made in your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
At an even more basic level, the common view of property rights and land ownership as "I or whoever I give my stuff to should be able to do whatever we want with it for all time" is insane and completely unworkable.
It is also legally false. Sovereignty flows from the monarch, through the federal and provincial governments, and to the municipal governments. Local governments are free to regulate private property in the interest of public welfare. Local goverenments can even take private property through expropriation, so long as the property is used for public use and the owner is compensated. Any regulation that falls short of taking (for example heritage protection) does not obligate compensation. Thus, I wish that the common view of property rights would be, "I should be able to do whatever I want with it unless my community decides otherwise."

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think that's one reason why heritage preservation can be difficult; it is easy to inadvertently create negative incentives for property owners. They're often rewarded financially for threatening to demolish heritage buildings or making it look like heritage preservation is much harder to do than it is.
Certainly heritage designation can be burdensome and sometimes perversely undermines preservation. However, given the broad powers of government, a structure of historical importance does not need heritage designation to be protected from demolition. It would be sufficient to maintain a list of structures of historical merit that do not rise to the level of municipal designation. An enacted statute could declare that no structure on that list can be demolished without authorization from the municipal heritage committee. This way, the owner of a non-designated building would be free to paint the structure however he likes, throw-on vinyl siding, and replace original windows with modern windows. After all, later generations can decide to reverse these modifications and restore the building's original architecture. Demolition is irrevocable and deprives future generations of their heritage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2015, 7:03 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 20,341
That listing had its own very elaborate page... which is still up...

Interesting (and sad) read.

http://www.odea.ca/25winter/25winter.htm



"The Victorian turret, illustrated in the Parsons photograph and the painting below, was removed in 1902 and a buyer may wish to consider restoring this architectural feature, as few, if any such turrets remain in St. John’s. Originally, there was also a conservatory attached to the western side of the house as can be seen in this early painting by J.W. Hayward of “Quinnipiac Cottage”..."


"This property presents a number of options for a buyer. One may wish to purchase the home and retain all of the property as a very exclusive estate in one of the premier residential areas of the City. Alternatively, there are a variety of development options for the property that could include development of lots fronting on Winter Avenue. Please CLICK HERE TO SEE THE SURVEY AND REAL PROPERTY REPORT . An alternate development could incorporate a cul-de-sac with lots overlooking Fieldian Grounds with brilliant southern exposure. CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING TWO LINKS TO SEE POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR A CUL_DE_SAC DEVELOPMENT"

^^ Upon reading those bits, I couldn't help but think "Alternatively, one may wish to consider razing the house..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2015, 2:25 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 20,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
How much would that building sell for, out of curiosity?

(If you have no idea, but at least can give me a quick tutorial on how to look online at past sales records in NS -- which, in Canada, I know very well how to do in Quebec only -- then I may do so myself.)
Surprise! The Green Lantern Building was just sold to the family that owns the building next door (and has a development permit for a tower on that site). Purchase price was in the $3M range. Probably a good deal for all involved.

I don't know what the specific plans are but it sounds like the new owners are planning to restore it in some way. Because of the viewplane restrictions, the Green Lantern lot cannot be redeveloped into a highrise.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2015, 3:45 AM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Monsters at work in Toronto

https://vimeo.com/122898683
It's a cool video, looks as though the machines are eating the building. Whipper, you know you can post Vimeo videos on here like youtube ones don't you? Just replace (YOUTUBE)( /YOUTUBE) with (vimeo)(/vimeo)


Best at full screen
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 11:26 AM.

     

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