HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    Three World Trade Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3601  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 9:24 PM
JayPro JayPro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,047
It's definitely time for Silverstein to go the foreign investor route.
I'm not at all optimistic about tomorrow's scheduled vote given what I've been reading here.
I just hope Gov. Cuomo knows what has yet to be done here and demonstrates the power and authority he's been given if it comes to that.
At least he should have the ability to go over the PA's collective empty heads if that's what's needed.

This GD complex is not even half-done...and nobody seems to either realize or care about it.
     
     
  #3602  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 10:01 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak View Post
This institution shouldn't even exist. They have botched so many aspects of this project its incredible.
It's infuriating really. Durst, the PA, etc. etc. have just done so much damage to this site.

The final WTC will still be great, but that can't even bet built now apparently.
     
     
  #3603  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 3:16 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,828


Why 3 World Trade Center must rise high

By:Steve Cuozzo

Quote:
If the besieged Port Authority is to get out of the real-estate business to concentrate on its “core” transportation mission, the worst way to do it is to stop 3 World Trade Center in its tracks.
Killing 3 WTC would not only deprive the agency of $500 million in desperately needed short-term revenue from developer Larry Silverstein, but drastically reduce the future value of the PA’s $7.7 billion investment in the entire WTC site.

A fully or mostly built WTC can be a cash cow for the PA. But a half-finished one is a worse albatross around its neck than the blood-sucking, $4 billion-plus PATH terminal.
Leaving 3 WTC in its current unsightly state would make it near-impossible for the PA to sell the land under Silverstein’s sites in the future — a potential windfall for the agency — and also drag down the value of 1 WTC, in which the PA owns the majority stake.

Silverstein wants the PA to guarantee a $1.2 billion construction loan. The PA board is to vote on it Wednesday.
But why — given the agency’s fiscal and political woes — should the Port Authority risk a Silverstein default?
Because, thanks to an iron-clad foreclosure provision, default would let the PA swiftly take back Silverstein’s $2.4 billion tower for half price (because Silverstein will have put in $450 million and the disproportionately expensive lower portion is already built). The PA could then sell it for a huge profit in an age when Manhattan land and development rights have never been so dear.

“Getting out of real estate” isn’t as easy as simply leaving Silverstein in the lurch. After the PA sold him a 99-year lease in early 2001, the complexities that followed 9/11 forced the agency and the developer into a tormented, inescapable partnership.

The PA can, and should, make a lot of money off of it — money that can and should be used to help pay for airports, tunnels, bus terminal improvements, PATH trains and port facilities.
But if certain PA execs were motivated by real-world economics — rather than by politics, publicity or expediency — they’d suggest more rational and lucrative steps than leaving 3 WTC an unfinished eyesore.
The PA could, for example, sell its 80 percent stake in 1 World Trade Center to its very able 20 percent partner, the Durst Organization. Or it could offer it for sale on the open market once it’s fully leased, as it likely will be within a year.

Yet no one on the PA board is known to have suggested the idea.
Or, down the line, the PA can sell the land beneath Silverstein’s three tower sites — worth $25 billion in rent through the year 2100. The PA could sell the ground lease for a lump sum or a series of large payments — but it won’t find many takers if 3 WTC remains a useless, 7-story stump.
What about the short-term benefit of guaranteeing Silverstein’s loan?
The $500 million the PA stands to receive includes some funds too complex to discuss here, but most of them are easy enough to grasp: Once 3 WTC opens, Silverstein must pay the agency much higher rent — $25 million a year vs. $5 million now. Plus, the PA will collect $131 million from retail operator Westfield when the tower is completed.
The PA can kiss the half-billion bucks goodbye if it scuttles 3 WTC today — and only digs itself deeper into a hole.
===========================================
http://nypost.com/2014/04/22/why-3-w...ust-rise-high/
April 22, 2014
     
     
  #3604  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 5:47 AM
Perklol's Avatar
Perklol Perklol is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,460
What will happen later on... we shall see. Although I think it's a good sign that this will be the first private sector tenant but at cost, right?
     
     
  #3605  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 2:55 PM
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,657
3WTC is making news here in Chi. Unfortunately, the Trib editors felt the need to tie Christie's "scandal" into the article..

Bridgegate Scandal Threatens Next World Trade Center Tower
     
     
  #3606  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 5:00 PM
jdrinboston jdrinboston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 18
Crain's New York is reporting that the PANYNJ board is going to kick the can for another month. This is starting to get ridiculous. At this point, just give it an up or down vote and if the vote is down, let Larry and Group M deal with whatever fallout happens.

Can that scenario be any worse than the purgatory they're in now?

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...-vote-on-3-wtc
     
     
  #3607  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 5:10 PM
RockMont RockMont is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdrinboston View Post
Crain's New York is reporting that the PANYNJ board is going to kick the can for another month. This is starting to get ridiculous. At this point, just give it an up or down vote and if the vote is down, let Larry and Group M deal with whatever fallout happens.

Can that scenario be any worse than the purgatory they're in now?

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...-vote-on-3-wtc
They need to kick the bucket. Not the can.
     
     
  #3608  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 5:56 PM
Enigmatism415's Avatar
Enigmatism415 Enigmatism415 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 225
Who is to say that they won't stall again after another month? There should be a limit on extensions. This is insane.
     
     
  #3609  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 6:06 PM
OptimumPx's Avatar
OptimumPx OptimumPx is offline
Basket Case
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmatism415 View Post
Who is to say that they won't stall again after another month? There should be a limit on extensions. This is insane.
According to the article there is a time limit, of a sort.

If they haven't approved the deal before July GroupM will be let off the hook for the lease and Silverstein will presumably have to start over from square one.
__________________
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
     
     
  #3610  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 6:55 PM
NYC GUY's Avatar
NYC GUY NYC GUY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 575
Just build the thing and get on with like seriously.
     
     
  #3611  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 7:41 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...-vote-on-3-wtc


Port Authority to delay vote on 3 WTC financing





Daniel Geiger
April 23, 2014



Quote:
Scott Rechler, vice chairman of the Port Authority’s board of commissioners and a top official who has been instrumental in bringing reforms to the agency, has championed the tower deal. Mr. Rechler says that raising the Port’s financing guarantee from a current amount of $200 million to $1.2 billion would allow the agency to favorably restructure its deal with Silverstein Properties for the site. The Port Authority, for instance, would be able to collect rent much sooner than the current deal in place and would receive about $130 million for the tower’s retail space. Mr. Rechler has stressed that the financial guarantee would only result in the Port Authority actually having to spend that money if Silverstein Properties defaulted on the tower, an unlikely scenario Mr. Rechler said. He also notes that even if that did come to pass the Port Authority would end up owning the building at a huge 50% discount.

.....Ken Lipper, a Port Authority board member who was appointed last year, has disagreed with that position, stating that the Port Authority should reserve its money and financial capacity for transit oriented projects, such as a sweeping renovation of the dilapidated bus terminal on West 42nd Street. He told Crain’s Wednesday that he views the postponement as a way of “gently putting the $1.2 billion government guarantee proposal to eternal sleep.”

“Let the private sector carry out its appropriate role of allocating credit at fair price and time that is reflecting market risk … (and) we can return to our core transportation infrastructure mission, as Congress intended in forming us a century ago,” he insisted.

There has been debate at the Port Authority whether the financial guarantee would even encumber the Port Authority’s potential capital spending, because creditors at the World Trade Center site are subordinate to the authority’s debts on capital spending.

Sources say that the delayed vote will not derail a large tentative lease at 3 World Trade Center that Silverstein Properties has arranged with GroupM, a media firm. The company, which has pledged to take about 515,000 square feet of office space for its headquarters in the new tower, has committed to take that space, sources said, so long as the Port Authority approves the tower deal before July.


Retail leasing moves forward though...


http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/eataly-...-trade-center/

Lois Weis
April 23, 2014


Quote:
The John Barrett Salon — now anchored at Bergdorf Goodman — will open above it at 4 WTC on one of the retail floors that is connected with escalators. Another staircase is being added.

Tom Ford will be in the base of 4 WTC but facing the unfinished 3 WTC. Armani may be heading into the base of 3 WTC facing Church Street with Tiffany’s on the building’s corner.

But developer Larry Silverstein, who also owns 4 WTC, is embroiled in financing discussions over completing 3 WTC with the owner of the entire site, the Port Authority.


Meanwhile, large office tenants look to other areas...



http://www.rew-online.com/2014/04/23...n-hudson-deal/

Quote:
The Moinian Group is in advanced talks with an unnamed company to lease 600,000 s/f at its planned office tower 3 Hudson Boulevard.

Avison Young’s tri-state president Arthur Mirante, who oversees the building’s leasing, told Real Estate Weekly that he has exchanged proposals and counter-proposals with a prospective tenant and hopes to have the lease signed by June.

One possible candidate is Time Inc., which is understood to be looking for a new, 600,000 s/f headquarters and is reportedly also considering Brookfield Place downtown.


http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/eataly-...-trade-center/

Quote:
Legal behemoth Skadden Arps, which was a pioneering tenant at the Durst Organization’s 4 Times Square, is looking to another game-changing neighborhood......we hear the team is focusing on 3 Hudson Boulevard and Manhattan West.

In both cases, Skadden would become the anchor tenant with 550,000 to 600,000 square feet.
Of that total, 50,000 square feet is for back-office functions that could be moved to a lower-priced alternative nearby.

Manhattan West is a multi-tower project along Ninth Avenue between 30th and 33rd streets being developed by Brookfield Properties with leasing through Cushman & Wakefield. The first 67-story tower will have 2 million square feet.

C&W has been offering 450 W. 33rd St., which will get new floor-to-ceiling greenhouse-like windows, as the back-office alternative.


This is not all bad news for downtown office leasing, new space just takes longer to fill Downtown, and it will take longer for Silverstein to get financing if the Port Authority doesn't back his proposal. Ultimately though, I do believe the Port Authority will get on board.



http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...17173088114240

Quote:
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. said it plans to sell its headquarters by the third quarter, and it raised the possibility it could move its base outside the city where it was founded in 1784. As part of its first-quarter earnings announcement, the company said it plans to move to a new headquarters, likely in New York City or New Jersey, within two years.

Current BNY Mellon employees at One Wall Street ultimately are expected to relocate to other offices in Lower Manhattan or Jersey City, N.J., according to a person familiar with the matter.

The bank plans to lease its headquarters for a short time after selling it, so it can move gradually. The bank hasn't decided on a new location.

The bank's chief financial officer, Todd Gibbons, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the value of the property has gone up substantially. "We expect to get a very strong bid," Mr. Gibbons said.

He added that BNY Mellon plans to move to a new, more modern and efficient location. The firm's current building at One Wall Street is older and would serve better as residential or retail space, Mr. Gibbons said.
Maybe a bone for Silverstein?
__________________
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.

Last edited by NYguy; Apr 23, 2014 at 8:15 PM.
     
     
  #3612  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2014, 9:18 PM
Enigmatism415's Avatar
Enigmatism415 Enigmatism415 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimumPx View Post
According to the article there is a time limit, of a sort.

If they haven't approved the deal before July GroupM will be let off the hook for the lease and Silverstein will presumably have to start over from square one.
Good call, I just read that. Their deadline is a necessary albeit unfortunate incentive to get this situation out of limbo. If there's a NO vote, I hope Larry Silverstein has some magic up his sleeve to save the GroupM deal. He ain't getting any younger, and I'm sure he has some personal fortune he could donate to his legacy project.
     
     
  #3613  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 12:28 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimumPx View Post
According to the article there is a time limit, of a sort.

If they haven't approved the deal before July GroupM will be let off the hook for the lease and Silverstein will presumably have to start over from square one.
It will obviously be approved, the question is under what terms. Even the dissenters support some measure of financing 100%, the question is in the details.

There is a contingent of folks on the Port Authority board who are trying to make a point about finances and how they've dealt with spending in the past. Their point isn't really relevant to the WTC site, but it's being used as basically a public way of voicing their dissent.
     
     
  #3614  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 12:31 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,900
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...ebates-subsidy

Future of 3 W.T.C. up in the air as P.A. debates subsidy


By Ryan Hutchins
Apr. 24, 2014


Quote:
The Port Authority postponed a vote Wednesday that would have doubled the public subsidy for Larry Silverstein's long-stalled 3 World Trade Center project, saying that after six months of talks, negotiators are still seeking a better deal for the bistate agency.

Executive director Pat Foye said he hoped to have a final plan for commissioners to consider at their May meeting, but acknowledged there were still some “significant” issues to resolve and that his staff “have not yet received enough total value for the Port Authority to justify a vote today.”

“Experts who have briefed the board have expressed optimism about the prospects of the downtown Manhattan market for Class A office space,” Foye told commissioners at the meeting in New York. “While I, too, am optimistic about downtown, the city and the region in general, I personally don't know what the vacancy rate will be downtown in six months, or six years for that matter... So as a result we have crafted a transaction which, I believe, provides the Port Authority fair upside participation but—as important—substantial new downside protection in the event the optimists are wrong or premature in their thinking.”


Silverstein Properties has been unable to sign enough tenants to attract substantial outside financing, though advertising firm GroupM has signed on as a marquee resident at more than 500,000 square feet of space. So Silverstein has turned to the P.A., which owns the land, for help finding loans. It is attempting to re-negotiate a similar arrangement reached in 2010.

Under the deal being arranged by the developer’s advisors at Goldman Sachs, the Port would guarantee about $1.2 billion in construction debt. Silverstein would be required to put up some $450 million in equity, or $150 million more than it had committed under the 2010 agreement.

The board's vice chairman, Scott Rechler of RXR Realty, has championed the arrangement. He he has said he's not concerned that it could be difficult to fill some of the space in the building, said it would provide an infusion of cash for the Port Authority and argues the agency is duty-bound to ensure the tower is built. He pointed out on Wednesday that GroupM is waiting to see what happens.

“As stewards here, the worse thing we could do is not act and lose this tenant that's making a commitment to lower Manhattan and our World Trade Center site,” he said. “It's imperative that we do it.”


Commissioner Kenneth Lipper, an investment banker and former deputy mayor, has been leading the fight against the deal. He considers it a risky move for the agency – one that could jeopardize its capital plan and would prevent it from investing in a replacement for the aging Port Authority Bus Terminal or repairs to John K. Kennedy International Airport. He also argues it takes the Port, yet again, away from its core transportation mission. What's more, he suggests Silverstein could and would come up with the money himself if left to his own devices.

“He's a noble man to devote his life to building this,” Lipper said during the meeting. “But it doesn't mean that every electrician and school teacher and everybody else has to pay a toll to support a billionaire getting more billions of dollars. I'm all for billions of dollars. I'm all for people getting rich. I guess I aspire to that myself. But there is absolutely no logic at all, no rational basis at all -- and I've never been able to say this during three terms in government – for this money to be given by the Port Authority to Silverstein. Let him get it in the market by surrendering a portion of his equity.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...s-debated.html


Port Authority at Crossroads as World Trade Funds Debated

By Martin Z. Braun and David M. Levitt
Apr 23, 2014


Quote:
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s failure to agree to a loan guarantee for World Trade Center site developer Larry Silverstein shows agency leaders are wrestling over its direction as they seek to fix the dysfunction exposed by the George Washington Bridge scandal.

The agency’s nine commissioners yesterday postponed until May a vote on a $1.2 billion backstop for a third skyscraper at the 16-acre (6.5-hectare) site it owns in Lower Manhattan.

The Port Authority has been involved in real estate since the start of the World Trade Center project in the 1960s.

New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller pushed the agency to build the twin towers, saying he was concerned that Lower Manhattan was being left behind Midtown as a business center. In exchange for his sign-off, New Jersey Governor Richard Hughes persuaded Rockefeller to have the Port Authority take over the privately owned Hudson & Manhattan Railroad, now the Port Authority Trans-Hudson rapid transit system.

Janno Lieber, president of Silverstein’s World Trade Center unit, who attended the packed meeting, said afterward that he was “optimistic” the deal would go through. The developer has already paid more than $1 billion in ground rent to the authority since the 2001 terror attacks, which helps reduce pressure on the agency to raise tolls to fund transportation projects. Silverstein has also given the Port Authority $3 billion in insurance proceeds, he said.

“The presentation about money coming from tollpayers is exactly wrong -- the World Trade Center exists in part to give the Port Authority a windfall,” Lieber said. “We and the Port Authority need to join forces to get the buildings up so we can continue to pay these huge ground rents.”

Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye said the commissioners will discuss ways to reduce the authority’s risk and get more favorable terms from Silverstein.

Lipper spoke out in opposition to the loan guarantee, saying the authority shouldn’t be taking a risk to back the third tower, which would add 2 million square feet of office space.

Silverstein should either put in more of his own money or seek other investors willing to put in more equity, Lipper said. The developer wants to change the deal because he can’t find investors who will loan him the money on favorable terms without the guarantee, he said.

“Why aren’t the public debt markets willing to put up the money?” Lipper said. “The reason they’re doing that is there’s a 13 percent vacancy rate downtown right now.”

Concerns that Silverstein won’t be able to fill the vacant space are misplaced, said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at NYU’s Rudin Center. Four million potential workers live within 45 minutes of the site, which is close to a dozen subway lines, he said in a telephone interview.

“This is the most accessible site on the American continent,” he said. “The building is going to be built. The question is whether you wait for the economy to take over or whether you try to build before it does.”

In 2000, the twin towers generated $33 million in net revenue for the Port Authority.

The governors of New York and New Jersey each appoint six people to serve as Port Authority commissioners. Chairman David Samson, appointed by Christie, resigned last month after a report commissioned by the New Jersey governor on the bridge affair recommended changes at the agency. Another New Jersey commissioner, Anthony Sartor, resigned last week. New York has one vacancy on the commission.

When asked if he supported the financing plan for 3 World Trade Center, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said yesterday at a press briefing in Albany that the decision was up to the commissioners.

That the agency was holding a contentious internal debate over the 3 World Trade Center financing plan in public was “extraordinary” and a sign of change at the agency, said Commissioner William “Pat” Schuber from New Jersey.

“If there’s any doubt that the authority hasn’t changed,” he said, “this should go a long way to indicate that it has.”


This show they're putting on for us basically comes down to this translation: "See, look at us, we're a transparent agency now, and the governors do not control us."

What a joke. Cuomo should have ended this show by now. But of course, its his show.
__________________
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.

Last edited by NYguy; Apr 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM.
     
     
  #3615  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 8:02 PM
RockMont RockMont is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 683
Cuomo is the next worst thing to filth! How in the world did the voters of the state of NY get this bastard elected?
     
     
  #3616  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 8:44 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
They have an obligation to put up the funds to finish the tower or leave a gaping hole in New York City's skyline and cityscape. Decisions, decisions...
     
     
  #3617  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 8:56 PM
NewYorker2009 NewYorker2009 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 288
     
     
  #3618  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2014, 10:44 PM
JayPro JayPro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,047
Apropos of Cuomo's role in this whole c-fu¢¡, and regardless of how I consider him in any other respect of his governorship, I would like to think that he's on the pro-building side of the issue; and that that seeing this project done (at least before Silverstein passes on) would help him look good most especially to those who might yet harbor shaky opinions of him.
He stands to gain a lot from getting the PA's asses in line on this much sooner than later, as said PA would much rather kick the can on this matter till the Sun assumes red giant status. However, it would be interesting if he or Christie in Jersey (to wit, if the latter of this pair of jokers even *cares*) have the right--if such a provision is made in either state constitution--to take the PA to court for at least gross inattention paid to their due diligence.
I speak for myself,of course; but my dislike for any given politician (read 99% of the time) doesn't necessarily mean that he won't pleasantly surprise me once in a teal moon and do the right thing.
I hope Cuomo does that with this mess and makes sure WTCII makes its grand opening sometime before 2100.
     
     
  #3619  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2014, 2:16 AM
NYC GUY's Avatar
NYC GUY NYC GUY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 575
What I don't understand is didn't the PA make a deal with Silverstein that if he got a tenant they'd give him money? So he found a tenant why don't they honor the agreement?
     
     
  #3620  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2014, 3:32 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC GUY View Post
What I don't understand is didn't the PA make a deal with Silverstein that if he got a tenant they'd give him money? So he found a tenant why don't they honor the agreement?
I think they had to lease a certain amount of space if I'm not mistaken, they should give him the money anyway obviously but they're incompetent buffoons so go figure nothing gets done.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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