HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 3:40 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
And they intend to replace parkland 1:1...
I heard that on the radio but I don't know what that means. Replace it how? Replace it where?

One of the main functions of parkland in a big city is to give people a place to get away from the bustle and noise of the city. In Chicago even the lakefront doesn't serve that function very well with LSD and the number of people using the bike paths. There is a real need to have large contiguous 20 acre blocks of park, so there is a real sense of peace and seclusion in the middle of that.

Taking 20 acres and replacing it with 20 1 acre parks isn't the same thing. Not even close.
__________________
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 5:01 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
In contrast, both of the U of C proposals are rapaciously gobbling up scarce parkland for a gigantic inflated facility, in a neighborhood with plenty of open land already under U of C's control. You know that half of that Washington Park plot will become parking lots.
I'm shocked and disappointed to the point of incredulity. University of Chicago has hitherto made a series of intelligent urban planning/architectural decisions, preserving significant structures often and commissioning progressive designs to replace the ones they demolish. Increasing their presence across the Midway has made it safer and more of an asset to the school; I mean, it's pretty much a huge, publicly funded front lawn. Why the sudden shift in that strategy when their work in Woodlawn clearly isn't finished? Both sites are relatively far from core campus buildings. And in the case Washington Park, well, it will take much more than a presidential library to revitalize that neighborhood. Jackson Park? The adjacent block is already decently developed.

Appropriating functioning public land would be a slap in the face to the local community and a direct contradiction of Obama's origin story (i.e., empowering the disenfranchised, urban proletariat-- for whom the whole park system, it should be noted, was devised)-- especially when empty/non-functioning space abounds around it in the form of vacant, blighted lots.

The Obamas are placing a great deal of emphasis on the possible transformative effects of the library. As such, the library should embrace the city as part of its mission and its form. It should operate more like an inviting storefront, less like a castle in a garden. Does that require bolder thinking? Yes, because the archetype for these institutions is suburban or even bucolic in nature. But if there were ever a project for bold thinking, this would be it. Which is why I have the exact same response as Sam:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Is this truly the best it could do??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 5:16 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Give it to NY. This is unacceptable.
Fuck that. Give it to UIC. Or figure out a way to make U of C work. Chicago already won the competition when it made a greater impact on his political development than any of the other cities in play. The library (and the moneys that come with it) belongs in Chicago. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that anything else would be a betrayal. Plus, after 9/11 and the Recession, NYC is flush with federal dollars. (The WTC transit hub/Calatrava boondoggle/white elephant carcass alone cost $4 billion.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 5:17 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,947
And its reasons like this why, despite the blowback they tend to get here, organizations like Friends of The Parks matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 5:55 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
And its reasons like this why, despite the blowback they tend to get here, organizations like Friends of The Parks matter.
Well, yeah. Of course they matter. What's up for debate, though, is where/when they matter. IMO, the Lucas Museum is not such a place/instance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 6:29 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Haverford College
Posts: 684
Finally, someone else agrees that UIC should win the library. If UIC wins, their their plan will help benefit the entire West Side rather than the portion of the South Side surrounding Hyde Park. Heck, UIC would be building instead of destroying new parkland if they win. Sure, some of the new parks would be over an expressway, but it would certainly remove some of the expressways ungodly sights and we would also have a new "Bllomingdale Trail" where the former Sears Line was. In addition, we would have a new CTA station, a new BRT Line that connects OPL to Museum Campus, Circle Interchange being less horrid, new opportunities for Southwest Loop, renewed interests in North Lawndale, which will all lead to more developments on the West Side and even people starting to move back into the city. This is pretty much seen as a win, win, win, win for everybody in the city.

P.S. Seriously, you would finally be able to walk around the Circle Interchange!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 6:33 PM
SSideAtty SSideAtty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Long time reader, first time poster.

Attorney and lifelong South-sider. I am not trained in Architecture although it was truly my first love. In college it became apparent that my ability with complex math was suspect at best but that I was given an ability to think quick on my feet and lead and inspire with rhetoric - so I chose law. As for writing, it comes and goes depending upon what time of day it is

I have played golf at Jackson Park many times over the years - drove the green for the first time in my life at Jackson Park - believe it was the 8th or 9th hole. I have also played softball in Washington Park and have also gone to a number of cookouts on the park grounds. As someone who has been intimately associated with the park, this issue of the Obama Presidential library location and its proposed attendant use of park grounds matters a great deal to me.

THIS ISSUE... the Obama Library issue... was enough to get me off the sidelines and take a few moments out of my day to give my 2 cents. The question I have is WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? Who are those people who stand to gain the most by having this library in Washington/Jackson Park?

Is it the people who care most about history and preservation? Those same people who rarely if ever have even bothered to set foot in either one of the parks in question? And if they did bother to come on the south-side and set foot in the park was it in passing or did they stay and continue to use the park on a consistent basis? Do those people live in the neighborhood surrounding the park? Do they even live on the south-side?

See, it is easy to sit back and dictate what others should do while sitting in an ivory tower far removed from the day to day life that others live.

The U of C proposal says that they will replace the park space that will be utilized for the library. As someone who has seen that neighborhood, I believe them. And I am sure friends of the park and neighborhood groups will ensure that they make good on their word - and it will, of course, all be in writing at the appropriate time.

There are plenty of blank lots in that area and other lots with dilapidated homes on them where you will likely find the homeowner amenable to sell for the right price. I believe the new park space can be contiguous. Will a road run through that newly contiguous space? Probably but there are roads that run through parts of the park right now. As long as the ball fields are saved, areas to golf are saved, as long as areas to cookout and gather together are saved, and as long as the wide expanse of land is saved for parkland... helping to maintain the general character, essence and feel of the park, I think this can be a win/win for all involved.

I would submit to you that the real stakeholders are the people who stand to benefit most from seeing the areas in question being reinvigorated, revitalized and gentrified. The real stakeholders are the people who actually use the park and live in neighborhoods around the park. And for the those people, most (not all, but most) would surely welcome the tremendous boost that this Library would bring to their long forgotten, long dilapidated, crime infested neighborhoods. And most (not all, but most) of those people would gladly give up a small portion of either of the parks in question if it served the greater good and improved the quality of life of the people in that neighborhood and of the people that actually use the parks in question.

And finally, EVERY Chicagoan should have an interest in seeing the South-side come to life. As long as the south-side is viewed worldwide as a forgotten crime infested wasteland to be avoided and Chicago is viewed as a city of two cities - one for the haves and the other for the have-nots - one to be lived in the other to be avoided - as long as it is viewed like that, Chicago will never reach its truest potential and be as great as it can be. It wasn't until New York gentrified Harlem, the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. and lowered crime did it reach the favorable world view/peak in popularity that it now enjoys. Chicago must do the same. If Chicago hopes to continue to thrive well into this century and the next, it must eliminate the negative stigma of the south-side because whether you like it or not it is a driver -- that perception drives the news media, drives the news coverage that Chicago gets, drives perception, drives away some potential businesses and drives away potential new residents.

I submit to you that the South-side is our Bronx, Harlem, etc. And I see nothing on the horizon quite like the Obama Presidential Library proposal that has the potential of a 5/10 or even 15 year complete turnaround for that area. And if that area is turned around, it could spur a complete turnaround of Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and eventually Grand Crossing, etc. This is the gift horse. This is the potential catalyst. We would be fools to turn it away.


.

Last edited by SSideAtty; Jan 8, 2015 at 9:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 6:39 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSideAtty View Post
There are plenty of blank lots in that area and other lots with dilapidated homes on them where you will likely find the homeowner amenable to sell for the right price.
Then why not build it on those blank lots in the first place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 6:57 PM
RC Cola 23 RC Cola 23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSideAtty View Post
I submit to you that the South-side is our Bronx, Harlem, etc. And I see nothing on the horizon quite like the Obama Presidential Library proposal that has the potential of a 5/10 or even 15 year complete turnaround for that area. And if that area is turned around, it could spur a complete turnaround of Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and eventually Grand Crossing, etc. This is the gift horse. This is the potential catalyst. We would be fools to turn it away.
Agreed with the whole post and then some. There is a far, far greater good to consider here, and yes, we would be complete and utter fools (x100000) to turn it away. I am not suggesting blind support for any proposal, but I do not believe this one deserves disdain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 6:58 PM
SSideAtty SSideAtty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
@ ViaChicago^ ... I think you will see them eventually build on those lots... just not the primary structure. The primary structure has to be in park space for it to have the "wow" factor they are looking for in order to win the bid. If you situate the library into an old blank lot it would not have the same appeal aesthetically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 7:00 PM
SSideAtty SSideAtty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Cola 23 View Post
Agreed with the whole post and then some. There is a far, far greater good to consider here, and yes, we would be complete and utter fools (x100000) to turn it away. I am not suggesting blind support for any proposal, but I do not believe this one deserves disdain.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 7:56 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSideAtty View Post
Long time reader, first time poster.

Attorney and lifelong South-sider. I am not trained in Architecture although it was truly my first love. In college it became apparent that my ability with complex math was suspect at best but that I was given an ability to think quick on my feet and lead and inspire with rhetoric - so I chose law. As for writing, it comes and goes depending upon what time of day it is

I have played golf at Jackson Park many times over the years - drove the green for the first time in my life at Jackson Park - believe it was the 8th or 9th hole. I have also played softball in Washington Park and have also gone to a number of cookouts on the park grounds. As someone who has been intimately associated with the park, this issue of the Obama Presidential library location and its proposed attendant use of park grounds matters a great deal to me.

THIS ISSUE... the Obama Library issue... was enough to get me off the sidelines and take a few moments out of my day to give my 2 cents. The question I have is WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? Who are those people who stand to gain the most by having this library in Washington/Jackson Park?

Is it the people who care most about history and preservation? Those same people who rarely if ever have even bothered to set foot in either one of the parks in question? And if they did bother to come on the south-side and set foot in the park was it in passing or did they stay and continue to use the park on a consistent basis? Do those people live in the neighborhood surrounding the park? Do they even live on the south-side?

See, it is easy to sit back and dictate what others should do while sitting in an ivory tower far removed from the day to day life that others live.

The U of C proposal says that they will replace the park space that will be utilized for the library. As someone who has seen that neighborhood, I believe them. And I am sure friends of the park and neighborhood groups will ensure that they make good on their word - and it will, of course, all be in writing at the appropriate time.

There are plenty of blank lots in that area and other lots with dilapidated homes on them where you will likely find the homeowner amenable to sell for the right price. I believe the new park space can be contiguous. Will a road run through that newly contiguous space? Probably but there are roads that run through parts of the park right now. As long as the ball fields are saved, areas to golf are saved, as long as areas to cookout and gather together are saved, and as long as the wide expanse of land is saved for parkland... helping to maintain the general character, essence and feel of the park, I think this can be a win/win for all involved.

I would submit to you that the real stakeholders are the people who stand to benefit most from seeing the areas in question being reinvigorated, revitalized and gentrified. The real stakeholders are the people who actually use the park and live in neighborhoods around the park. And for the those people, most (not all, but most) would surely welcome the tremendous boost that this Library would bring to their long forgotten, long dilapidated, crime infested neighborhoods. And most (not all, but most) of those people would gladly give up a small portion of either of the parks in question if it served the greater good and improved quality of the quality of life of the people in that neighborhood and of the people that actually use the parks in question.

And finally, EVERY Chicagoan should have an interest in seeing the South-side come to life. As long as the south-side is viewed worldwide as a forgotten crime infested wasteland to be avoided and Chicago is viewed as a city of two cities - one for the haves and the other for the have-nots - one to be lived in the other to be avoided - as long as it is viewed like that, Chicago will never reach its truest potential and be as great as it can be. It wasn't until New York gentrified Harlem, the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. and lowered crime did it reach the favorable world view/peak in popularity that it now enjoys. Chicago must do the same. If Chicago hopes to continue to thrive well into this century and the next, it must eliminate the negative stigma of the south-side because whether you like it or not it is a driver -- that perception drives the news media, drives the news coverage that Chicago gets, drives perception, drives away some potential businesses and drives away potential new residents.

I submit to you that the South-side is our Bronx, Harlem, etc. And I see nothing on the horizon quite like the Obama Presidential Library proposal that has the potential of a 5/10 or even 15 year complete turnaround for that area. And if that area is turned around, it could spur a complete turnaround of Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and eventually Grand Crossing, etc. This is the gift horse. This is the potential catalyst. We would be fools to turn it away.


.
Thanks for sharing, great post.

Looks like you're not the only local resident in favor of this

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...a-library-plan

In a joint letter, the four—Aldermen Pat Dowell, 3rd; Will Burns, 4th; Leslie Hairston, 5th; and Willie Cochran, 20th—said they are "committed to doing all that is necessary" to bring the library to the South Side, where Obama lived during much of his professional career.

"As elected officials with responsibility to represent the interests of our constituents, we are determined to make appropriate locations available in a timely manner," as the foundation planning the library has requested, the letter states. "The bid enjoys enormous support from civic leaders, community organizations and residents."

Last edited by Vlajos; Jan 8, 2015 at 8:42 PM. Reason: update
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 9:18 PM
rlw777 rlw777 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
You don't need to have very specific ideas about what you want from the foundations perspective in order to say that you have no interest in building a structure in the park.

If they were committed to NOT building a structure in the park they would express that or at the very least they wouldn't have the University and going to bat for it. This is being driven by the foundation. You think the city or university would push the park issue if the foundation didn't want it at least open to them?

The foundation expresses what it wants (or at least have the option of) and wants other players to go out and fight and get it so as not have the office of the Presidency and his reputation besmearched by such fights (predictably but understandably).
This is a bit conspiratorial if you ask me. How does the foundation not being opposed to building in the park imply that they are pushing FOR the park land. Furthermore it would be quite presumptuous for the foundation to be committed to NOT building in the park. A city and it's citizens have the obligation and responsibility to make decisions about the use of city land for the public benefit. I certainly don't want some group of people who don't live in Chicago pushing opinions about how Chicago should use it's land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2015, 9:37 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSideAtty View Post
@ ViaChicago^ ... I think you will see them eventually build on those lots... just not the primary structure. The primary structure has to be in park space for it to have the "wow" factor they are looking for in order to win the bid. If you situate the library into an old blank lot it would not have the same appeal aesthetically.
Of course it wouldnt. Any private development built in the middle of one of the city's parks would inevitably obtain a "wow" factor. Thats not what the parks exist for however. In fact, their primary purpose is to keep those things at bay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2015, 2:46 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
Well, yeah. Of course [groups like Friends of the Parks] matter. What's up for debate, though, is where/when they matter. IMO, the Lucas Museum is not such a place/instance.
So if parkland is not currently landscaped with turf, it's not worth saving?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2015, 4:11 AM
SSideAtty SSideAtty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
Thanks for sharing, great post.

Looks like you're not the only local resident in favor of this

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...a-library-plan

In a joint letter, the four—Aldermen Pat Dowell, 3rd; Will Burns, 4th; Leslie Hairston, 5th; and Willie Cochran, 20th—said they are "committed to doing all that is necessary" to bring the library to the South Side, where Obama lived during much of his professional career.

"As elected officials with responsibility to represent the interests of our constituents, we are determined to make appropriate locations available in a timely manner," as the foundation planning the library has requested, the letter states. "The bid enjoys enormous support from civic leaders, community organizations and residents."
Thanks Vlajos

I am very confident that the powers that be will see the big picture here and get this thing done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2015, 7:25 AM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
So if parkland is not currently landscaped with turf, it's not worth saving?
I would argue that the parking lot does not even qualify as park land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2015, 2:17 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 618
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSideAtty View Post
Long time reader, first time poster.
The question I have is WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? Who are those people who stand to gain the most by having this library in Washington/Jackson Park?

...I would submit to you that the real stakeholders are the people who stand to benefit most from seeing the areas in question being reinvigorated, revitalized and gentrified. The real stakeholders are the people who actually use the park and live in neighborhoods around the park. And for the those people, most (not all, but most) would surely welcome the tremendous boost that this Library would bring to their long forgotten, long dilapidated, crime infested neighborhoods. And most (not all, but most) of those people would gladly give up a small portion of either of the parks in question if it served the greater good and improved the quality of life of the people in that neighborhood and of the people that actually use the parks in question.

...And finally, EVERY Chicagoan should have an interest in seeing the South-side come to life. As long as the south-side is viewed worldwide as a forgotten crime infested wasteland to be avoided and Chicago is viewed as a city of two cities - one for the haves and the other for the have-nots - one to be lived in the other to be avoided - as long as it is viewed like that, Chicago will never reach its truest potential and be as great as it can be. It wasn't until New York gentrified Harlem, the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. and lowered crime did it reach the favorable world view/peak in popularity that it now enjoys. Chicago must do the same. If Chicago hopes to continue to thrive well into this century and the next, it must eliminate the negative stigma of the south-side because whether you like it or not it is a driver -- that perception drives the news media, drives the news coverage that Chicago gets, drives perception, drives away some potential businesses and drives away potential new residents.

I submit to you that the South-side is our Bronx, Harlem, etc. And I see nothing on the horizon quite like the Obama Presidential Library proposal that has the potential of a 5/10 or even 15 year complete turnaround for that area. And if that area is turned around, it could spur a complete turnaround of Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and eventually Grand Crossing, etc. This is the gift horse. This is the potential catalyst. We would be fools to turn it away.


.
Yes, Thank You. Too often these threads devolve into some sort of ideological shouting matches without regard to the specifics of context. The fact is, the Library will only take up a few acres at most and good design can do nothing but improve the park experience by bringing more people to it... that's what a park is for, isn't it? I highly doubt any design would include surface parking, whether in the park or in the neighborhood.

Would there be this much objection to a new pool facility or other recreational building built in the park which might have an even larger foot print?

What if the roof of the library was landscaped and integrated into the park?

As far as slippery slopes... yeah, before you know it, every president from Chicago will want to gobble up park land (1:1 though ) with their own presidential library...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2015, 4:33 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,387
^^^ As if that weren't enough, if this and Lucas go through, we'll have people clamoring at the door trying to make $2 billion investments in all of our parks! Oh the horror!


As much as I'm a proponent of principals when it comes to planning and design in Chicago, when you cut through it all, the fact is that these museums are going to take up such a tiny portion of our total park land and create such a disproportionately large benefit, I can't see how anyone can be against them in the end. I suppose similar economic arguments have been used for evil as is the case with Prentice, but the fact is that no one is claiming these are the only spots we can build these museums, but rather that these are the best spots to build them.

Regardless of how it all shakes out, I am excited that we have such an opportunity two add to world class institutions to our city virtually overnight. It almost makes up for the loss of the Olympics. Maybe we will still go for the Olympics down the road and have that much more to show off when we finally land that event.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2015, 5:02 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
As much as I'm a proponent of principals

....

I can't see how anyone can be against them in the end.
Perhaps youre not as large a proponent of prinicpals as you think you are. Because frankly if you are, I dont see how those viewpoints are compatible.

Parkland was not established for any swinging dick with billions of dollars to do whatever they want with the land. The land is owned by the public as a reprieve from city life, and it dosent have a price tag on it for a reason. We dont have mountains in Chicago. We dont have endless ocean. We dont have pristine forests. This is it, this is what we as residents have as a salve to the insanity of living in a giant concrete jungle.

Is nothing sacred to you as long as a dollar sign is attached?

Quote:
but the fact is that no one is claiming these are the only spots we can build these museums, but rather that these are the best spots to build them.
I dont remember ever being asked if this was where I thought the best spot was. I dont recall any other Chicago taxpayer being asked either. All I seem to recall is being told by people in an ivory tower that "this is what we're doing".

Last edited by Via Chicago; Jan 9, 2015 at 5:12 PM.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:56 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.