HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1561  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 6:49 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Something seemed amiss about this photo montage when I first saw this. It first looks like this is a view to the west/southwest to the Oquirrh Mountains from the Avenues, but if you look closely, the view to downtown is to the northwest. 99 West is in between 111 Main and One Utah Center. Someone had done some really bad, but really good montaging. So much so, that it's difficult to tell that it's completely wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1562  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 9:40 PM
EPdesign EPdesign is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
Something seemed amiss about this photo montage when I first saw this. It first looks like this is a view to the west/southwest to the Oquirrh Mountains from the Avenues, but if you look closely, the view to downtown is to the northwest. 99 West is in between 111 Main and One Utah Center. Someone had done some really bad, but really good montaging. So much so, that it's difficult to tell that it's completely wrong.
Ha! Nice catch
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1563  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 11:38 PM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is offline
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland, Denver
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by airhero View Post
I'd estimate about 35% of Salt Lake proper's population is suburban (Rose Park, Glendale, Foothill), while cities like Phoenix, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis (numbers 5, 12, and 15) have almost entirely suburban populations. Approximately 80% of Austin's population lives in low density suburban. Same with about 65% of Denver's population. And a huge majority of the population growth in these cities has happened in these suburban areas. So even though these cities have much larger downtowns and are in fact growing faster than Salt Lake by almost any measurement, their numbers are hugely inflated by their suburban areas within city boundaries.
airhero, if you wouldn't mind, please provide the definition of "subarban" you're using for the 35% SLC, 80% Austin, 65% Denver figures (and how you arrived at those percentages) as well as links to the sources you're relying upon for the part I've bolded. Thanks!
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1564  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2017, 2:16 AM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
Something seemed amiss about this photo montage when I first saw this. It first looks like this is a view to the west/southwest to the Oquirrh Mountains from the Avenues, but if you look closely, the view to downtown is to the northwest. 99 West is in between 111 Main and One Utah Center. Someone had done some really bad, but really good montaging. So much so, that it's difficult to tell that it's completely wrong.
Na'. I don't think that's the Oquirrh Mountains. It's Antelope Island. I think the zoom effect is making it look larger than it really is.

You can see the mountain here in this photo:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1565  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2017, 3:11 AM
airhero airhero is offline
ML Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverInfill View Post
airhero, if you wouldn't mind, please provide the definition of "subarban" you're using for the 35% SLC, 80% Austin, 65% Denver figures (and how you arrived at those percentages) as well as links to the sources you're relying upon for the part I've bolded. Thanks!
There's no professional analysis, only my own from around a year ago. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I did this but I took census population estimates between 2000 and 2010 for each zip code in all three cities (Austin, Denver, and SLC), classified each zip code as low density (which is what I referred to as suburban), medium density, and high density based on the population and area of that zip code. I'm not sure what the cutoff was for each classification but it was the same for all three cities. I grouped together zip codes under the same classifications, added them up for each year, and calculated the percentage of total population and the population growth between 2000 and 2010 for each classification. I then did the same thing for 2010 and 2015, with the 2015 estimates coming from, I think, the American Community Survey. It wasn't a perfect analysis but I'd say pretty good for some guy doing it just for fun.

I still have the document with all the numbers for all the zip codes, but it's on a computer I don't have with me right now. I wanted to do it for more cities but ended up forgetting about it until today. It was also quite a bit of work. It was easy for SLC but there are a ton of zip codes in bigger cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1566  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2017, 7:24 AM
jubguy3's Avatar
jubguy3 jubguy3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade View Post
Na'. I don't think that's the Oquirrh Mountains. It's Antelope Island. I think the zoom effect is making it look larger than it really is.

You can see the mountain here in this photo:

That's an amazing photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1567  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2017, 5:42 PM
DenverInfill's Avatar
DenverInfill DenverInfill is offline
mmmm... infillicious!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lower Highland, Denver
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by airhero View Post
There's no professional analysis, only my own from around a year ago. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I did this but I took census population estimates between 2000 and 2010 for each zip code in all three cities (Austin, Denver, and SLC), classified each zip code as low density (which is what I referred to as suburban), medium density, and high density based on the population and area of that zip code. I'm not sure what the cutoff was for each classification but it was the same for all three cities. I grouped together zip codes under the same classifications, added them up for each year, and calculated the percentage of total population and the population growth between 2000 and 2010 for each classification. I then did the same thing for 2010 and 2015, with the 2015 estimates coming from, I think, the American Community Survey. It wasn't a perfect analysis but I'd say pretty good for some guy doing it just for fun.

I still have the document with all the numbers for all the zip codes, but it's on a computer I don't have with me right now. I wanted to do it for more cities but ended up forgetting about it until today. It was also quite a bit of work. It was easy for SLC but there are a ton of zip codes in bigger cities.
airhero, thanks for sharing your methodology.

Regarding your first issue of the percentage of a city that lives in a "low density suburban" environment, I think your approach of taking the population of a zip code and dividing it by the area of the zip code to calculate residential density is problematic.

There are commercial, industrial, open space and other areas within a zip code that contribute to the land area total (the denominator) that would consequently dilute the residential density calculation and lead to a mis-characterization of the area's true residential density.

For example, say we have two zip codes each totaling 1000 population and each covering 100 acres. Both zip codes would calculate out to 10 people/acre under your approach. But say Zip Code A's 100 acres consists entirely of single-family homes, and Zip Code B's 100 acres consists of 80 acres of commercial/industrial with the residential packed into the remaining 20 acres as mid-rise towers. Zip Code A's residential density of 10 people/acre is legit (1000/100), whereas Zip Code B's true residential density is 50 people/acre (1000/20)--five times that of Zip Code A. Certainly both zip codes should not be categorized as "low-density suburban" density.

However, I appreciate your effort at taking a quantitative stab at a difficult question. There are alternative ways of getting at what you're trying to accomplish. One idea would be to get the zoning GIS layers for each city, categorize the different residential zone districts by density levels and standardizing those across the cities, and calculate the area of each city that is zoned under each density level. That's a fair amount of work though and requires GIS knowledge.

In 2010, Denver rewrote and remapped its entire zoning code, using a "form-based, context-based" approach. As part of that process, every area was categorized as falling into one of six "neighborhood contexts": Downtown Neighborhood, Urban Center Neighborhood, General Urban Neighborhood, Urban Neighborhood, Urban Edge Neighborhood, and Suburban Neighborhood. I would say the last two (Urban Edge and Suburban) would represent "low-density suburban" type development. I've asked a friend at the city to send me the data so I could calculate the area that falls into each category. Of course, SLC or Austin may not have anything similar.

Regarding your other statement that "a huge majority of the population growth in these cities has happened in these suburban areas", for Denver, this statement is not accurate, in my opinion.

Denver's borders have been fixed since the late 1980s when the land for Denver International Airport was annexed. The city is largely built out except for two areas where large-scale development is occuring: Green Valley Ranch/Gateway (suburban out by the airport) and the redevelopment of the former Stapleton International Airport, which I would consider semi-suburban.

Gateway/Green Valley Ranch has been master planned for around 30,000 residential units. It's maybe one-third built out. Stapleton has been master planned for around 9,000 residential units, and it's about 80% built out. Combining those, a rough estimate is that about 17,000 residential units in these two large suburban or semi-suburban development areas of Denver proper have been completed since 2000.

Additionally, there are many smaller infill sites scattered throughout the established suburban parts of the city that have been developed. I'm not sure of the total number of these units but would guess perhaps another 5,000-10,000 since 2000. So conservatively, I'd say there's been about 27,000 residential units developed in the suburban/semi-suburban parts of Denver since 2000.

In contrast, there were slightly more than 10,000 residential units completed in the greater Downtown Denver area from 2000-2009, and so far this decade (2010-2017), there have been an additional 10,000 residential units completed in the greater Downtown Denver area, with another 8,000 currently under construction. Therefore, since 2000, there's been (or will be soon) at least 28,000 residential units built in the greater Downtown Denver area--all urban in character--which is at least on par with the number of units developed in the more suburban parts of the city. Add in non-Downtown-but-still-urban neighborhoods like Cherry Creek, and I'd say that a slight majority of new residential development in Denver proper since 2000 has been higher-density urban, not lower-density suburban.

Another way of getting at this question of urban/suburban development in Denver proper is to look at the apartment market. A local real estate analysis firm, James Real Estate Services, does a nice job of tracking apartment development citywide in Denver. According to their 3Q 2017 Apartment Perspective report (https://www.jres.com/articles/3rd-qu...t-perspective/) there are about 14,000 apartment units currently under construction in Denver proper. Based on the location of each apartment project, I was able to break it down as follows: 8,152 units (58%) Definitely Urban, 2,648 units (19%) Semi-Urban, and 3,140 units (23%) Suburban.

Sorry for the long post, but I love crunching these types of numbers!
__________________
~ Ken

DenverInfill Blog
DenverUrbanism

Last edited by DenverInfill; Nov 23, 2017 at 6:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1568  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2017, 6:35 PM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
370 then a new tallest on the old club zephyr.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1569  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2017, 7:27 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade View Post
Na'. I don't think that's the Oquirrh Mountains. It's Antelope Island. I think the zoom effect is making it look larger than it really is.

You can see the mountain here in this photo:

Okay. The rendered building is oriented and placed incorrectly then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1570  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2017, 9:04 PM
airhero airhero is offline
ML Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverInfill View Post
airhero, thanks for sharing your methodology.

Regarding your first issue of the percentage of a city that lives in a "low density suburban" environment, I think your approach of taking the population of a zip code and dividing it by the area of the zip code to calculate residential density is problematic.

There are commercial, industrial, open space and other areas within a zip code that contribute to the land area total (the denominator) that would consequently dilute the residential density calculation and lead to a mis-characterization of the area's true residential density.

For example, say we have two zip codes each totaling 1000 population and each covering 100 acres. Both zip codes would calculate out to 10 people/acre under your approach. But say Zip Code A's 100 acres consists entirely of single-family homes, and Zip Code B's 100 acres consists of 80 acres of commercial/industrial with the residential packed into the remaining 20 acres as mid-rise towers. Zip Code A's residential density of 10 people/acre is legit (1000/100), whereas Zip Code B's true residential density is 50 people/acre (1000/20)--five times that of Zip Code A. Certainly both zip codes should not be categorized as "low-density suburban" density.
I was aware of this and did take this into account. I had to approximate the area covered by residential in zip codes that were split. It wasn’t too difficult to do that for Salt Lake and Denver but it was very difficult for Austin. I did not take into account zip codes that were split between areas of different density. I wasn’t willing to go quite that far. I wanted to make the comparison simple. Whether what I classified as low density could be considered suburban or not is debatable, but either way they were areas that are likely dominated by single family homes.

I have explored the zoning around the city of Denver but I never really thought to use it in this analysis. It could be helpful, but like you say there might be some difficulty comparing the zoning between different cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1571  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2017, 1:41 AM
Ironweed Ironweed is offline
Ironweed
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 521
Angry

[QUOTE=taboubak;7994610]"It really isn't all that important if SLC itself hits a mark such as 300 or 400,000 people. The development of downtown will be based far more around the population of the metro area and the urban corridor as a whole."

I hope everyone is having a Happy Thanksgiving (Or just a great day if you don't celebrate it.)

I find the above quote disturbing. This mindset is what I am trying to combat. Why? Because it simply leads to more of the same: Sprawl, Traffic, and Pollution. SLC should have a significantly larger population and will need to have so.

To reiterate: We live in a mountain basin. We have inversions unlike anywhere else in the country. We are also expected to have another 3 to 4 million people be added to the state in the next 43 years. Most of these people are expected to live along the Wasatch Front. Why? Because the main water shed is here. The jobs are here. The infrastructure is kinda here. It is my firm belief that spreading the population willy-nilly up and down the Front will be disastrous. For the aforementioned reasons. Much higher density must occur in the predesignated urban centers.

The current suburban development trends are not sustainable. A much different approach needs to be taken. Also, putting an extra 3-4 million people all over the state is not only unpractical, it is impossible. The resources are not there to support such an idea.

Smart development in THIS area requires high density built around non/low polluting mass transit (preferably rail) in predesignated urban corridors. Not on every piece of open space left along the Wasatch Front!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1572  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2017, 6:20 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,450
The only way that many people would get jammed into Salt Lake City without developing a large amount of open space (like, say, the industrial western section of the city) would be by demolishing single-family homes (not good) or by building very tall highrises throughout the city (unrealistic).

Of course, if the industrial west side of the city were to be converted to residential and could be master-planned in a way that would discourage auto use and be truly walkable, I would be for that, but we all know that wouldn't happen.

I do think we could get to 250,000 without too much effort, and I don't think 300,000 is out of reach (but I couldn't imagine that happening much earlier than...idk...2050?). Much higher than that feels like it would be extremely unlikely unless over the long (long!) term.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1573  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2017, 4:28 PM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 950
Awhile back someone on here envisioned moving I-15, Front runner and the UP tracks underground. I think if we want to open up the west side to more walkable urban development we should look into that as a city. I think it would be necessary if we decide we are serious about increasing the population of SLC proper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1574  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2017, 2:56 AM
StevenF's Avatar
StevenF StevenF is offline
The Drifter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC14 View Post
Awhile back someone on here envisioned moving I-15, Front runner and the UP tracks underground. I think if we want to open up the west side to more walkable urban development we should look into that as a city. I think it would be necessary if we decide we are serious about increasing the population of SLC proper.
Elon Musk and the Boring Company. One hat at a time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1575  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2017, 4:35 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
South Salt Lake and Millcreek(86k people) should both be part of SLC, imo. These two cities almost completely lack an identity outside of SLC. They feel more like neighborhoods than neighbors. Water, economies of scale, sales tax sharing, political muscle, coordinated planning, etc. There are lots of good reasons to consolidate, imv.

ONE CITY SLC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1576  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2017, 7:56 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC14 View Post
Awhile back someone on here envisioned moving I-15, Front runner and the UP tracks underground. I think if we want to open up the west side to more walkable urban development we should look into that as a city. I think it would be necessary if we decide we are serious about increasing the population of SLC proper.
I would love that, but it will never ever happen. The cost would just be too great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1577  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2017, 5:14 PM
AllOutOfBubbleGum's Avatar
AllOutOfBubbleGum AllOutOfBubbleGum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: West Jordan
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
South Salt Lake and Millcreek(86k people) should both be part of SLC, imo. These two cities almost completely lack an identity outside of SLC. They feel more like neighborhoods than neighbors. Water, economies of scale, sales tax sharing, political muscle, coordinated planning, etc. There are lots of good reasons to consolidate, imv.

ONE CITY SLC
While we are at consolidating cities, bountiful should absorb north salt lake woods cross and west bountiful. That landslide in north salt lake would of never happened if NSL hadn’t stated building above it so they could expand their tax base. If they were part of bountiful then the idea of building on dangerous slopes might of been avoided.
__________________
"Oh, now we see the violence in the system"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1578  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2017, 12:50 AM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
South Salt Lake and Millcreek(86k people) should both be part of SLC, imo. These two cities almost completely lack an identity outside of SLC. They feel more like neighborhoods than neighbors. Water, economies of scale, sales tax sharing, political muscle, coordinated planning, etc. There are lots of good reasons to consolidate, imv.

ONE CITY SLC
You assume the citizens of these cities want to be part of Salt Lake City. My guess is that they don't - especially Millcreek. I know in the mid-90s, South Salt Lake tried really hard to annex Millkcreek but could never gain the support of the community to do so. Beyond that, the opportunity to annex Millcreek all but died the second the city incorporated last year. Had it remained a township, you'd have a better chance of seeing annexing possible (which was a constant threat for the community in the 90s with South Salt Lake and then recently, up until incorporation, with Holladay). But not now - not with it being its own city.

South Salt Lake would also fight tooth and nail on being annexed into Salt Lake. Their residents take pride in being independent of the city - to the point where the city has even suggested changing its name so it's not as associated with Salt Lake - especially now that they're aggressively trying to establish a downtown area around State.

Beyond that, Salt Lake hasn't shown much interest in annexing any areas outside its borders. Not recently, anyway. Back in 1979, when the state legislature passed a law stating cities must establish annexing policy declarations (in the event they were to annex), Salt Lake established one that encompassed much of the eastern valley south to Little Cottonwood Canyon Road (areas included: Cottonwood Heights, Canyon Rim, Emigration Canyon, the Millcreek area and Holladay/Cottonwood) - west to Magna (annexing the township into the city) but that was never anything established with any seriousness and it's been decades since the declaration.

Salt Lake did attempt to annex a portion of the tailing ponds at Kennecott in the 90s, but not the entire Magna community - and that really has been the established trend of Salt Lake's annexing history lately. They mostly focus on open land areas.

There's some interesting history about incorporation and annexing in Salt Lake County - including some massive plans that would've consolidated a great deal of the cities in the valley into one.

Bonneville City

In 1975, a plan was established to incorporate, and unify, all of Salt Lake County's unincorporated areas into one city. It would have easily established the largest city in the state at the time (as most areas of the county at this point were completely unincorporated). It went down to massive defeat at the ballot.

In 1978, a new plan, this time unifying all of Salt Lake City & County (beyond incorporated cities - so, unincorporated areas), failed at the ballot box by a 3-2 margin. Leaders of the movement, pushed by former SLC mayor, and Utah governor, J. Bracken Lee, used Nashville as an example - but they could never convince residents.

Lake Valley City

In May, 1982, Salt Lake County voters in unincorporated areas of the county rejected a plan to consolidate those communities into one city - Lake Valley City. It would have had a population of 229,000 people and would've been the state's largest city. It was an odd election, since voters in the area actually cast a ballot in support (or in opposition) to the new city, while also voting on mayoral and councilperson candidates. So, Lake Valley technically elected a mayor and council (it would have been a nine-district council) but didn't actually incorporate into anything.

So, I guess, for a brief moment, Jim Eakins, a former center for the BYU Cougars, who played a time in the NBA and ABA, was elected mayor of Utah's largest city - if only briefly.

That was the last real attempt to incorporate a vast area of the county. The biggest was Urban County, I believe, which happened shortly after, or before, Bonneville City failed. There was a lot of contention about whether Ted Wilson, who was Salt Lake's mayor at the time, would lead the new city-county government merger.

But none of these plans ever won remotely close to the support needed to pass. They were all overwhelmingly rejected by county voters.

I think, for the foreseeable future, Salt Lake's borders aren't changing.

Last edited by Comrade; Nov 27, 2017 at 1:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1579  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2017, 8:40 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,450
As a resident of South Salt Lake (but past and hopeful near future resident of SLC) I would be supportive of merging with SLC. But I agree with the logic that SSL would be very resistant to it, especially with the city government pushing so hard for a "downtown South Salt Lake". Millcreek DEFINITELY prides itself on being its own distinct city.

There was also a recent proposal to merge SSL and Millcreek. I don't think it was something that ever got beyond the theoretical phase, because people were resistant even to that idea.

And thank god voters in the county voted against a full merger. I wouldn't want the backwards politics of suburban Salt Lake to interfere with SLC policy. I could take South Salt Lake, maybe Millcreek...but anything else would just drag down the development of Salt Lake City into the only truly tolerable city in the state.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1580  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2017, 8:15 PM
ajiuO's Avatar
ajiuO ajiuO is offline
A.K.A. Vigo
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob rulz View Post
As a resident of South Salt Lake (but past and hopeful near future resident of SLC) I would be supportive of merging with SLC. But I agree with the logic that SSL would be very resistant to it, especially with the city government pushing so hard for a "downtown South Salt Lake". Millcreek DEFINITELY prides itself on being its own distinct city.

There was also a recent proposal to merge SSL and Millcreek. I don't think it was something that ever got beyond the theoretical phase, because people were resistant even to that idea.

And thank god voters in the county voted against a full merger. I wouldn't want the backwards politics of suburban Salt Lake to interfere with SLC policy. I could take South Salt Lake, maybe Millcreek...but anything else would just drag down the development of Salt Lake City into the only truly tolerable city in the state.
If South Salt Lake became a part of SLC, perhaps they could close a few of our schools down!!!
__________________
On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sat on a
throne of blood! What was will be! What is will be no more! Now is the season of evil!
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 > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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