HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise Construction

    

350 Mission in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2007, 11:37 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
SAN FRANCISCO | 350 Mission | 455 FT | 30 FLOORS | U/C

The SF Business Times today is reporting today that developers GLL Properties want to proceed with this project as soon as possible. They perceive an increasing demand for office space--commercial realtor Grubb & Ellis is reportedly "tracking" demand for 2.5 million sq. ft.--and want to catch the wave. To do so, they have shortened the building from an original 850 ft, which would have had to wait for proposed upzoning planned in connection with the TransBay Terminal, and dyed it green for faster action at the Planning Department.

Obviously, for a tall building fan this is good news and bad news. Another SF highrise gets whacked by 300 ft. But the existence of the project at all was rather a recent surprise and it will contribute to the rebirth of Mission St. as a true highrise canyon worthy of any of the cities we all admire.

When I can access a pasteable version of the full article (likely to be Sunday evening), I will post it.

The rendering, found on 7/14/08 by pseudolus at http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...elivers_t.html


Last edited by BTinSF; Jul 15, 2008 at 5:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2007, 11:55 PM
wrab's Avatar
wrab wrab is offline
Deerhoof Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,585
Shorter, but still exciting; SF deserves this new skyline!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2007, 1:04 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
I knew 850' was too good to be true, but it was good while it lasted I suppose. I just hope this decision doesnt come back to haunt them in the future. 550' is nice, but compared to what it was before, its just not the same. However, the fact that it was a new proposal makes this downgrade easier to take.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2007, 7:13 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 673
unless they want to wait for the upzoning (obviously they don't) this site won't even support 550' ... if the developer can get to the max current FAR through TDRs you're looking at a 20-25 story building.

it's too bad, but understandable given the current market conditions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2007, 7:31 AM
slock slock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 274
I'm hoping for one of two scenarios:

That the developer decides a little patience will do him/her good and waits for the upzoning to realize the possibility of an 850' foot tower. In the heart of South Financial, directly across from the Transbay Terminal, it's a prime spot. When the terminal's built and if HSR is connected to Los Angeles, there will be few office locations in the City better than this. It would be myopic at best for the developer to move forward with 550' when they know an upzoning is in the pipeline.

The second scenario I'm predicting is that the City recognizes the timeline and the project sponsor's height change because of the upzone calendar. Ideally the City could somehow create a special designation for the project to be fastracked once the upzoning study is complete. This is beneficial because the City has identified the parcels around the Terminal for density and growth, and to an extent the success of the Terminal depends on the critical mass of projects like this. Furthermore, I think a shorter height would contribute less money to the Terminal's finances as well, so it is in the City's interest to somehow make sure this parcel's full height, and full financial contributions are realized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2007, 8:08 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
unless they want to wait for the upzoning (obviously they don't) this site won't even support 550' ... if the developer can get to the max current FAR through TDRs you're looking at a 20-25 story building.

it's too bad, but understandable given the current market conditions.
Quoting from the BizTimes: ". . . the smaller project (at 550 ft) is code compliant according to company officials."

If you feel otherwise, please explain why, but I somehow believe with the amount of time and money these people have riding on this they know what they are talking about. And I can't imagine why they would dissemble about it to the BizTimes.

For use in this discussion, here's the height limits of the current Downtown Plan:



And here is the Planning Code as it purtains to bulk requirements in "S" zones:

Quote:
(d) The bulk limits contained in this subsection shall apply in S Bulk Districts as designated on Sectional Map Nos. 1H, 2H and 7H of the Zoning Map.
(1) Base. The base is the lowest portion of the building extending vertically to a streetwall height up to 1.25 times the width of the widest abutting street or 50 feet, whichever is more. There are no length or diagonal dimension limitations applicable to the base. The building base shall be delineated from the lower and upper tower and related to abutting buildings by a setback, cornice line or equivalent projection or other appropriate means.
(2) Lower Tower.
(A) Dimensions. Bulk controls for the lower tower apply to that portion of the building height above the base as shown on Chart B. For buildings of less than 160 feet in height, the lower tower controls are the only bulk controls above the base of the building. The bulk controls for the lower tower are a maximum length of 160 feet, a maximum floor size of 20,000 square feet, and a maximum diagonal dimension of 190 feet.
GRAPHIC LINK: Click here
(B) Additional Bulk for Elevators. Solely in order to accommodate additional elevators required by tall buildings the lower portion (up to the height shown on Chart B) of the lower tower of a building 500 feet tall or taller may be enlarged up to a maximum length of 190 feet, a maximum diagonal dimension of 230 feet and a maximum floor size of up to 25,000 square feet without a corresponding reduction in upper floor size.
(3) Upper Tower.
(A) Dimensions. Upper tower bulk controls apply to buildings taller than 160 feet. They apply to the upper tower portion of a building up to the height shown on Chart B, which height excludes the vertical attachment and other features exempted by Section 260 and excludes the extended upper tower height exceptions provided for in Section 263.7 of this Code. The bulk controls for the upper tower are: a maximum length of 130 feet; a maximum average floor size of 12,000 square feet; a maximum floor size for any floor of 17,000 square feet; and a maximum average diagonal measure of 160 feet. In determining the average floor size of the upper tower, areas with a cross-sectional area of less than 4,000 square feet may not be counted and sculptured architectural forms that contain large volumes of space but no usable floors shall be included in average floor size calculation by computing the cross section at 12.5-foot intervals.
(B) Volume Reduction. When the average floor size of the lower tower exceeds 5,000 square feet, the volume of the upper tower shall be reduced to a percentage of the volume that would occur if the average floor size of the lower tower were extended to the proposed building height. The percentage varies with the bulk of the lower tower and with whether or not a height extension is employed pursuant to Section 263.7 and is shown on Chart C. In achieving the required volume reduction, a setback or change in profile at a specific elevation is not required.
(C) Extensions. Extension of the upper tower above the otherwise allowable height limits may be permitted as provided in Section 263.9.
(D) Termination of the Tower. The top of the tower shall be massed in a manner that will create a visually distinctive roof or other termination of the building facade. Modifications to a proposed project may be required, in the manner provided in Section 309, to achieve this purpose.

Last edited by BTinSF; Feb 17, 2007 at 8:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2007, 7:15 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Quoting from the BizTimes: ". . . the smaller project (at 550 ft) is code compliant according to company officials."

If you feel otherwise, please explain why, but I somehow believe with the amount of time and money these people have riding on this they know what they are talking about. And I can't imagine why they would dissemble about it to the BizTimes.
The S Height and Bulk Zone requirements are only *part* of the story. On many projects, especially office projects, the governing factor is the FAR limit.

From section 123 of the planning code :

Quote:
(a) The limits upon the floor area ratio of buildings, as defined by this Code, shall be as stated in this Section and Sections 124 through 128. The maximum floor area ratio for any building or development shall be equal to the sum of the basic floor area ratio for the district, as set forth in Section 124, plus any premiums and floor area transfers which are applicable to such building or development under Sections 125, 127 and 128, and as restricted by the provisions of Sections 123(c) and (d) and 124(b) and(j).
The basic floor area ratio for this site is 9.0:1. (table 124 in the planning code)

The maximum floor area ratio can be increased through the use of TDRs but is limited as follows :

Quote:
(c) The amount of TDR that may be transferred to a development lot, as allowed by Section 128, is limited as follows:
(1) The gross floor area of a structure on a lot in the C-3-O and C-3-O (SD) Districts may not exceed a floor area ratio of 18 to 1
The site in this case (block 3710, lot 017) is 18,905 square feet. That gives them 340,290 square feet plus all the things which are exempt - parking and loading up to 7% of the FAR, ground floor circulation, mechanical spaces, ground floor retail spaces up to 5,000sf each, etc etc. If you (very) generously tack on 20% to the above grade area you're at 400,000 square feet, which suggests a building of about 25 stories on this site. Of course it's theoretically possible that they would build a 400,000 square foot 40 story, 550 foot building on this site (and it would be perfectly code compliant) but it would be extraordinarily (almost comically) inefficient, difficult to lease, and totally unprecedented.

This is how projects in San Francisco have always gone since the current interpretation of FAR in the planning code, and it's why the proposed 'unlimited height / unlimited FAR' district is so revolutionary. Why do you think 560 mission street, 101 second street, and 555 mission street are all about so very far under their height limits? It's not because of a lack of creativity on the part of Pelli, SOM, and KPF, respectively - it's because of the FAR limits... and it's worth noting that those projects had significantly more site area to work with.

We'll just have to wait and see what the architect they select (they've just begun interviewing potential teams, so it's not like there is a design yet) comes up with, but unless they have some other way around the FAR limits of the current zoning this is not going to be a 550 foot tall building.

Last edited by mthd; Feb 17, 2007 at 7:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2007, 6:39 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Here's the article:

Quote:
New tower boosts S.F. office boom
Projects hit 3M square feet
San Francisco Business Times - February 16, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

German pension fund adviser GLL Properties has applied to build a 550-foot tower at 350 Mission St., the latest in a steady stream of proposed office buildings flowing into San Francisco's Planning Department.

GLL, which is headed by developer David Wall and a team formerly based out of Fremont Properties, had originally sought to build an 850-foot tower with nearly 1 million square feet of office space, but reduced the proposal to 340,000 square feet to expedite the approval process. The larger initial project depended on the pending rezoning of the Transbay Terminal area -- a process likely to take two years -- but the smaller project is code compliant, according to company officials.

An adviser investing European pension money, primarily for insurance powerhouse Generali Worldwide, GLL is negotiating with a joint venture partner for the project. The company owns 199 Fremont St. and is redeveloping Theater Square, a mixed-use retail, entertainment and office center in Orinda.

Heald College occupies the four-story building across from the 600-foot Millennium Tower rising at 333 Mission St., with Noah's Bagels and Starbucks on the ground floor. Eric Rajasalu, senior vice president of business development at Heald College, said the school will move, but it's "goal is to stay in San Francisco, ideally as close to our current location as possible."

Rush to entitlement
The proposal comes as applications for new downtown office towers have come in fast and furious. Hoping to capture rising office rents and eager to take capitalize on a new city policy, introduced last September, guaranteeing faster approvals for sustainable green buildings, more than 3 million square feet of proposed office space has been filed during the past 12 months. Nearly all of the 1.5 million square feet proposed since September are going for the top rating under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Designs' certification program.

In addition to GLL's plan at 350 Mission St., proposals include:

Hines' proposed 10-story building at 110 Embarcadero. (See related story, Page 8.)
Beacon Capital Partners' 266,000-square-foot expansion at 100 California St., a project that quadrupled in size in December.
Tishman Speyer's 617,000-square-foot tower at 222 Second St.
Solit Interest Group's 3 million-square-foot project at First and Mission streets, slated to include 520,000 square feet of office space, 600 condos and 470 hotel rooms.
Beacon Capital Partners' planned 27-story building at 535 Mission St. with 300,000 square feet of office space.
Senior Planner Craig Nikitas said the number of applications coming in under the green building program has exceeded expectations by 50 percent. Colin Yasukochi, research manager for Grubb & Ellis, said the flurry of applications is driven by concerns about the constraints of Prop M, which limits the amount of new office space the city can approve to 875,000 square feet a year. While the amount of unallocated square footage under the Proposition M cap has swelled to 2.2 million, it would be easily absorbed by the projects heading to the Planning Commission in the next year.

Return of the beauty contest
With 3 million square feet of pending projects, the Planning Commission could be forced to reintroduce the so-called "beauty contest" as early as late 2007 or early 2008
, said Yasukochi. Under the beauty contest, the Planning Commission picks projects to go forward first based on quality of design, location and public benefits.

Yasukochi said the growing possibility of a new round of beauty contests may be provoking developers to submit plans now, even though the tenant demand may not be high enough.

Grubb & Ellis is tracking about 2.5 million in tenant demand, much of which is from existing San Francisco tenants. Yasukochi pointed to Tishman Speyer, which submitted an application to develop 222 Second St. almost immediately upon acquiring the lot.

"Builders of potential office buildings are moving pretty darn fast to get in line to have their projects approved," he said.

In many ways the market feels like the run up to the 2000 bubble, except that the level of demand is not nearly as high as it was then, Yasukochi said.

"This time around, the market is relatively tight, but we still have double-digit vacancies and there are not necessarily millions and million of new tenants looking for space out there," he said.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2007, 7:24 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 673
the article confirms that they are seeking to build a project compliant with the current planning code with 340,000 square feet of area applicable to FAR.

this means a 15-25 story building at most. the 550 foot height limit in this case is irrelevant, just as it was for the other three office projects on mission street in the last 10 years. at 25 stories it would actually be quite slender for an office building given the limitations of the site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2007, 7:52 PM
slock slock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 274
mthd thank you for your details and insight.

I don't know too much about the specific planning code, but what led to the FAR being interpreted in such an obtuse manner?

It seems counterproductive for everyone from architect to developer, to the City getting inadequate office space per parcel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2007, 8:47 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by slock View Post
mthd thank you for your details and insight.

I don't know too much about the specific planning code, but what led to the FAR being interpreted in such an obtuse manner?

It seems counterproductive for everyone from architect to developer, to the City getting inadequate office space per parcel.
the current planning code is the product of mass revolt/objection to the high rise building boom of the 80s in san francisco - from a certain point of view the planning code is set up to restrict density. what becomes frustrating is that there are many ways by which the code restricts development - height, area, bulk/mass, and residential unit density. for residential projects, it usually comes down to height and unit density. for office projects, area (FAR) and bulk tend to govern, but often height as well if the site is large enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2007, 11:14 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
the current planning code is the product of mass revolt/objection to the high rise building boom of the 80s in san francisco - from a certain point of view the planning code is set up to restrict density. what becomes frustrating is that there are many ways by which the code restricts development - height, area, bulk/mass, and residential unit density. for residential projects, it usually comes down to height and unit density. for office projects, area (FAR) and bulk tend to govern, but often height as well if the site is large enough.
True. I've always thought they should repeal that proposition, or make another one that abolishes it. I would think that without it, San Francisco would have more skyscrapers that most other cities, including Chicago possibly.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2007, 11:39 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
I guess I prefer to wait and see what they actually propose rather than speculating. If they say 550 ft., I lean toward believing they mean 550 ft. If that requires some sort of waiver or negotiation, perhaps that's what they intend. There's just more than one way to deal with such issues. One might be a mixed use project with 340,000 sq ft of office and some residential on the upper floors or a hotel like California Center. We can't know until we see a design.

But given that there's quite a bit of consensus that the few sites in that immediate area ought to be the city's tallest structures, it strikes me that no one would be happy building another 25-30 story office building there. And so I think if that's the only option, nothing will get built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2007, 12:49 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
I guess I prefer to wait and see what they actually propose rather than speculating. If they say 550 ft., I lean toward believing they mean 550 ft. If that requires some sort of waiver or negotiation, perhaps that's what they intend. There's just more than one way to deal with such issues. One might be a mixed use project with 340,000 sq ft of office and some residential on the upper floors or a hotel like California Center. We can't know until we see a design.

But given that there's quite a bit of consensus that the few sites in that immediate area ought to be the city's tallest structures, it strikes me that no one would be happy building another 25-30 story office building there. And so I think if that's the only option, nothing will get built.
Consensus doesn't mean much if it doesn't include the people who own the land. In the interest of expediency, they want to build an office building which complies with the current planning code. There is no waiver or routine exemption for FAR the way there is for other things (e.g. bulk), and residential and hotel aren't exempt from FAR and aren't an office building. They could make their own SUD to exempt them from FAR but at that point they might as well wait for Transbay.

I think one of two things will happen here :

a) they will quickly propose and build a modest office building which will not come anywhere near the height limit.
b) they will get a lot of opposition from the city to a building on this site which is too short and the site will sit as is until a developer who wants to put residential or residential/hotel comes along. the site is simply too small to support a really tall office building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2007, 7:47 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post

I think one of two things will happen here :

a) they will quickly propose and build a modest office building which will not come anywhere near the height limit.
b) they will get a lot of opposition from the city to a building on this site which is too short and the site will sit as is until a developer who wants to put residential or residential/hotel comes along. the site is simply too small to support a really tall office building.
I do not know if the developer is already aware of this, but they should expect the City to react. An approximate 60% reduction in project size is obviously very drastic for such a prime location. It is going to be interesting to see how this situation plays out. In the meantime, the developer probably feels that it is better to proceed as is, to try to catch the current market wave.

Is there enough time for the developer to reach final green certified design, EIR, and approvals before the City goes into "Beauty Contest" mode? How much time does the developer expect to save to complete the construction, if the project can be approved at 340,000 square feet, instead of waiting about two years for the Transbay upzoning to be approved?

How was One Rincon Hill upzoned from its orginal proposals? How long did it take, etc.?

Last edited by SFView; Feb 20, 2007 at 7:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2007, 9:07 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
I do not know if the developer is already aware of this, but they should expect the City to react. An approximate 60% reduction in project size is obviously very drastic for such a prime location. It is going to be interesting to see how this situation plays out. In the meantime, the developer probably feels that it is better to proceed as is, to try to catch the current market wave.

Is there enough time for the developer to reach final green certified design, EIR, and approvals before the City goes into "Beauty Contest" mode? How much time does the developer expect to save to complete the construction, if the project can be approved at 340,000 square feet, instead of waiting about two years for the Transbay upzoning to be approved?

How was One Rincon Hill upzoned from its orginal proposals? How long did it take, etc.?
there are obviously a lot of different ways to look at this. it's not really a 'reduction' in project size since there was no project, just a zoning envelope. the site has never been zoned for 850 feet, is much too small for even a 550 foot office tower, and the unlimited height/unlimited far concept is still a gleam in the city's eye. it's probably not reasonable to expect all developers to wait indefinitely for the city to revise the transbay plan and get it approved.

work on the rincon hill plan started in 1999 and it was approved sometime in 2005. the qualifications for the new transbay/4th & king study were due in late january and the planning department is just now interviewing the prospective teams. who knows how long it would take for the process to get all the way through a certified district-wide EIR. this parcel isn't even IN the current EIR/EIS for transbay!

it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. if the developer is true to their word, which is that they want to proceed ASAP with an office project compliant with current zoning, then we will see a 25ish story office building go up on this site in a couple years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2007, 10:45 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
I dont know.. a 25 story building on that site seems like a tremendous waste of space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2007, 3:31 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by craeg View Post
I dont know.. a 25 story building on that site seems like a tremendous waste of space.
it certainly is a centrally located site... but it's got two towers literally right up against it and at 18,000 square feet the only really tall building it could support would have to include residential or hotel. might be a good spot for residential over office... hotel would be a tough go because of the size constraints at the lower floors.

perhaps the city will react so negatively to a shorter building here that the developer will have to reconsider their program. it will be interesting to see what happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2007, 3:48 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
they will get a lot of opposition from the city to a building on this site which is too short and the site will sit as is until a developer who wants to put residential or residential/hotel comes along.
That's essentially what I'm saying and if all that you have said is correct about site restrictions, I think that's what will happen. Sofitel anyone?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2007, 4:20 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
That's essentially what I'm saying and if all that you have said is correct about site restrictions, I think that's what will happen. Sofitel anyone?
Oh I hope you're not toying with me, heh. Sofitel would be a wondorous idea. Even better, a 550'+ Sofitel, slightly modified if needed.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
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 > Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:00 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.