SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 875 FT & 765 FT | ? & ? FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219306)

Fvn Dec 24, 2017 3:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fvn (Post 8028240)
Has an exoskeleton look which is cool. Also its nice that the shorter tower steps outwards that's not seen a lot in taller buildings

Also call me crazy but to me they kinda look like a beach grass or reeds or something along the lines of that

Domer2019 Dec 24, 2017 6:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fvn (Post 8028252)
Also call me crazy but to me they kinda look like a beach grass or reeds or something along the lines of that

I'm seeing a corn cob in the middle of getting de-kerneled, or a lightsaber hilt + part of the blade. Or a progressively stretched net, obviously.

ardecila Dec 24, 2017 7:02 AM

Wow, pretty neat. This is a lot of building for a relatively small site, although the PD already authorizes an FAR of 32, which is absolutely insane.

I love that swoop of glass along Lake Shore Drive on the top of the podium. Very dynamic. Maybe a running track there, or a fancy restaurant...

Halsted & Villagio Dec 24, 2017 7:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire (Post 8028099)
Not a concept piece, that project is under construction already

Nice. The rendering looked a bit crude and because I rarely follow NY developments I thought it was a concept. Back to the topic at hand, this will be a true stunner for Chicago I just hope that it is real and that it does not get the VE hammer at all.
.

230Roberto Dec 24, 2017 7:31 PM

I think the towers look great. I'm not sure about the height, smaller towers looks 900-1000 ft maybe just reaching the supertall mark. I'm kinda bummed about the taller tower, this is a great site for the next leading tower in the western hemisphere. In the rendering it looks like 1400-1500. I was hoping for 1650+ to have something Chicago has not had. Also does anyone know if this Architect is affiliated with Related in any form. Overall this needs to get built, maybe just a tad bit of a height increase even though we don't know the official height yet.

Fvn Dec 24, 2017 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 230Roberto (Post 8028577)
I think the towers look great. I'm not sure about the height, smaller towers looks 900-1000 ft maybe just reaching the supertall mark. I'm kinda bummed about the taller tower, this is a great site for the next leading tower in the western hemisphere. In the rendering it looks like 1400-1500. I was hoping for 1650+ to have something Chicago has not had. Also does anyone know if this Architect is affiliated with Related in any form. Overall this needs to get built, maybe just a tad bit of a height increase even though we don't know the official height yet.

520 w 28th street in NYC is the only other project Hadid has designed for Related that I could find
https://www.520w28.com/

230Roberto Dec 24, 2017 8:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fvn (Post 8028592)
520 w 28th street in NYC is the only other project Hadid has designed for Related that I could find
https://www.520w28.com/

Hopefully this is the second project for Hadid

Fvn Dec 24, 2017 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8028685)
Judging by the cars/highway my guess would be ~800' for the smaller tower and ~1300 for the higher one.

I'd still be satisfied if that were the case though, considering my hopes were never that high for this site. I'm pretty sure this is just a concept and not an actual proposal though so I'm not sure why everyone is getting so excited.

its been drawn out for so long anything is exciting at this point lol

230Roberto Dec 25, 2017 1:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8028685)
Judging by the cars/highway my guess would be ~800' for the smaller tower and ~1300 for the higher one.

I'd still be satisfied if that were the case though, considering my hopes were never that high for this site. I'm pretty sure this is just a concept and not an actual proposal though so I'm not sure why everyone is getting so excited.

I don't know why but my hopes are really high for this site, would be really disappointed if we see anything below 1500ft for the taller tower. This is Chicago's only shot at reclaiming the tallest building in the country (anytime soon)

Khantilever Dec 25, 2017 1:47 AM

I’m alright with a less-than-tallest tower as long as it’s architecturally significant. Whether this is the actual plan or merely a proposal following Related’s guidelines, it looks like we’re not getting something that tall.

Unfortunately, that means we’re not likely to surpass the Sears anytime soon; apart from this parcel, the next-best opportunity is probably whatever replaces the Thompson Center.

marothisu Dec 25, 2017 2:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8028685)
Judging by the cars/highway my guess would be ~800' for the smaller tower and ~1300 for the higher one.

I'd still be satisfied if that were the case though, considering my hopes were never that high for this site. I'm pretty sure this is just a concept and not an actual proposal though so I'm not sure why everyone is getting so excited.

I counted around 90 floors for the smaller tower and around 120 to 130 for the taller one under the "exoskeleton". I'd guess 900 to 1050 feet for the smaller and probably 1400+ feet for the taller one. I'll count again later.

HomrQT Dec 25, 2017 2:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 230Roberto (Post 8028707)
I don't know why but my hopes are really high for this site, would be really disappointed if we see anything below 1500ft for the taller tower. This is Chicago's only shot at reclaiming the tallest building in the country (anytime soon)

I want a 2,000 footer to set the new limit for the Western part of the world and get people prepared for even taller. I don't want to settle for a shorter tower. This building could set the tone for the Western hemisphere.

rlw777 Dec 25, 2017 2:57 AM

I assume this means at the least that Zaha Hadid Architects participated in a design competition for the site.

Steely Dan Dec 25, 2017 3:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 8028738)
I assume this means at the least that Zaha Hadid Architects participated in a design competition for the site.

Yeah, that seems to be a reasonable assumption at this point.

Whether or not it won said design competition is an entirely different ball of of wax, though this can give us some potential hints about the scale of the development that related might be envisioning for the site, and in that particular regard it's quite promising.




And it could all be a whole big box of nothing, too.

Bonsai Tree Dec 25, 2017 3:54 AM

Related has not responded to a series of tweets I sent them asking about specific parts of the rendering.

230Roberto Dec 25, 2017 5:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 8028728)
I want a 2,000 footer to set the new limit for the Western part of the world and get people prepared for even taller. I don't want to settle for a shorter tower. This building could set the tone for the Western hemisphere.

Totally agree this site needs to motivate developers to build tall, not just in the western hemisphere but in the entire U.S.

Rocket49 Dec 25, 2017 5:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 8028728)
I want a 2,000 footer to set the new limit for the Western part of the world and get people prepared for even taller. I don't want to settle for a shorter tower. This building could set the tone for the Western hemisphere.

LOL.

I'll take practically anything over that hole in the ground

HomrQT Dec 25, 2017 6:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket49 (Post 8028913)
LOL.

I'll take practically anything over that hole in the ground

It's been a hole in the ground for years. We can wait a few years more if it means the new tallest in the USA... come on, where's that fighting spirit?

DePaul Bunyan Dec 25, 2017 8:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8028776)
Related has not responded to a series of tweets I sent them asking about specific parts of the rendering.

...it is Christmas...

Rocket49 Dec 26, 2017 3:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 8028938)
It's been a hole in the ground for years. We can wait a few years more if it means the new tallest in the USA... come on, where's that fighting spirit?

I certainly love your optimism.:)

To be honest, though, I've never understood the attraction of 400 N LSD as the site for a supertall.

People tend to buy a condo in a supertall at least in part for the views, and the view at night from upper floors at 400 N LSD would be pretty much pitch dark facing from 0 degrees north through 180 degrees south.

The upper floors of a supertall at the Thompson Center site, on the other hand, would offer great views in any direction both day and night.

Natoma Dec 26, 2017 5:07 AM

Hi all,

I'm a long time lurker and first time poster. I emailed the architect, Ismael Soto, to ask about these renderings. He said it was his entry for a "Zaha Hadid Architects competition", (possibly an internal competition?). Apparently it wasn't the winning entry and unfortunately, he "still doesn't know what Related plans to do with the site. Someday we will find out I guess."

Sorry to be the bringer of seemingly bad news.

Fvn Dec 26, 2017 5:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natoma (Post 8029093)
Hi all,

I'm a long time lurker and first time poster. I emailed the architect, Ismael Soto, to ask about these renderings. He said it was his entry for a "Zaha Hadid Architects competition", (possibly an internal competition?). Apparently it wasn't the winning entry and unfortunately, he "still doesn't know what Related plans to do with the site. Someday we will find out I guess."

Sorry to be the bringer of seemingly bad news.

well if it wasn't a winning entry that means that some entry did win (?) which means they may have a design which means that a possible announcement cant be too far off?

marothisu Dec 26, 2017 5:30 AM

Damn - unless he's trying to cover his ass. Either way it's a cool design. I hope the winning design is still a very good design and as Related said "architecturally significant"

HomrQT Dec 26, 2017 2:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocket49 (Post 8029065)
I certainly love your optimism.:)

To be honest, though, I've never understood the attraction of 400 N LSD as the site for a supertall.

People tend to buy a condo in a supertall at least in part for the views, and the view at night from upper floors at 400 N LSD would be pretty much pitch dark facing from 0 degrees north through 180 degrees south.

The upper floors of a supertall at the Thompson Center site, on the other hand, would offer great views in any direction both day and night.

I agree the Thompson Center site as well as other sites around the city would be better for a 2,000 footer than the "old spire site". I just think this site has momentum behind it because at one point a 2,000 foot building was seemingly about to be constructed here. Related has indicated they are potentially going to put something here that could be very tall. Also that 2,000 foot Gensler design came out. It just seems like this site is the closest to getting that done than anywhere else in the city right now. But I agree on the Thompson Center site.

Notyrview Dec 26, 2017 2:49 PM

Ok, you guys, I appreciate the #goals, but seriously, if NYC can't even launch a 2000 footer, with all its billionaire flight capital, it's highly unlikely that Chicago can. I suppose it's possible but it would take a developer with a massive personal fortune, a ton of vision and a very personal commitment to Chicago.

One wildcard are those plutocratic tax cuts, which are sure to spike the number of millionaires in the area, if not also increasing the ranks of the poor and sunsetting our already very dim democracy.

Bonsai Tree Dec 26, 2017 4:42 PM

Well, at least this wasn't a complete waste of time. I think we learned a lot about what Related wants to build on that site.

1. They don't want to build a 2,000 ft tower
2. The skyscraper will be around the height of the Sears Tower (1500 ft)
3. The skyscraper will use the same foundation as the Spire
4. Related might want to build 2 skyscrapers on the site
5. Someone other than Zaha Hadid won
:shrug:

chris08876 Dec 26, 2017 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview (Post 8029185)
Ok, you guys, I appreciate the #goals, but seriously, if NYC can't even launch a 2000 footer, with all its billionaire flight capital, it's highly unlikely that Chicago can. I suppose it's possible but it would take a developer with a massive personal fortune, a ton of vision and a very personal commitment to Chicago.

One wildcard are those plutocratic tax cuts, which are sure to spike the number of millionaires in the area, if not also increasing the ranks of the poor and sunsetting our already very dim democracy.

At some point, land prices depending on where the parcel is located will make such a tower feasible to cover the cost of such a tower. The total sellout of "X" building or total return per $/sqft depending on the total cost of the proposal will have to have enough space to make a decent return in a reasonable time frame.

A mixed use would be ideal for this.

LouisVanDerWright Dec 26, 2017 5:02 PM

I was going to say that part of the issue with NYC not launching anything beyond 1500' or so is probably related to how hard it is to assemble a site large enough to make a 2000' tall building feasible. You aren't gonna want to try for the first 2000' tower in the USA over a railyard like Hudson Yards, and you aren't going to do it on a tiny ass site like 432 Park or 111 w 57th.

If Chicago ever is able to turn around enough of the central area to get land values that justify larger towers like NYC, then it's possible Chicago could see a 2000'er, maybe even before NYC, but that's going to take another generation.

Mr Downtown Dec 26, 2017 5:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8029250)
At some point, land prices depending on where the parcel is located will make such a tower feasible

I think you forget how inefficient such buildings become at that kind of height. Elevators and exit stairs start to occupy such large proportions of the floorspace, and concrete strength requirements increase more and more. Even at Hong Kong or Midtown Manhattan land values, only ego can justify going beyond about 1200 feet with a residential tower.

Notyrview Dec 26, 2017 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8029249)
Well, at least this wasn't a complete waste of time. I think we learned a lot about what Related wants to build on that site.

1. They don't want to build a 2,000 ft tower
2. The skyscraper will be around the height of the Sears Tower (1500 ft)
3. The skyscraper will use the same foundation as the Spire
4. Related might want to build 2 skyscrapers on the site
5. Someone other than Zaha Hadid won
:shrug:

How do we know someone other than Hadid (RIP) won? Apologies if i missed a comment.

Nevermind, sigh, i scrolled back a few posts. Anyway, i'm sure Related will use all of its tax cuts to deliver value-engineered dookie bc capitalism is working so well!

Chi-Sky21 Dec 26, 2017 5:53 PM

You can always just add a 800 ft spire to get ya there...problemo solved. Sure its the cheapo way to get there but i think its about time Chicago gets to screw some other cities out of the rankings with a spire!

r18tdi Dec 26, 2017 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 8029103)
Damn - unless he's trying to cover his ass.

I think he would have removed the image from his site if it was some kind of unintentional leak. :shrug:

IrishIllini Dec 26, 2017 6:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 8029259)
I was going to say that part of the issue with NYC not launching anything beyond 1500' or so is probably related to how hard it is to assemble a site large enough to make a 2000' tall building feasible. You aren't gonna want to try for the first 2000' tower in the USA over a railyard like Hudson Yards, and you aren't going to do it on a tiny ass site like 432 Park or 111 w 57th.

If Chicago ever is able to turn around enough of the central area to get land values that justify larger towers like NYC, then it's possible Chicago could see a 2000'er, maybe even before NYC, but that's going to take another generation.

I don't know about a generation. Lots of variables, but if the current trend continues (hopefully accelerates) it shouldn't be that long until the Loop and the south end of River North are 24 hr places. Michigan Avenue could potentially get there too. We shall see!

Khantilever Dec 26, 2017 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishIllini (Post 8029306)
I don't know about a generation. Lots of variables, but if the current trend continues (hopefully accelerates) it shouldn't be that long until the Loop and the south end of River North are 24 hr places. Michigan Avenue could potentially get there too. We shall see!

Yup, and Chicago has the second-highest central land values in the US. Couple that with relatively low construction costs and more flexible zoning, and we have a real shot at breaking that ceiling.

That said, other than the Thompson Center site what are some potential locations? I know there have been huge cancelled projects over the last few decades that never came to fruition - hopefully a few of those sites could still work. Either that or an enterprising developer with a lot of projects in the area might want to push further South and get things going in the area with an iconic tower.

r18tdi Dec 26, 2017 8:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khantilever (Post 8029362)
That said, other than the Thompson Center site what are some potential locations?

The PD covering the sites surrounding the old PO support a megatall.
The One Chicago Square block would be another good spot to go very tall. Maybe Rock N Roll MickyD's, if we're dreaming/speculating?

Le Baron Dec 26, 2017 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khantilever (Post 8029362)
Yup, and Chicago has the second-highest central land values in the US. Couple that with relatively low construction costs and more flexible zoning, and we have a real shot at breaking that ceiling.

That said, other than the Thompson Center site what are some potential locations? I know there have been huge cancelled projects over the last few decades that never came to fruition - hopefully a few of those sites could still work. Either that or an enterprising developer with a lot of projects in the area might want to push further South and get things going in the area with an iconic tower.


The prison and parking garage between Van Buren and Congress

maru2501 Dec 26, 2017 9:18 PM

MCC not going anywhere

Domer2019 Dec 26, 2017 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree (Post 8029249)
Well, at least this wasn't a complete waste of time. I think we learned a lot about what Related wants to build on that site.

5. Someone other than Zaha Hadid won

Are you sure about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natoma (Post 8029093)
Hi all,

I'm a long time lurker and first time poster. I emailed the architect, Ismael Soto, to ask about these renderings. He said it was his entry for a "Zaha Hadid Architects competition", (possibly an internal competition?). Apparently it wasn't the winning entry and unfortunately, he "still doesn't know what Related plans to do with the site. Someday we will find out I guess."

Sorry to be the bringer of seemingly bad news.

If the competition was internal, then "Zaha Hadid Architects" as a firm could have chosen another design to submit to Related (the winning design).

chris08876 Dec 26, 2017 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8029276)
I think you forget how inefficient such buildings become at that kind of height. Elevators and exit stairs start to occupy such large proportions of the floorspace, and concrete strength requirements increase more and more. Even at Hong Kong or Midtown Manhattan land values, only ego can justify going beyond about 1200 feet with a residential tower.

That's why a mixed use is ideal. It really depends on the area, but I think for 400 N LSD, a hotel would be great. If the market is there, a hotel, and high end condos. If this was suppose near the sears, I'd say a hotel and office mix. It's all dependent on the market and risk assessments when it comes to condos. Could they sell? Maybe, but depending on the cost of the tower in general, and the prices, only a select few places can pull of units 25+ million or more.

Or... they can always do it the half ass way and use a nice spire.

This would be great.

Image from user "Bonsai Tree"

Sure its not 600m, but you guys would be lucky if you got this.


Mr Downtown Dec 27, 2017 7:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8029412)
That's why a mixed use is ideal. It really depends on the area, but I think for 400 N LSD, a hotel would be great. If the market is there, a hotel, and high end condos.


It isn't.

Chicago hotels live off of Mag Mile shopping and conventions/trade shows. There's a reason more than 90 percent of all Chicago hotel rooms are within 600 feet of Michigan Avenue.

Hotel patrons don't pay a big premium for height/views, and hotel rooms make the elevatoring even less efficient. Usually a lot less, since you want separate elevators for hotel and condos.

HomrQT Dec 27, 2017 7:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8029801)
It isn't.

Chicago hotels live off of Mag Mile shopping and conventions/trade shows. There's a reason more than 90 percent of all Chicago hotel rooms are within 600 feet of Michigan Avenue.

Hotel patrons don't pay a big premium for height/views, and hotel rooms make the elevatoring even less efficient. Usually a lot less, since you want separate elevators for hotel and condos.

Could the project at 400 N LSD not find similar success like the Wanda Vista? They would have similar offerings. Tall, mixed use, a slightly longer than 600ft walk to Michigan Ave.

Notyrview Dec 27, 2017 8:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8029807)

Let's be real, the sickest thing that could happen is to rebuild a slightly taller version of the Waldorf Astoria. I'm allowed to dream :yes:

Nuh uh, The Waldorf Astoria is so 2000

nomarandlee Dec 27, 2017 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT (Post 8029817)
Could the project at 400 N LSD not find similar success like the Wanda Vista? They would have similar offerings. Tall, mixed use, a slightly longer than 600ft walk to Michigan Ave.

Tall isn't an offering. Neither is mixed-use for its own sake. It is FAR off the heart of Michigan to be considered in any way convenient. It would be as strange as staying at the LondonHouse or Intercontinental if you wanted to be close to Ohio beach/NP.

The only major advantage that 400 LSD may have over various other locations is potential access to the lakefront path and Navy Pier when the new Ped bridge gets built (will Dusable Park have a ramp?). Not small perks but not likely to draw in a slew of high-end clients either except unless if you are a major outdoor bike/run enthusiast. Is that a bigger plus than being close to Michigan Ave for high-end buyers? Doubtful.......

I think the best lots for a supertall are the south of NBC Tower lot and the Nordstrom/Northbridge lots off of Wabash if reimagined correctly. Which last I saw latest plans seemed completely underwhelming.

If the Renaissance on Wacker were ever torn down and some slender tall tower could be built on the lot those could provide some great vistas and locations as well.

HomrQT Dec 27, 2017 9:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 8029880)
Tall isn't an offering. Neither is mixed-use for its own sake. It is FAR off the heart of Michigan to be considered in any way convenient. It would be as strange as staying at the LondonHouse or Intercontinental if you wanted to be close to Ohio beach/NP.

The only major advantage that 400 LSD may have over various other locations is potential access to the lakefront path and Navy Pier when the new Ped bridge gets built (will Dusable Park have a ramp?). Not small perks but not likely to draw in a slew of high-end clients either except unless if you are a major outdoor bike/run enthusiast. Is that a bigger plus than being close to Michigan Ave for high-end buyers? Doubtful.......

I think the best lots for a supertall are the south of NBC Tower lot and the Nordstrom/Northbridge lots off of Wabash if reimagined correctly. Which last I saw latest plans seemed completely underwhelming.

If the Renaissance on Wacker were ever torn down and some slender tall tower could be built on the lot those could provide some great vistas and locations as well.

Sorry if I didn't make my thoughts clearer. The Wanda Vista is a very tall mixed use building that is a somewhat similar distance from Michigan Ave. So I don't understand the reality of Wanda Vista being built and looking like it will be a successful project, and a 2,000 foot building at 400 N LSD being called not feasible. 400 N LSD will most likely also have a park attached to it.

UPChicago Dec 27, 2017 9:56 PM

In my opinion, saying a 2,000-foot tower at 400 North Lake Shore Drive is not feasible or not possible is ridiculous, especially when you consider that the Chicago Spire had sales contracts on 30% of its supply of condos, accounting for around 360 units. In a normal scenario, the developer would have been able to secure a full construction loan. Yes, those condos were sold during the height of a real estate bubble but there is no reason in my mind why a new developer would not be able to build a 2,000-foot tower. That said I think it is highly unlikely and personally undesirable to see a 2,000-foot tower in that location.

donnie Dec 27, 2017 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 8029880)
Tall isn't an offering. Neither is mixed-use for its own sake. It is FAR off the heart of Michigan to be considered in any way convenient. It would be as strange as staying at the LondonHouse or Intercontinental if you wanted to be close to Ohio beach/NP.

The only major advantage that 400 LSD may have over various other locations is potential access to the lakefront path and Navy Pier when the new Ped bridge gets built (will Dusable Park have a ramp?). Not small perks but not likely to draw in a slew of high-end clients either except unless if you are a major outdoor bike/run enthusiast. Is that a bigger plus than being close to Michigan Ave for high-end buyers? Doubtful.......

I think the best lots for a supertall are the south of NBC Tower lot and the Nordstrom/Northbridge lots off of Wabash if reimagined correctly. Which last I saw latest plans seemed completely underwhelming.

If the Renaissance on Wacker were ever torn down and some slender tall tower could be built on the lot those could provide some great vistas and locations as well.

Keep those anemic looking towers out of Chicago!
:sly::sly::sly::sly::sly::sly:

chris08876 Dec 28, 2017 1:25 AM

^^^^

Wasn't the Waldorf project canceled due to financing issues?

What a shame that proposal occurred during the recession or before things really went sour (due to the burning bag of poop left after Bushy Bush left).

This was one of my favorite proposals back in the day for Chicago. Elegant, smooth, and classy, right by the river.

It's only a shame this couldn't have been proposed at a better time, like now for example.

Sky88 Dec 28, 2017 11:58 AM

Why a project like 7 south dearborn is not considered? This is a mixed-use tower, which could be perfect for 400 N LSD place.;)

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/06...0_0.00_jpg_srz

the urban politician Dec 28, 2017 2:17 PM

Why do people keep posting on this useless thread where nothing is happening, nothing is close to happening, especially when so much more interesting stuff is happening elsewhere in the city?

Sky88 Dec 28, 2017 2:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8030348)
Why do people keep posting on this useless thread where nothing is happening, nothing is close to happening, especially when so much more interesting stuff is happening elsewhere in the city?

Perhaps, because there are not much more interesting things in other parts of the city.;)


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.