HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2008, 3:46 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^The more retail the better from my perspective.
Unless they're cannibalizing each other. It took several years' worth of work to even convince the current retail to go into the UCSF housing complex, and they aren't doing particularly well right now...the population density just isn't high enough yet. I want to see these places succeed, not run each other out of business.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2008, 5:27 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^I agree with that. It may well be premature to open the businesses now although Starbucks in particular has the resources to grab a prime location and wait for the neighborhood to bring them customers. But from a development perspective, it's a question of including space for retail in the projects, not whether it's occupied right now.

I do have a more general but related question: Do we know when there will be more housing development (aside from blocks 10/10A) south of the creek? To this outsider it seems like not much is happening in those blocks (2,3,4,5,6,7,11,12,13) but they would be where the customers for coffee shops and the like might come from (plus students and lab rats).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2008, 6:20 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 515
^^^Exactly. I think an independent coffee shop like Cafe Terzetto that is already struggling to make it in this nascent neighborhood is going to have a hard time competing against the deep pockets of Starbucks. Can they hold on? I sure hope so.

There does seem to be plenty of retail space going into these projects. UCSF's housing complex has about 9,000 square feet of retail space in about 10 separate spaces. Subway, Peasant Pies, and Cafe Terzetto have taken up about 2,500 square feet among them. They're actively trying to fill the rest, but it's slow going...location right next to the Muni stop is great, so that should help.

Much of 1700 Owens' first floor is still shell space. I know there was some retail planned for it, but I don't know the square footage. Starbucks is some part of that, but there's still a lot of shell space left.

500 Terry Francois (Block 26a) is supposed to have 8,000 square feet of retail. Haven't heard anything about commercial or retail tenants for that building at all.

1500 Owens (steel is almost topped off on that one) is scheduled to have 2,750 square feet of retail with some cafe seating outdoors along the entry plaza.

1600 Owens will have 5,000 square feet of retail...it's been approved by the Redevelopment Agency, but I don't know when construction is supposed to start.

1455 Third/455 MB Blvd South (Block 26) is scheduled for 7,500 square feet of retail, while 1515 Third (Block 27-1) is scheduled for 12,000 square feet. I believe that both have been approved by the Planning Commission. Some piles have been driven, but I don't know when full construction starts. As an aside, construction has begun on the parking garage for this project on Blocks 27-2 and 27-3.


As for your question about when we might see more residential stuff in MB South besides Radiance:

- 555 Mission Rock (Block 4 West) is well underway, with 192 high-end condos due to open sometime in 2009. The complex will include 10,000 sqft of retail.

- Block 13 West: The Redevelopment Agency has approved Bosa's plan for 259 condos, but I don't know when construction is anticipated to start.

Don't remember any specifics on anything else, except that Bosa owns most of the residential land, so I assume they have a pecking order for their projects...Radiance, then 13 West, then something else. Most of the rest is controlled by the Redevelopment Agency. Finally, Block 7 East is designated as subsidized housing for UCSF employees...it was part of the deal for approval of the hospital due to that property coming off of the redevelopment fee rolls. That's required to open when the hospital opens, so not until 2014-ish.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2008, 6:16 AM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
More info from SFGiants.com

SAN FRANCISCO -- Just over 10 years ago, the Giants broke ground on AT&T Park in an area dominated by rundown warehouses. Today, the ballpark is the focal point of a revitalized neighborhood, teeming with new businesses, housing, educational buildings and research centers.
Now, the team hopes to dramatically reshape the area again by transforming Parking Lot A into a signature segment of San Francisco. In response to the Port of San Francisco's request for proposals to develop what's formally known as Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 48, the Giants have submitted a plan to create "Mission Rock," a district combining open space, dining and entertainment venues, offices, housing and parking in the 16-acre parcel.

As a prominent resident of the neighborhood, the Giants say they're well-suited and especially motivated to make sure it remains an active and vibrant community. That includes ensuring that an adequate level of parking is maintained for the new district, ballpark events and the UCSF Mission Bay campus.

The team's proposal calls for just under 2,700 parking spaces, two-thirds of which could be used for ballpark events to maintain comparable levels to the current transportation plan, which has been very successful.

"The Giants believe there needs to be a balanced approach, where there's a reasonable amount of parking available and there's an emphasis on public transportation," said Jack Bair, senior vice president and general counsel for the Giants. "Any plan that's not balanced is not practical, so it's very important for us that this site be developed responsibly to maintain that balance, so it doesn't turn its back on the ballpark."

But while the team's concern over parking is an important part of the $1 billion project, it's far from the main focus of the district. Indeed, renderings of the development are dominated instead by a 5 1/2-acre waterfront park that could accommodate 10,000 people on what would be dubbed the Great Lawn, offering spectacular views of the downtown skyline, the ballpark and the Bay Bridge.

"We want to create something along the waterfront that is grand in scale," said Bair. "This can be one of the next best destinations for public gatherings and civic celebrations."

The park would include the existing Junior Giants T-Ball Field, relocated to a more central location near the Lefty O'Doul Bridge. A kayak launch would eliminate the current practice of gingerly tiptoeing down the rocky shore to enter McCovey Cove.

A sweeping boardwalk would extend over the water at the northeast corner of the park, and the statue of Willie McCovey and the Giants history walk that currently inhabit China Basin Park, which the Giants built in 2002, would be placed in suitable areas of the new space. The team would also renovate Pier 48's two sheds, creating an exhibition and event center and reopening the crumbling bayside wharf to foot traffic.

Immediately south of the Great Lawn, the Giants plan for a music hall seating up to 6,000 that leads into a pedestrian path through a restaurant, retail and cultural district. It's no accident that this path connects the ballpark to the largest of the three parking structures, an 1,800-space facility that would be the one utilized for the ballpark -- the Giants want fans strolling along that thoroughfare before and after games, patronizing the businesses there.

Giants vice president Alfonso Felder -- who crafted the transportation plan that now sees around 50 percent of all fans using public transit, walking or biking to come to games -- points out that although the total number of parking spaces is actually greater than the current amount serving the ballpark, they'll be used much more efficiently to satisfy a greater demand.

Since most weekday Giants games are at night, many spaces would see double use, with workers from the surrounding offices and overflow from the UCSF Mission Bay campus occupying them during the day. The parking structure sits next to a new light-rail station along Third Street, meaning commuters could also easily use the parking spaces.

"A big part of our success here has been that we have been embraced by our neighbors as an asset, and we don't want that reality to be eroded by a plan that puts stress and creates conflicts within our neighborhood," said Felder in explaining why sufficient parking is so important to the team. But he noted that parking doesn't dominate the proposal.

"Great cities are not dominated by parking lots," he said. "The parking in this plan disappears."

The Giants have already assembled a group of prominent partners for developing the site, with firms responsible for projects such as Mission Bay, Crissy Field and the Ferry Building on board. House of Blues, Anchor Steam, the Mavericks surf competition, Lucky Strike Lanes and Alice Waters of Chez Panisse have already signed on for the restaurant, retail and cultural district, which would also include "Vinter's Alley" with tasting rooms showcasing wines from around the world.

"We want to create a pedestrian experience that would be fun to hang out in," said Bair, who noted that ballpark patrons spending postgame time in the district would serve as a form of traffic metering to further ease congestion. The main parking structure's location also provides better access to the Fourth Street Bridge and Interstate 280, alleviating pressure on the Lefty O'Doul Bridge.

"We know that this is really the next big thing on the waterfront, and the stakes are just as high as they were for the ballpark," said Felder. "We feel really strongly that we need to be part of that, because it's an incredible opportunity for us and for the neighborhood."

Chris Shuttlesworth is an editorial producer for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/n...t=.jsp&c_id=sf

__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2008, 6:17 AM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Also the Giants have a website up for their proposal.

http://www.missionrock.com/
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2008, 6:51 AM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 394
definitely the best of the proposals, though the build inc one aint bad looking either from those sketches posted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2008, 3:00 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 653
Hopefully they will choose the giants project, and hopefully it will be awhile before it goes up for approvals. Like after certain supes have been termed out and successfully replaced (if that's possible). I can just see one of them demanding 50% affordable housing. Isn't that something that has to be considered with any large scale project in SF now?
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2008, 10:26 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
did someone say chris daly?

btw 50% sounds high, but like u said, knowing chris i wouldnt b surprised
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2008, 5:33 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 515
Very quick MB South update today.

-The steel on 1500 Owens looks to be about topped out. Crews are hard at work laying the infrastructure for extending Owens Street so that people can actually get to 1500.

-They're almost done hanging the stone façade panels on 499 Illinois. Window panels are coming along very well on 409 Illinois. Still hate the clash of colors on these buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2008, 5:43 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
We're down to 2 for the Seawall property, Kenwood with a slight lead over the Giants. From today's Chronicle:

Quote:
Giants proposal:


Kenwood proposal:


Giants take 2nd in seawall design contest
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, April 5, 2008


A prominent local development team has narrowly beaten the Giants and their partners in the first round of design reviews for remaking a prime piece of waterfront south of AT&T Park.

Four teams submitted plans to the Port of San Francisco in February to develop the 16-acre stretch of land immediately south of the Giants' ballpark into a destination with shops, parks, entertainment, arts, housing and office buildings.

The Giants and their partners have claimed they are the most qualified given their experience building the ballpark, which opened in 2000 - also on port land at China Basin.

But a port-sponsored advisory panel that reviewed the proposals gave slightly higher design marks to a team that includes Treasure Island developer Kenwood Investments and its partner, which remade the Ferry Building.

Two other teams scored far lower and don't appear likely to make it to the next round.

"The port made an exhaustive review and reached its conclusion; we're proud of how we scored," said Jay Wallace of Kenwood Investments.
Kenwood has partnered with Boston Properties and Wilson, Meany, Sullivan, which led the rebuilding of the Ferry Building. Their design plan takes the Ferry Building's model of a food destination but uses art as the draw instead.

The Giants' proposal is an entertainment center tied to well-known names in food and music, such as chef Alice Waters and the House of Blues. It would have a 5,000-seat music hall and a 5-acre park. The Giants' development partners are Cordish Co. of Baltimore and Farallon Capital Management of San Francisco.

Each plan includes apartments, offices and retail space and parking.
"We're very pleased that the report recommends that we be one of the finalists," said Jack Bair, the Giants' general counsel.

Port officials, who preside over $1.9 billion in capital improvement costs, hope any project built on the parcel, known as Seawall Lot 337, will generate a lot of revenue.

The seven-member advisory panel gave Kenwood an 83.1 rating, with 100 the top score, and the Giants an 81.5 rating. Their rating criteria included the land use plan, open space, design character and financial capacity to complete the project.

The review panel praised the layout of the Kenwood project, saying it evoked a San Francisco neighborhood feel. But the panel expressed concern that the scheme failed to make the most of the waterfront and questioned the feasibility of creating an artists community.

The panel lauded the Giants' plan for its emphasis on open space and recreation. It questioned the design's large number of retail and entertainment venues.

Bair said he was not disappointed by scoring below Kenwood. "It's a little bit like being tied at halftime, but we're confident," he said.

The panel did not make a recommendation on whether a development group led by Build Inc. should move the next review phase. The panel did not recommend that a plan by Federal Development, a Washington, D.C.-based builder, go forward.

The Port Commission will review the panel's recommendation and decide which teams should go forward.
To get involved

A presentation about Seawall Lot 337 and the advisory panel's deliberations will be held Tuesday at the Port Commission's regularly scheduled meeting at 3:15 p.m. at the Ferry Building.

For more information on the development proposals, go to links.sfgate.com/ZJV.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2008, 6:31 PM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 394
but that kenwood proposal is so bland and rigid. blocks of identical buildings and little open space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2008, 7:15 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Yeah, the Giants really hit a homerun with their use of the waterfront. I tend to believe the Kenwood rendering is just for massing and spacing. The buildings themselves don't appear to have been actually designed yet. I think in the next round we'll see more detail on their buildings. And don't forget, it's not over. These are just the last two. I think either one can still win at this point, most likely the one that offers the most money.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2008, 7:31 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Yeah, the Giants really hit a homerun with their use of the waterfront. I tend to believe the Kenwood rendering is just for massing and spacing. The buildings themselves don't appear to have been actually designed yet. I think in the next round we'll see more detail on their buildings. And don't forget, it's not over. These are just the last two. I think either one can still win at this point, most likely the one that offers the most money.
Yea,, i think placing kenwood ahead was more of a negotiating tactic more than anything... they were telling the Giants "Hey dont low ball us just because you think you will win!"
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2008, 7:41 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
Yea,, i think placing kenwood ahead was more of a negotiating tactic more than anything... they were telling the Giants "Hey dont low ball us just because you think you will win!"
if u recall, i never thought the kenwood proposal was that bad. having courtyards, or negative public space is actually better and more likely to be used

and while the giants plan i agree does better with the waterfront, i question the need for the huge arena thing

really, i would be happy with either plan - theyre both good, just each have their pluses and minuses
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2008, 8:42 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
I'm sorry but this is following the usual San Francisco path--the most boring, routine, uninspired design will win. I imagine the Kenwood team is winning because of 2 things: political connections (the group involved with Treasure Island certainly has that) "financial ability to complete the project" which Boston Properties does, indeed, have. But their proposal--with block upon block of uniform boring midrise housing does nothing at all for me. If nothing else, it'll look as tragically mediocre as the rest of Mission Bay--and like the rest of Mission Bay, it'll give me or anyone else who doesn't live or work there no reason whatever to visit that part of town.

Northbay, I can't wait to hear about your trips from Santa Rosa to use that "negative (i.e. wasted) space".

PS: "The panel lauded the Giants' plan for its emphasis on open space and recreation. It questioned the design's large number of retail and entertainment venues." It's the large number of retail and entertainment venues that are precisely what I like about it. It would be an exciting new place to spend time near the waterfront. The panel likes the Kenwood design for evoking "a San Francisco neighborhood feel"--in other words it's just like everywhere else in our little boutique paradise.

Last edited by BTinSF; Apr 5, 2008 at 8:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2008, 9:05 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 515
The panel questioned the feasibility of the arts focus...seems to me that if arts community is supposedly the defining factor for the proposal, that should be a huge question mark going forward. Don't how much that weighed into this round of evaluation.

I wouldn't be devastated if Kenwood was the choice, but I like the Giants' plan better by quite a bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2008, 11:07 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
I'm sorry but this is following the usual San Francisco path--the most boring, routine, uninspired design will win. I imagine the Kenwood team is winning because of 2 things: political connections (the group involved with Treasure Island certainly has that) "financial ability to complete the project" which Boston Properties does, indeed, have. But their proposal--with block upon block of uniform boring midrise housing does nothing at all for me. If nothing else, it'll look as tragically mediocre as the rest of Mission Bay--and like the rest of Mission Bay, it'll give me or anyone else who doesn't live or work there no reason whatever to visit that part of town.

Northbay, I can't wait to hear about your trips from Santa Rosa to use that "negative (i.e. wasted) space".

PS: "The panel lauded the Giants' plan for its emphasis on open space and recreation. It questioned the designs large number of retail and entertainment venues." It's the large number of retail and entertainment venues that are precisely what I like about it. It would be an exciting new place to spend time near the waterfront. The panel likes the Kenwood design for evoking "a San Francisco neighborhood feel"--in other words it's just like everywhere else in our little boutique paradise.
You are right on the money BT! The open space would definitely NOT be wasted but would be treasured for many uses and reasons. The music hall is also an excellent idea--it's a facility that is greatly needed in SF plus it will serve the needs of UCSF.

After what happened with the Transbay competition, we should take nothing for granted or feel overly relaxed about this project at this time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2008, 1:27 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
^geez, all im saying is kenwood isnt all bad

as for negative space, a lot of public space in sf is negative (UM, MEANING SURROUNDING BY BUILDINGS). and yes, i do enjoy them when i visit - u might even see some smoke rising in the corner of one some day
- ive mentioned in the 555 mission thread that i love the plaza right across the street with the bamboo and the moving sculpture. theres also a rooftop garden on a garage next to the future 535 mission thats nice and quiet.
- the new infinity plaza looks to be a good new example that i want to visit

is the architecture of the giants proposal really that exciting for u guys!?! yes, for the record, i like the giants proposal best - but its far from perfect, and not much better than kenwood. (i thought maybe i was biased since the wine-growing town of 'kenwood' is just around the corner, but i dont think so )
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2008, 1:42 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
The music hall is also an excellent idea--it's a facility that is greatly needed in SF plus it will serve the needs of UCSF.
While I agree that a 6,000 seat music hall would be a very nice addition to SF's concert scene, UCSF really doesn't have much of a need for one. Can't think of a single event we'd want to use something nearly that big for.

Medicine, nursing, pharmacy and dentistry use Masonic Auditorium for their graduation ceremonies, and to my knowledge, they don't really come close to filling that 3,000-seat venue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2008, 6:40 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay420 View Post

as for negative space, a lot of public space in sf is negative (UM, MEANING SURROUNDING BY BUILDINGS). and yes, i do enjoy them when i visit - u might even see some smoke rising in the corner of one some day
- ive mentioned in the 555 mission thread that i love the plaza right across the street with the bamboo and the moving sculpture. theres also a rooftop garden on a garage next to the future 535 mission thats nice and quiet.
- the new infinity plaza looks to be a good new example that i want to visit
I knew what you mean by "negative space" but I don't think the plazas at 555 or 560 Mission are "negative". They open directly to the sidewalk and invite people in. That's the problem with space totally surrounded (or mostly surrounded) by buildings, especially residential buildings where you don't live--it feels to me like invading somebody else's space except it's rare that many of the somebody elses use it. My condo building has a large second floor courtyard where the swimming pool and spa are and I can't recall but once ever spending any time there in the last decade since I don't use the pool or spa themselves much. It's too cold, cloudy and windy in San Francisco most of the time to just sit on the grass or whatever--there needs to be attractions like retail, cafes, al fresco dining etc to attract people and I'd be surprised if they design such things for these interior spaces (such amenities would also improve the "public open space" at 555/560 Mission by the way).

Looking at that Kenwood design, to me the spaces you are talking about are the architectural equivalent of light wells. They really just exist in order to allow more units in the buildings to have exterior walls with windows (albeit windows that just face other peoples' windows).

I assume one reason for the 6000 seat venue is for rock concerts and other events, some of which are now being held in ATT Park and causing complaints from neighbors. But to my knowledge, the only other venue in the city of that size might be Civic Auditorium which is pretty outdated (even though it was renovated about 10 years ago). The Opera House seats about 3000 I think and Davies is a bit smaller. I would think we do need something intermediate between those spaces and something huge like ATT Park.
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 9:20 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.