Jump to content
Guest KJP

Suburban Sprawl News & Discussion

Recommended Posts

Jim Kunstler quotes some groundbreaking research over at the . And the graphic below is pretty staggering...

 

http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary21.html

 

June 25, 2007

Peak Suburbia

I get lots of letters from people in various corners of the nation who are hysterically disturbed by the continuing spectacle of suburban development. But instead of joining in their hand-wringing, I reply by stating my serene conviction that we are at the end of the cycle -- and by that I mean the grand meta-cycle of the suburban project as a whole. It's over. Whatever you see out there now is pretty much what we're going to be stuck with. The remaining things under construction are the last twitchings of a dying organism.

 

.......

 

For anyone who wonders how much we do not need anymore retail space in America, have a look at this chart showing the comparative amount of retail square-footage allotted for citizens of each nation:

 

Mags_Diary21_Retail%20graph.jpg

 

 

.......


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

et they are also anti-suburban as well, which is quite interesting.

 

Yeah, so whats left for these folks, a farm outside of Arcanum?  They'd probably complain about the manure smell.

 

LOL!  I'm normally a defender of sprawl as people acting according to their individual preferences, but even I find this approach to be really annoying.  The farm was there first and you knew it was there before you bought the place.

 

Speaking of defending sprawl, this article appeared in the Guardian, a British paper known for its left-liberal leanings:Urban myths

 

 

Sprawl gets a bad press but it has given us privacy, mobility and choice

 

Robert Bruegmann

Saturday January 28, 2006

The Guardian

 

 

London, with its long and illustrious history and its infinitely varied cityscape, is one of the grandest cities in the world. It is also one of the least dense and most sprawling. This latter assertion will no doubt raise eyebrows. After all, the word "sprawl", in the minds of many people, conjures up images of postwar American suburbia. Britain, on the other hand, particularly in the period after the second world war, instituted some of the strictest growth-management laws in the world and is usually considered a leader in the fight against sprawl.

 

But much of what we think we know about sprawl is wrong. In the case of London, it is clear that by the end of the last war the city had already been sprawling prodigiously for centuries. Even the term "sprawl" in its current sense seems to have been a British coinage, not an American one. In fact Britain pioneered both producing sprawl and trying to stop it. The result, in Britain as elsewhere in the affluent world, has been ambiguous.

Today a coalition of architects, planners, academics, government officials and others across the affluent world believes that sprawl is economically inefficient, socially inequitable, environmentally damaging, and ugly. Sprawl, they assert, is a prime factor in everything from obesity in suburbanites to global warming. They also believe that sprawl is a recent phenomenon, peculiarly American, driven by excessive car usage and the result of poor public policies. Given this diagnosis, the remedy is clear. Policies need to be changed so that sprawl can be stopped and any new growth channelled into better-planned and more compact settlements.

 

...

 

· Robert Bruegmann is professor of art history, architecture and urban planning at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author of Sprawl: A Compact History, published by the University of Chicago Press at RRP

 

Source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1696761,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The English planning was interesting.  They really did see London as way too dense, particularly the East End, and it probably was..lots of slum rowhousing. 

 

The new towns themselves are an interesting planning history.  The first one,  before the war, was sort of a period piece, perhaps a bit like a large Shaker Heights/Square or Mariemont.  After the war they are like Scandinavian new towns, sort of a humanized modernism.  Then there is the "technocratic megastructure" period of the later 50s and 60s...pretty awful.  These developements were favorite setting for dystopian sci-fi movies, like Clockwork Orange.

 

The last new town, Milton Keynes, was actually based on US models of sprawl, based on Los Angles or other sprawly US cities, with a grid of highways and low density developement plugged in to the grid, but sort of a "controlled sprawl" with lots of landscaping an park belts. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article was an interesting read, but I don't agree with his attempts to defend sprawl. He neglected to mention the huge public service costs (more sewers, water run-off from extra pavement [including salinization of streams in winter and early spring around here], increased road maintenance costs, physical disconnect between jobs and economically disadvantaged job-seekers, a greater propensity for annual household transportation costs to exceed housing costs making it difficult for people -- especially low-incomed -- to build wealth etc. etc.).

 

And the arguments he raised for sprawl were stilted at best. Commuting times and energy use are higher in high-density areas? If location-efficient mortgages were better marketed, how long does it take to walk down the street from home to job, stopping at the grocer, cafe, restaurant, laundromat, video store, post office and more along the way? How much energy is used in a neighborhood designed like that?? And that kind of mixed use is absent (if not illegal under zoning codes) in sprawling communities.


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urban Sprawl Of Gang Activity

Jun 26 2007 11:55PM

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Authorities said Tuesday gang members are making their presence known with violent attacks further and further from inner city.

 

A detective with the Columbus Division of Police Gang Unit told 10TV the far east side and suburban Reynoldsburg are a couple of hot spots where gang activity has grown. Detective Thad Alexander explained gang members think they can hide among the growing communities and affordable housing.

 

Some families who have moved to such neighborhoods for peace and quiet said they are being terrorized instead.

 

...

 

Reported by Lindsey Seavert

http://10tv.com/?sec=home&story=sites/10tv/content/pool/200706/893389889.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Short North Posse?? You've got to be kidding me!

 

Are there also the Grandview Goons, Olentangy Outcasts, and the Westerville Whiteys? gunz.gif


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Short North Posse?? You've got to be kidding me!

 

Are there also the Grandview Goons, Olentangy Outcasts, and the Westerville Whiteys? gunz.gif

 

ok KJP, your emoticons have fallen to a new low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America's Fastest-Growing Suburbs

By Matt Woolsey, Forbes.com

July 16, 2007

 

 

The fastest-growing suburb in the country is Lincoln, Calif., just outside Sacramento. Its population jumped from 11,746 to 39,566, or an increase of 236%. The fastest-growing big suburb (with a population of 100,000 or more) is Gilbert, Ariz., outside Phoenix, which expanded from 112,766 people to 191,517.

 

While not cheap by national standards, the growth in Sacramento's outerlying areas is strong because it's a less-expensive alternative to Los Angeles, San Francisco or San Diego. The Phoenix area saw the greatest positive domestic migration of any American metro last year, with 115,000 more people moving into town than leaving. Affordable housing and a growing economy draw a lot of people to the city.

 

Rounding out the top 10 fastest-growing suburbs after Lincoln were four Phoenix suburbs: Buckeye, Surprise, Goodyear and Avondale; Plainfield, outside of Chicago; Beaumont, outside San Bernardino, Calif.; Frisco and Wylie outside of Dallas; and Woodstock, outside of Atlanta.

 

While Los Angeles is sometimes called the "Sultan of Sprawl", not one of its suburbs makes the list.

 

...

 

http://www.forbes.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always take Demographia's data with a grain of salt (OK, maybe a salt mine). Its founder and head honcho, Wendell Cox, is a notorious hired gun for the auto and petroluem industries, as well as for far-right causes. When he issues data, reports, findings, etc., they are to put some wind behind an agenda that is almost always anti-urban.

 

There is a term for those who accept Wendell's data without questioning it:  Cox Suckers.


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Short North Posse?? You've got to be kidding me!

 

Is this the same one that keeps shooting up South Campus Gateway???

 

I loved the article you posted KJP on "Peak Suburbia". I've already begun to make amends to a future oil decrease. Bike? Check. Moped? Check (but need to bring it down and find secure parking for it). Fuel efficient SUV? Check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good eye, KJP regarding the author of this latest "fastest-growing area" survey. In this article, as with most of its sort, I love how even now in the peak oil era, all possible value is boiled down to home price. Problem is, I have associates who are fully equipped to know better who fell into that trap with their own home-buying delirium. I give us two more years before we, as a nation, are officially and irrevocably screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That fastest growing list is a real hoot to an old timer like myself.

 

Plainfield used to be way out in the cornfields sort of sidways from Joliet.  It was "suburban" even in the 1960s, but it still pretty much looked like an old midwestern town (and the place atually was pretty old, being one of the early prairie settlments, on a road out of Chicago).  But to hear it as this fast growing sprawlburb is pretty shocking.

 

Same for Lincoln.  I lived in "El Sacra Centro" for a few years, and recall Lincoln as this little "Big Valley" farm town upvalley from Sacto, at the edge of those golden rolling Sierra Nevada foothills, fairly far north of the urban sprawl that had reached Roseville.  There was a lot of open ranch country you drove through to get to Lincoln.  I think the only develoment up there, north of Roseville, was Stanford Ranch, which had a Hewlitt Packard plant, and not much else.  North of that, range land and rolling foothills country and valley farmlands, then you hit Lincoln.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could our car-crazy, oil-constrained lifestyle and the urban sprawl it fosters be on a collision course with the rising need more farmland due to the increasing demand for ethanol as an-oil substitute? It's an interesting paradox....

________________________

 

Value of Ohio farmland increasing

The price has increased by 10 percent since last year, nearly doubling since 1997 says federal agency.

 

By Ben Sutherly

 

Staff Writer

 

Monday, October 29, 2007

 

DAYTON — In sharp contrast to the real estate slowdown and foreclosure crisis in many of Ohio's largest cities, the value of the state's cropland is soaring.

 

Bare cropland is fetching an average of $3,920 per acre this year. That's up 10 percent in the past year — the fastest annual rate of increase in at least nine years.

 

The price of cropland has nearly doubled from $1,990 per acre in 1997.

 

The land prices, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and based on a survey of farmers in June, have been fueled partly by much higher prices for commodities such as corn, soybeans and wheat, said Barry Ward of Ohio State University Extension.

 

...

 

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-7457 or bsutherly@DaytonDailyNews.com.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/10/29/ddn102907farmland.html


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Looks like a beautiful side effect to me. Still not entirely sold on ethanol yet...

 

Nor should you be. But I really love the irony that ethanol, meant to quench our thirst for driving/sprawling ad nauseum, may ultimately be one of the forces to rein it in.


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw....all you have to do is fly into Hopkins and note that the farmland's still a lot bigger than the sprawl.  Places further from cities may convert to ethanol producing crops.

 

Another force moving in the opposite direction is the decentralization of agricultual planning worldwide, allowing higher yields and less demand for US agricultural imports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering if anyone could show some good examples of expansion of a town on a grid. Like, adding to the grid of a town. I'm not thinking a big town. A small town (example Wilmington) that continued to expand but did so by adding more grids. I think some towns that have potential to not fall victim to suburban sprawl are having issues with subdivisions popping up right outside the grid of their town.

 

Take a look at this map of Wilmington City ( copy and paste: http://www.wccchamber.com/?page=areamaps&title=Area Maps&text=1 ). Some sides of town, southwest in particular, are being "nibbled upon" (I wouldn't say eaten up) by subdivisions (I would just refer you to google earth, but there are a lot of new roads not taken account for and this is the most recently drawn map.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found some decent stuff on  The Ohio State Univerisitie's Exurban Change Program Website, which 'analyzes economic, social, agricultural and land use change throughout Ohio’s townships, the Midwest region, and the Nation's exurban/rural landscape.'  The website has some pretty interesting stuff.  I figured I would pass some of it along..

 

The result of these patterns of change in Ohio township population is the emergence of a substantial number of densely populated townships located near the state’s large cities. In 1970, 245 of Ohio’s 1320 townships (18.4 percent of all townships) had population densities in excess of 100 persons per square mile. By 2000, that proportion had grown to 348 of 1313 townships (26.5 percent)

 

...

 

In the 1950s, Ohio lost 11.9 percent of its farmland. In the 1960s and 1970s, farmland loss rates fell to 8.3 percent and 8.0 percent per decade. Loss rates moderated even further to just 3.7 percent during the 1980s despite "rampant" sprawl. While these trends reversed slightly in the 1990s, the rate for the decade is still about half that of the 1970s. link

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holdouts resist suburban growth

Some longtime residents like change; some resigned to it

Friday,  November 23, 2007 3:09 AM

By Martin Rozenman

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Kevin Dittmer remembers moving into his Johnstown Road home, more a pebble kick than a stone's throw from New Albany.

 

"When I moved in, there was a tree farm across the street," he recalls. "Now, it's a school-bus barn."

 

Dittmer, 50, has lived in his house for 20 years. He's a part of an old guard of residents in six Columbus suburbs -- Canal Winchester, Dublin, Hilliard, New Albany, Pickerington and Powell -- who prefer what was to what is.

 

"The big houses weren't here," he said. "There were no houses behind me, no offices and apartment buildings on Central College and (Rt.) 605.

 

"It was all woods, but, hey, we're maintaining the rural character," he said sarcastically.

 

Of all Columbus' suburbs, these six have experienced some of the region's most-dramatic recent growth. Once small rural villages, they have become sprawling bedroom communities: Anysuburb, U.S.A.

 

...

 

mrozenman@dispatch.com

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/11/23/6_SUBURBS_GROW.ART_ART_11-23-07_C1_GS8IGU1.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holdouts resist suburban growth

Some longtime residents like change; some resigned to it

 

She helped lead a referendum in 2001-02 to slow growth with legislation limiting subdivisions to no more than two homes per acre. But that didn't affect lots where builders already had permits, she said.

 

 

I'm trying to think of a more counterproductive and sprawl-inducing technique. I'm having trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the intent of residents to make large lot sizes is to make it "feel" rural with the sense of large land plots and houses. All it actually gets is the sterotypical suburban home on the minimum lot size. Developers will build within whatever constraints there are so long as there is demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She helped lead a referendum in 2001-02 to slow growth with legislation limiting subdivisions to no more than two homes per acre.

 

How ironic.  It's not so much "I don't like sprawl" as it is "I don't like having other buildings within shouting distance of my own home", which is sprawl in its worst form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Well, it does short circuit the economic viability for the developers; jamming as many homes as possible into a cornfield is how they make the big bucks. Or used to. I'm not fooled for an instant by these New Urbanist-lite subdivisions. Density removed from the core city is like a sucker on a tree trunk; it's green, it's leafy, but it's drawing away the life-force the tree needs to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Urbanism really only works when the urban part is taken seriously. The best examples I've seen tend to be infill development in areas developed in the fifties and sixties sprawl style that are now valuable enough to see the increased densities of new urbanist style planning. 1/4 acre plots surrounded by corn well that is just a scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suburb battles area's blight

Monday,  January 21, 2008 3:08 AM

By Jim Woods

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

The owner of the Spot Family Fun & Billiards Hall hauled pool tables out of his Brice Road establishment last week.

 

Michael Maszon said he was forced to close when the Reynoldsburg City Council voted last Monday to reject his request to sell beer. Maszon said he needed beer to attract pool tournaments.

 

Councilman Ron Stake, who supported Maszon's request, said he would rather keep a business open than have another empty storefront in the Brice Road-Livingston Avenue area.

 

"You try to invest in the community and do the right thing, and they fight you every step of the way," Maszon said as he loaded his rented truck.

 

...

 

jwoods@dispatch.com

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/01/21/briceup.ART_ART_01-21-08_B1_7O93PQ5.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's extremely disappointing to see a wasteland that was mostly brand new construction in the '90s.

 

edit: Actually, the area illustrated in the article is north of the part I was referring to. The article highlights a '70s-era area, while the '90s fallout is further south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry in advance if somebody has already mentioned this documentary...

 

I just watched "End of Suburbia" the other night and it is an interesting view on the future of all that sprawl.  Very doomsdayish in a "the end of the world is near" kinda way, as it talks about peak oil.  But it is still worth watching - it's available on NetFlix...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw End of Suburbia, and it's an OK film. An even better film on the subject of Peak Oil is the documentary Crude Awakening. It's also doomsdayish, but in the absence of a real alternative to oil and in the quantities and massive scale that oil is presently available, it's not hard to favor the doomers over the cornucopians.


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an election year, anyone else waiting to hear - when asked about energy issues - an answer beyond the standard "alternative fuels, cap greenhouse gasses" to "invest in public transportation"?  It seems like an easy enough part time/short term solution.  Doesn't necessarily require new fuels, invests in existing infrastructure...maybe I'm looking at it too simplisticly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not likely to hear that because it doesn't really speak to large swathes of the American public.  Like any government-subsidized entity, so many people are utterly dependent on cars that to imply that there are other ways of getting around that should be embraced and developed is  (almost literally)  foreignto a lot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feb. 14, 2008

 

Urban sprawl is crashing into farms, fueling cars

Write of Way

Ken Prendergast

 

Just as they have for decades, investors are snapping up farmland at Greater Clevelands urban fringe in Lorain, Medina, Summit, Geauga and Lake counties.

 

But in the last couple of years, investors ranging in size from individuals to big private equity firms arent seeking to bulldoze some of the worlds best farmland to plant rows of McMansion-style homes. Instead, theyre buying land to actually use it for agriculture for corn in general and ethanol in particular.

 

With the boom in ethanol, farmland has value again. High commodity prices driven by biofuel production may stop the loss of farmland to urban sprawl, wrote energy-agriculture consultant Cliff Bradley in a 2007 report, Saving the Poor and the Planet with Biofuels.

 

Cities have been growing outward for thousands of years. But since the mid-20th century, governments began building Interstate highways and big sewer systems, subsidizing oil prices, granting tax abatements to hop-scotching companies and enacting low-density zoning codes.

 

Urban areas expanded outward so quickly that overall metro area population densities fell. It meant that at least one community had to shrink for another to grow. Thats the difference between growth and urban sprawl.

 

The Greater Cleveland-Akron area suffered some of the nations worst sprawl; its developed land area doubled in size since 1960 but its population stayed stuck at 2.9 million people. Some call this the free market at work, even as Northeast Ohioans spend more of their tax dollars per capita to extend public infrastructure and services over longer distances and among smaller population densities.

 

At the same time, the urban poor are isolated from new jobs, mostly in the suburbs, incurring taxpayer support for social programs, law enforcement and prisons.

 

But a more genuine example of the free market may impose an end to sprawl the rising value of farmland appears to be an example of it. Admittedly, ethanol is highly subsidized and new federal laws mandate an increase in ethanol production from 7 billion gallons a year to 15 billion by 2015. Ethanol is also a poor source of energy; it has a low net return on energy invested (an issue for another column).

 

There is a great irony at work here in the early 21st century. In the last century, the outward growth of car-dependent suburbia was nourished by incredibly cheap gasoline and subsidized roads. Today and into the foreseeable future, ethanol and farmlands are being nourished by the rising cost of oil based on flattening global production rates and rising demand.

 

According to a Feb. 5, 2008 USA Today article, demand for grain for food, fuel and export, along with low interest rates and a weakened dollar have raised farmland prices by double digits the past two years. Average values have doubled since 2000.

 

No longer are farms easy pickings for real estate speculators seeking to build another housing subdivision. And no longer are farmers appealing to Willie Nelson and his Farm Aid concerts to bring attention to their plight, not when an Ohio farmer can get up to $500,000 for his 100-acre property and remain a tenant on the farm.

 

In the 1980s, a farmer might get half as much money, only to see his farm succumb to housing. More than 6.9 million acres of Ohio farmland met that fate between 1950 and 2000, according to the Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force.

 

Today, real estate developers are having a harder time justifying paying double for farmland. They can still build in wooded areas, but must compete for the land with conservancies funded by the Clean Ohio Campaign which voters approved in 1999. Still, developers must pay higher costs of building materials and for operating gas-powered construction equipment.

 

The situation is made worse by the sub-prime mortgage crisis and high gas prices that are discouraging people from buying homes farther from work and shopping. The worlds tightening oil market suggests well be paying even more for gas in the near future. Emerging trends in real estate markets suggest some are betting on that future.

 

According to the real estate firm Grubb & Ellis, office users in 2007 snapped up 145,327 square feet of office space in downtown Cleveland compared to just 121,370 square feet in all of Northeast Ohios suburban markets.

 

The overall residential real estate market has slowed to a crawl, except in and near downtown Cleveland. More than $2.5 billion in new construction and renovation projects are planned, underway or recently completed. Developers are creating a low-mileage lifestyle where people can walk, bike or take transit amongst an intimate mix of offices, housing, restaurants, entertainment and shopping.

 

I wont say downtown real estate has been immune to the housing crisis, but its doing better than real estate elsewhere, said Clevelands Ward 13 Councilman Joe Cimperman, who represents downtown and the neighborhoods of St. Clair-Superior, Ohio City and Tremont.

 

It appears our car-crazy, oil-addicted lifestyle and the urban sprawl it fostered has collided with itself. The only reason it has is because we chose corn-based ethanol as a means to keep on driving as if nothing has changed. I love ironies.


"Save the planet. Move to the city." -- The Downtowner podcast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice article and great observation regarding the irony of capitalism driving and now potentially halting urban sprawl.

 

One item that I find to be an interesting side-bar to this discussion:

 

Urban areas expanded outward so quickly that overall metro area population densities fell. It meant that at least one community had to shrink for another to grow. That's the difference between growth and urban sprawl.

 

Well, in Cleveland, yes I agree.  But in cities where I think "Urban Sprawl" is more prominant - Atlanta, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, whatever city you want to attach to the region known as "South Florida", etc, I don't know that this definition fits. 

 

For example, Atlanta might be the crown jewel of all urban sprawls.  Some parts of Fulton county have just recently spun off from Atlanta and incorporated into their own cities.  Yet the population downtown (well, "downtown" is now split into 3 sections - downtown, midtown, and uptown/Buckhead) is becoming more dense, not less.  So parts of the city are becoming denser while still growing - mightly I might add - continuing to develop into one of the nation's largest urban sprawls.

 

Atlanta was never really a "dense" city.  Most of its booming growth began in the 60's and then really exploded after it was awarded the Olympics.  And the original parts of the city are still as populous as they once were, to some extent more.  But for the most part, Atlanta is considered a city on the up and up despite its urban sprawl...mainly because the economy is going so well there.

 

But it developed that way because that's what the market demanded - people wanted to live in low density areas.  Many people like privacy, enjoy space, were looking for something more out of their house, etc.  I guess the problem arises when, like in Cleveland, expansion is detrimental to the urban core.  I think it's just a matter of planning for this type of growth and incorporating low density areas more effectively into the urban region.  In Cleveland, you can see why it became an issue because suburban cities were fighting for themselves rather than the region, but in Atlanta, even far out parts that were essentially "suburbs" still fell under the City of Atlanta, so it seemed to happen regardless.

 

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...