Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest punch

Cleveland: Global Center for Health Innovation & Convention Center

Recommended Posts

I just spent 15 minutes reading everyone's comments about the TC site for the CC. I am surprised that the majority of you think this is a bad site. Not only am I shocked that there is so much disapproval of the site...but i am shocked by the reasons why you are against the site:

 

- Forest City's involvement

- There isn't enough space for a CC

- There is no room for additional development

 

These are the major reason why some of you feel that the TC site is bad? First of all...we can debate Forest City's involvement till the cows come home. Some of us see them as a neglectful, corporate giant who hasn't done anything to improve their current properties of TC and Scranton Peninsula, while others see them as a reputable Fortune 500 company who has the capabilities to create a massive spin-off development off the new CC site. But lets put aside the Forest City debate and just talk purely about the TC location...

 

"There isn't enough space": What!? Not enough space? We aren't trying to build another IX center. We are trying to build a convention center that meets modern standards and is built into an urban fabric. As was mentioned earlier...the right architecture and engineering can make it work.

 

A couple years ago an group of European urban planning experts came to Cleveland to do a study of opportunities the city could take advantage of. The result of their trip? Where did they say we should be focusing our efforts? The river. They said that the Cuyahoga represented the best opportunity for development because it is where the city was founded, it is still where a tremendous amount of commerce takes place, it is where it is easier to build connecting infrastructure to the rest of the city, and it is easier to build density. The lakefront is important...but the river is too and we have an opportunity with this development to make great strides.

 

If you've noticed in the news lately, the Ohio Canal Corridor will be extending the Cuyahoga Valley Towpath trail into Downtown, via Scranton Peninsula. Near the abandoned B&O Terminal there will be a brand new park called Canal Basin Park...3-times the size of Public Square. The other side of the river is already on its way to being revived. With a CC on the TC site...it isn't going to limit development....it is going to spur development. Come on everybody...the river isn't that[/b big of a boundary! You can easily bridge it.

 

In addition to the importance of the river and the potential for other development, the Tower City site has other extremely valuable assets:

  • Direct connection to 2 major hotels (already in existence)
  • Direct connection to 4 major transit lines: Red Line, Blue, Green and Healthline
  • Direct access to the Gateway Complex
  • Centrally located between major entertainment districts - The Warehouse District, East 4th and Gateway

 

There are more reasons...but these are some of the most glaring ones that matter to conventions and people who attend conventions. We need to stop and look at the facts...this is a good thing for the city and we will thrive because we will be able to use this as catalyst for other development.

 

Cost overruns are still a concern and we have to make sure our public officials are fiscally responsible....but the Tower City site is the best option for a new CC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all that you said urban manna.  Especially the Forest City comment.  Unless you had dinner with Forest City last night and they told you they were corrupt and bribing Cleveland, then keep the accusation to yourself.  I would love one of the largest developers in the world to have our Convention Center at their front doorstep.  And if it is about Cleveland kissing their butt, maybe they should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Sorry but you need to spend more than 15 minutes reading comments regarding posters feelings regarding the reason many feel negatively about the TC site.  This debate has been going on for many months on this thread and the negatives are spelled out much better on previous page after page.  The most recent comments are just a recaps.

 

Personally, my biggest concern, as articulated very well by many posters in the past is that there is no room for a convention center behind TC and this is going to end up being an architectural disaster and a wart on the site and the city as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A couple years ago an group of European urban planning experts came to Cleveland to do a study of opportunities the city could take advantage of. The result of their trip? Where did they say we should be focusing our efforts? The river."

 

European planning experts have also visited Cleveland and remarked that "eyesores" like the Jackknife Bridge should be removed. ;-)

 

Honestly, I can understand why people DON'T care to set aside the Forest City issue. Are they a reputable Fortune 500 company? Absolutely. Are they capable of massive spin-off development? Absolutely. Have they clearly demonstrated that capability in Cleveland? No. I know certain economic realities don't make Cleveland an easy market, but let's face it - the gaping maw that is the south side of Tower City Center is just awful. It also doesn't help their perception when it seems like they need exorbitant public subsidies to accomplish anything in the city. Yes, Forest City does some absolutely wonderful things for Cleveland (and especially other cities ;-) ), but we're not seeing that when it comes to their proposals for the riverfront site. If/when we do, I'll be the first to stand happily corrected.

 

"As was mentioned earlier...the right architecture and engineering can make it work."

 

Granted they aren't the final designs, but I don't think the renderings we've seen so far are anything close to the "right" architecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any way to wedge this much building of this type of use onto this site and have it be the "right" architecture.  I can't imagine how they will make this anything but a massive cliff hanging over the river's edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only address this now or I'll get pissed....

 

"There isn't enough space": What!? Not enough space? We aren't trying to build another IX center. We are trying to build a convention center that meets modern standards and is built into an urban fabric. As was mentioned earlier...the right architecture and engineering can make it work.

 

We're not trying to rebuild the IX center but replace that facility with a facility that can hold large conventions and trade show that are currently hosted there.

 

If we don't have a space that can hold those....they will simply not show in Cleveland/NEO. That would further reduce our convention/hospitality related industry.  If we don't build a proper facility we have to keep the IX open and would that sense? 

 

Lastly, this should be built on PUBLIC porpoerty not PURCHASED property connected to PRIVATE owned complex.

 

Now as someone who has worked in the city during a large scale event (the nba championships) the short coming of the current convention/hospitality sector run deeper than just the convention center.  But building the right facility and putting it in the proper location would be a start.

 

Centrally located between major entertainment districts - The Warehouse District, East 4th and Gateway

moot..the current location does the the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

urban manna... i respect your level headed post... but no offense, I think you're wrong and here's why in as condensed a version as I think i can do (I could write a novel on this)... and I'll leave forest city completely out of it:

 

1.  There isn't room on the river bank for a "convention center".  It's really not even debateable.  Go back and search for one of maydays posts where he shows the outlines of Pittsburgh's and Columbus's CC on the site.  They would have to reach over Huron road attaching to the landmark building... and then spread out half way across the river on stilts.  They also had no idea how to create ramps for a marshall yard here. Of course this monstrosity looked awful and was too expensive.  So now they are "scaling it back".  By scaling it back they are having it touch down on Canal Road for a marshall yard and climb upwards 1 or 2 stories above Huron.  It does not extend over the river at all.  So we are now talking about a slim 5-6-7? story tower.  Find me another convention center anywhere in the world that does that.  There isn't one.  What is being talked about now probably works well for multi-floored medical trade shows... but it's not a true convention center.  Those have very very large contiguous open floor plates.  That's what most trade shows and conventions need.  If it won't be able to hold conventional conventions why are we building it.

 

2.  RTA access is moot.  Current site has the exact same rail access.

 

3.  I won't refute that building the medical mart and a medical meeting facility behind tower city could still have a positive impact on downtown.  I think it would.  But there are most definitely less opportunities for spinoff development here.

 

4.  And most importantly... It's not taking into account the CATACLYSMIC affect by leaving the current site behind.  Those buildings will be almost impossible to fill.  The whole point of this was to rejuvinate the area.  The malls will suffer horribly, and I mean horribly. from this there will be ZERO reason to ever be between east 8th street and west 6th street north of saint clair when this is gone. None.  The point was it could have connected the CBD, warehouse and civic districts, and the lakefront all throught the CC.  If this goes through.... ghost town.

 

And I've said it before and I'll say it again... behind tower city is a growth / expansion site.  We as a city very simply are not there yet.  We need to rebuild all the dying areas before we expand... or they will be left in the dust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Go back and search for one of maydays posts where he shows the outlines of Pittsburgh's and Columbus's CC on the site."

 

More importantly - the main exhibition hall of any convention center essentially needs to be a ONE-floor square floorplate of mammoth proportions. A multi-floor stacked exhibition hall (because the riverfront site is too thin to accomodate a square floorplate)? Again - I'm not seeing the "right" architecture here (yellow line is the Pittsburgh CC footprint; Red is Columbus):

 

ccrivercolpitt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we might want to change that red line to another color, as some of our colorblind members wont see it.  :-D

 

Just trying to add a little humor, so we can all take a step back, now that we have a visual.

 

MayDay, I didn't look and can't remember, but can you post the pitt's and Columbus CC outlines on the current site, for comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way... this isn't "developing the river".  Canal road becomes a marshall yard, with large trucks coming and going.  There is no access to the river.  This ends up being nothing more than a building that looks out at the river and our rotting failed industrial past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCleveland, the latest information states that the CC behind TC will not be built as vertical as the original renderings indicate.

 

Urban Manna, well said.  I am still a proponent of the current site but was never on the extreme end of the debate as the majority of UO posters are.  I agree with gotribe that the right architecht can make this work.  I also believe that development spin-off would be great along the river, and hopefully will occur on Scranton Peninsula - possibly in time even spurring project similar to FEB.

 

I have seen Mayday's past footprints for this site, but I am not sure that the exact foot print has ever been defined.  While I admittedly have no engineering/architectural background, what is to stop the designers from incorporating the space dug out for the existing TC parking garage abbuting the proposed site.  Why can't the CC extend from the river and flow into that space, partially buried beneath Ontario.  The rapid could then have a direct entrance into the CC with some minor adjustments.  There is still plenty of space left to build a new garage.  Anybody with knowledge have any thoughts on that??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Go back and search for one of maydays posts where he shows the outlines of Pittsburgh's and Columbus's CC on the site."

 

More importantly - the main exhibition hall of any convention center essentially needs to be a ONE-floor square floorplate of mammoth proportions. A multi-floor stacked exhibition hall (because the riverfront site is too thin to accomodate a square floorplate)? Again - I'm not seeing the "right" architecture here (yellow line is the Pittsburgh CC footprint; Red is Columbus):

 

ccrivercolpitt.jpg

 

These are compelling images, but I wish we could see how much of these footprints are necessary. Is Columbus's CC large because they added some uses onto the main floor that don't necessary have to be there? How about Pittsburgh's? If there were time, it would be good to find some internal layout plans for these centers and compare them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say it any better....

 

Biggest problem for Cleveland = separation from our waterfront.

 

Choosing the current site would've solved this puzzle, AND give us a new convention center in one fell swoop.

 

Where are all of the upset RTA riders now? Where are those upset that they are taxed without representation?

 

 

 

I also bet most people don't appreciate the Group Plan and the potential that exists in turning it into one of America's most exciting urban, public spaces. We've seen proposals in the past for expanding the current site. Hell, my employer has produced countless plans and ideas for expanding the existing site-these go back 2 decades! These plans link the Malls, CC, and Northcoast Harbor better than anything we've seen, yet 2 decades later nothing has changed.

 

I don't know what we do. If this thing goes to TC, we really need to start brainstorming as to develop some new program(s) for the Group Plan site.

 

Between this project and the Innerbelt, we may p*ss away nearly $2 billion and set the course of the city for generations to come. Nice... :-(  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCleveland, the latest information states that the CC behind TC will not be built as vertical as the original renderings indicate.

 

Urban Manna, well said.  I am still a proponent of the current site but was never on the extreme end of the debate as the majority of UO posters are.  I agree with gotribe that the right architecht can make this work.  I also believe that development spin-off would be great along the river, and hopefully will occur on Scranton Peninsula - possibly in time even spurring project similar to FEB.

 

I have seen Mayday's past footprints for this site, but I am not sure that the exact foot print has ever been defined.  While I admittedly have no engineering/architectural background, what is to stop the designers from incorporating the space dug out for the existing TC parking garage abbuting the proposed site.  Why can't the CC extend from the river and flow into that space, partially buried beneath Ontario.  The rapid could then have a direct entrance into the CC with some minor adjustments.  There is still plenty of space left to build a new garage.  Anybody with knowledge have any thoughts on that??

 

Ummm it's going to be MORE vertical than the original one.  The new design calls for it running from canal road up to and above huron road.... that's HIGH.

 

and if forest city wants to develop scranton penninsula... then... ummmm... do it.  I don't think a convention center across the river has anything to do with it.  Except of course if you're saying they are so embarrassed about what the view will be from this thing that they'll be forced to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. And most importantly... It's not taking into account the CATACLYSMIC affect by leaving the current site behind. Those buildings will be almost impossible to fill. The whole point of this was to rejuvinate the area. The malls will suffer horribly, and I mean horribly. from this there will be ZERO reason to ever be between east 8th street and west 6th street north of saint clair when this is gone. None. The point was it could have connected the CBD, warehouse and civic districts, and the lakefront all throught the CC. If this goes through.... ghost town.

 

That's what scares me the most. Give me a plan for the future of the current site, including the Public Hall, before casting it to the dustbin. I don't want my downtown to look like a hillbilly's front yard, where major appliances and cars rot because there were no plans for dealing with them upon their replacement.

 

Do we really want the Group Plan, which gave our city in its prime a grand promenade of public spaces and structures, to be cast aside like an old 'fridge in a hillbilly's front yard?

 

Until you secure a new user for the existing site and incorporate those re-use costs into the costs of moving to Tower City, don't proceed with a new convention center.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the costs associated with this project being so high, I think that it is highly highly unlikely that they would have paid for improvements that would connect NC Harbor to the Malls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These are compelling images, but I wish we could see how much of these footprints are necessary. Is Columbus's CC large because they added some uses onto the main floor that don't necessary have to be there? How about Pittsburgh's? If there were time, it would be good to find some internal layout plans for these centers and compare them.

 

That's what I was wondering too.  Looking at the floor plans of the P'burgh CC, it looks like the whole floor plate (the yellow outline) is pretty fundamental to the main open floorspace, except for the little hook at the top left.  All to say, if Pittsburgh's is the modern standard, it can't fit on the Tower City no matter how "creatively" it's designed.

 

 

See http://www.pittsburghcc.com/cc/OurBuilding/Floor2.aspx

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe not... but this was a county financed project.  It would leave the door open for it to be done in the future.  It could have been worked into the city budget at some point down the road.

 

(and there is still a bridge that connects the malls to the north coast harbor that could have been utilized in the meantime)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCleveland, the latest information states that the CC behind TC will not be built as vertical as the original renderings indicate.

 

Urban Manna, well said. I am still a proponent of the current site but was never on the extreme end of the debate as the majority of UO posters are. I agree with gotribe that the right architecht can make this work. I also believe that development spin-off would be great along the river, and hopefully will occur on Scranton Peninsula - possibly in time even spurring project similar to FEB.

 

I have seen Mayday's past footprints for this site, but I am not sure that the exact foot print has ever been defined. While I admittedly have no engineering/architectural background, what is to stop the designers from incorporating the space dug out for the existing TC parking garage abbuting the proposed site. Why can't the CC extend from the river and flow into that space, partially buried beneath Ontario. The rapid could then have a direct entrance into the CC with some minor adjustments. There is still plenty of space left to build a new garage. Anybody with knowledge have any thoughts on that??

 

Ummm it's going to be MORE vertical than the original one. The new design calls for it running from canal road up to and above huron road.... that's HIGH.

 

and if forest city wants to develop scranton penninsula... then... ummmm... do it. I don't think a convention center across the river has anything to do with it. Except of course if you're saying they are so embarrassed about what the view will be from this thing that they'll be forced to do it.

 

OK.... ummmmmmmmmm...... I just..... ummmmmmmmmmm..... re-read the story from a couple weeks back and..... ummmmmmmm..... you are right.  I just remembered the new design not being as vertical (rising above Huron)....... ummmmmmmmmm.... my sincere apologies Mr. Mayor.

 

And no, I did not mean that they are going to be embarrased about the view.  I guess I just presumed with the addition of thousands of visitors within spitting distance and the real possibility for a skywalk accross the river, it would make more sense now than ever before.

 

Touchy subject I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"MayDay, I didn't look and can't remember, but can you post the pitt's and Columbus CC outlines on the current site, for comparison."

 

The blue represents the current site, along with the expansion option on the northwest corner (Lakeside and Ontario):

 

cccurrentcolpitt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't kill me for asking this question: Is the TC location such a bad mistake it would be worth losing the entire project? (Convention center and Merchandise Mart) Would we rather see the Merchandise Mart build its facility in Minneapolis or Boston?  I agree the TC location is a poor choice and it does concern me that the old convention center will be useless, but I think the MM could really help Cleveland solidify its position as a global leader in the healthcare industry. I would hate to see this project fail, and a year from now see it in Minneapolis. That would be so Cleveland. It seems that MM really wants to be here. How many times in the past thirty years can we say a company from outside the region really wants to be here? I'm not trying to make excuses for our bumbling leaders, but I think in the end this project may really benefit Cleveland. I'm at the point I would rather have it (with its flaws), than see it somewhere else. Unfortunately, we don't have too many comparative advantages left. Again, I'm just throwing out a question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"OK.... ummmmmmmmmm...... I just..... ummmmmmmmmmm..... re-read the story from a couple weeks back and..... ummmmmmmm..... you are right.  I just remembered the new design not being as vertical (rising above Huron)....... ummmmmmmmmm.... my sincere apologies Mr. Mayor."

 

I did read something about the center being less vertical in the sense that it wouldn't be on stilts above Canal Road. Even so, that still doesn't resolve the issues of turning the riverfront into a marshalling yard, and the exhibition hall would still have to be shoehorned into the footprint of the site. Again, if it can happen with pleasing results, I'll eat crow - but I just don't see how it can be done.

 

sir2gees, that's a perfectly legitimate question and probably one that all of us have considered. Honestly, I think this project will have benefits for the region whether it's built on the current site or the riverfront. It's just that I have grave concerns that about the current building and what will happen to it; I'm worried that a riverfront center would be "value-engineered" into a mediocre eyesore on an awkward site... as McCleveland said, if those aren't addressed - this project will fail to maximize its own potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that's a fair question... and i can't believe i'm saying this, but... I think the damage done by abandoning the current complex would outweigh the economic benefits of the project.  i'd rather it not happen.

 

I wouldn't have been in favor of a new convention center without the medical mart.  And I'm not in favor of the medical mart without the "right" convention center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest difference between the current convention center site and the Tower City site? There is no constituency that benefits from or is pushing for the current site.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully there is enough righteous crabbing about this decision that they just scale way back and give the current cc a relatively minor rehab. modernize it, make it movie studio friendly, add some truck docks, get rid of some pillars and call it a day. wouldn't be the worst thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this does in fact go behind TC, I am almost sure the cinema's will be abandon and given up for convention space.  Not that it's everything needed, but that will be one of the architectural pieces into the design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The examples of Columbus and Pittsburgh are a little odd considering the fact that Pittsburgh is losing money hand over fist with their place and Columbus (from what i've heard) doesn't even utilize their full foot print. I understand the need for a large continuous floor plate, but is there anyone on UO that can back up with facts why a large, but more narrow floor plate is such much worse a design than the large, more square plates of Pittsburgh and Columbus?

 

I understand that a large foot print is necessary, but there are huge assumptions being made that just because there is an existing site...that it is the better location. The costs from what i've heard would be enourmous to modernize the current site. You are looking at a complete overhaul of Mall B and a deepening of the base floor of the current site. Plus...all these comments about a new convention center bridging to the lakefront wouldn't happen anyway. There are severl planners and developers that have said that the size of a CC that we would need in order to bridge those tracks....would be so far above and beyond what this city needs....there would be no way of recouping our costs. 

 

It's clear that there are a lot of you that don't like the TC site. But the current site is not a walk in the park either. Just because we don't know how we would utilize the current space...isn't a good argument for maintaining the current location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The examples of Columbus and Pittsburgh are a little odd considering the fact that Pittsburgh is losing money hand over fist with their place and Columbus (from what i've heard) doesn't even utilize their full foot print.

 

There's probably a few exceptions, but nearly all Convention centers lose money. Its a public investment to attract other spending (hotel, restaurant, etc.). What happens when you don't have big contiguous space? Larger shows pass you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no...that wasn't exactly my question. Why is a narrower foot print (which if you look at the potential footprint of a TC convention center...the footprint isn't that much more narrow than Pittsburgh's) so much worse than a more square foot print with an equal square footage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happens when you don't have big contiguous space? Larger shows pass you up.

Thus decreasing your marketability, forcing you to compete harder for smaller revenue shows, and further lowering the payback on your CC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no...that wasn't exactly my question. Why is a narrower foot print (which if you look at the potential footprint of a TC convention center...the footprint isn't that much more narrow than Pittsburgh's) so much worse than a more square foot print with an equal square footage?

 

And i was selectively responding to your criticism of another convention center under the belief that they are supposed to make money. See also: Public Transit. Sometimes I like to point out things that people often overlook, or hasn't been stated in the last 43 pages of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I'm not the most versed in the convention business, so I just throwing out questions. What if Cleveland could lure a significant amount of medical trade shows and mid-size conventions? Would that be enough to overcome the loss of the large conventions? (I know there are some very large conventions that equal three or four medium sized ones). I can't remember the exact number, but the MM would attract a decent amount of trade shows and conventions. A new center should increase the number of overall conventions we currently see? From my understanding, the current center is pretty antiquated, so a new convention center would be a significant improvement, right? Also, someone mentioned the economic impact on scraping the entire project is less than building an inferior convention center. I disagree. Scrapping the entire project would mean Cleveland would still have an antiquated center. With the current economy and local politics, it would be another ten years before we see a new convention center. The failure of this project would give the usual suspects fodder to fight any new convention center in the near future. I personally think Cleveland needs a modern convention center. Again, I’m not a fan of the TC site, but it’s the lesser of two evils. Not having a modern convention is a little embarrassing. Our current CC limits our ability to attract just about any convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I'm not the most versed in the convention business, so I just throwing out questions. What if Cleveland could lure a significant amount of medical trade shows and mid-size conventions? Would that be enough to overcome the loss of the large conventions? (I know there are some very large conventions that equal three or four medium sized ones). I can't remember the exact number, but the MM would attract a decent amount of trade shows and conventions. A new center should increase the number of overall conventions we currently see? From my understanding, the current center is pretty antiquated, so a new convention center would be a significant improvement, right? Also, someone mentioned the economic impact on scraping the entire project is less than building an inferior convention center. I disagree. Scrapping the entire project would mean Cleveland would still have an antiquated center. With the current economy and local politics, it would be another ten years before we see a new convention center. The failure of this project would give the usual suspects fodder to fight any new convention center in the near future. I personally think Cleveland needs a modern convention center. Again, I’m not a fan of the TC site, but it’s the lesser of two evils. Not having a modern convention is a little embarrassing. Our current CC limits our ability to attract just about any convention.

 

Not in my professional opinion.

 

Part of this problem is that people don't understand what the "mart" will do.

 

Something to remember the current center still host events, the IX center host events and the MMPI folks have told us they would bring in "x" number of NEW events.

 

The new center and MM should be built to accommodate all of the above.

 

scrapping the project would mean we're stuck with an outdated center downtown -where all the convention infrastructure is located  - and first class facility out by the airport with no infrastructure.  The IX then would block and expansion the airport needs to compete. 

 

This is so much more than just a "new convention center" just like the ECP is more than just a bus line.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...