|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you misread. i questioned why parking lots, if built freely, would conform to an orthogonal grid, because you claimed that large areas of downtown houston were not developed until the midcentury as individual block-sized parking lots. you're effectively saying that this map is a fabrication Here's the Houston "Skyline" from 1920, note that it really doesn't differ from that picture from the 1970s:  Are you technically correct that there were 2-3 story buildings in some of the areas (that didn't even fill out the whole lot) where there were then parking lots? Yes. Does that mean Houston tore down a bunch of buildings because they love cars so much? No. e: Here's the same area from the 1930s: 
computer parts fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Apr 24, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
I find myself absent mindedly wondering that if we go full vehicle automation with metropolitan based traffic control if it couldn't give the US a unique and different model to the stuff that has been successful elsewhere. The main advantage possible I can see from the people mover model is cargo delivery could also be retrofitted into the system where a transport vehicle just pulls up and delivers a standardized package to a building. Of course this begs the question which Americans value more, the experience of driving or cheap consumer goods. I'm not prepared to bet on either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Does that mean Houston tore down a bunch of buildings because they love cars so much? No. urban renewal and 'slum clearance' was a well known process in the mid 20th century. lots of older development was torn down for public works or sometimes just the 'public interest' which in the case of a city as light on regulation as houston could easily be left to rot for parking. here's a couple more examples from pittsburgh and st louis   sorry man, i hate to be rude but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about so i'm going to ignore you for now
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:e: Here's the same area from the 1930s: so uh did you not notice that this image directly contradicts your earlier claim that " Those blocks were never buildings, they started out as parking spaces." at least try to keep a consistent bad argument
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so uh did you not notice that this image directly contradicts your earlier claim that " Those blocks were never buildings, they started out as parking spaces." They weren't really buildings. "City demolishes wooden shacks that only covered half of the lot" is not really that controversial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I find myself absent mindedly wondering that if we go full vehicle automation with metropolitan based traffic control if it couldn't give the US a unique and different model to the stuff that has been successful elsewhere. The main advantage possible I can see from the people mover model is cargo delivery could also be retrofitted into the system where a transport vehicle just pulls up and delivers a standardized package to a building. I think a big issue with the expectations behind automation is that those vehicles would still have to more or less use the same roads of today, but with an extra couple decades of added congestion. Automation will be driving [or riding] more efficient but it is far from a cure-all especially once you start adding in pedestrians, bikes and "hold outs" that will demand to drive "manual and how much automated cars will have to react to counter them. To be honest, I don't know if automation would really work in Manhattan, where drivers need to be skilled but very aggressive at the same time. If any extremely optimistic expectations of car automation reminds me of the type of modernist thinking that got the US in trouble in the first place, that technological innovation will always be enough rather having it balanced by planning and community input. Also most American cities were radically alternated in the post-war period and while some scars are healing, many of them still show, the worst of all have to be freeways themselves. If anything the reason Portland was rather unique is due to the fact the city was practically in open-revolt when the Mt.Hood Freeway was proposed, the destruction of the area where it would have gone through [Clinton-Division] would have radically shape the fate of the city if it had gone though. If anything the reason why so many American cities suck comes down to freeways and how much they devastated the cities they were installed in. DC and NYC would practically be different cities today if their planned freeways were actually constructed, in comparison Boston literally spent billions of dollars to try to that legacy [semi-successfully]. If anything I would say the cities that minimized freeway construction [usually older coastal cities] clearly benefited from the decision. It isn't always the case but looking at SF, NYC or DC they are really doing quite a bit better than the rest of the country. It wasn't that high capacity roads didn't need to be built, but eradicating "slums" and replacing them with freeways and parking lots had predictable but irreversible consequences [Btw, most of those pictures being posted didn't show "an odd shack" being torn down but literally portions of neighborhoods being eradicated. One thing to be clear about though there was no way to really stop white flight, but the recovery from that period is highly variable. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
I work in downtown Seattle for Amazon, and have built my entire life around minimizing my commute times and costs. I bought a condo in the Northgate neighborhood which will get lightrail in 2021. Until then I ride an express bus with no stops from the transit center to within a block of my office. 20% of Amazon employees live within the same zip code as our corporate HQ, if I had my way the business would purchase some 7k units about to come online within 1 block of Denny so even more people could live there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:this doesn't address at all what i was talking about, which is that prewar (which is just a proxy for pre mass automobile) development was knocked down for the sake of parking, to demonstrate some of the alternative responses to mass auto travel than the european tendency to push for pedestrianism first pre-war european urban areas were all knocked down as well. difference is, europe didn't have racial diversity in the post-war era impacting its transit policies Ardennes posted:One thing to be clear about though there was no way to really stop white flight, but the recovery from that period is highly variable. Segregation halted capital flight. When that could no longer be done at the housing level, building walls around neighborhoods in the form of roadways slowed the rate of capital flight. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Here's the Houston "Skyline" from 1920, note that it really doesn't differ from that picture from the 1970s: A city is more than its skyline. It is the green space which has health benefits; it is not the grey of concrete. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.02.008
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
I'd like to point out that knocking down buildings to replace them with parking lots was never about economics. The popularity of cars does nothing to change the fact that downtown, in any city—even the dumpiest, shittiest commercial area in the dumpiest, shittiest city—is, in terms of business and government finance, too valuable to turn into parking lots. Parking lots are literally economic deadweight. Cities that knocked down buildings for parking lots saw their per-acre tax revenue go down, not up, and commercial areas with less parking produce more revenue per acre than those with more. It is well-established at this point that parking minimums drive up the cost of rent. Businesses are not immune from these costs; every parking space is land they're paying for that isn't actively generating revenue. Smart businesses minimize their parking in order to help boost sales per store.* Massive swathes of downtown parking were not built because of economics, any more than the federal government spent $500 billion dollars to build the national highway system because of economics. President Eisenhower did not run the numbers on highways versus rail when he proposed building a national highway system. Robert Moses did not calculate the loss of tax revenue to cities when he planned to level whole neighborhoods for highways and determine that highways grew the economy enough to outweigh the loss. These were ideologically-driven choices, and specific policies were put in place to implement them. Government and business does not exist in a vacuum, with executives and legislators robotically crunching the numbers behind every decision. All choices have an ideological bent. Governments went all-in on car-centric infrastructure. So did businesses. *Yes, I am aware there are many ways Trader Joe's maximizes revenue compared to other stores. Small parking lots is one of them. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Massive swathes of downtown parking were not built because of economics, any more than the federal government spent $500 billion dollars to build the national highway system because of economics. President Eisenhower did not run the numbers on highways versus rail when he proposed building a national highway system. Robert Moses did not calculate the loss of tax revenue to cities when he planned to level whole neighborhoods for highways and determine that highways grew the economy enough to outweigh the loss. These were ideologically-driven choices, and specific policies were put in place to implement them. Government and business does not exist in a vacuum, with executives and legislators robotically crunching the numbers behind every decision. All choices have an ideological bent. Governments went all-in on car-centric infrastructure. So did businesses. none of this impacts individual landowners or businesses who decide what land use will generate the highest rents
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:none of this impacts individual landowners or businesses who decide what land use will generate the highest rents Parking minimums, other zoning rules, and the wide range of biases affecting what people think profitable businesses look and act like don't affect individual businesses? Also, businesses are not rational, by simple virtue of being made up of oh-so-irrational human beings. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
I feel like DC is hosed because the metropolis has three different governments to deal with, which at any time could have obstructionist governments who poo poo on any project that will mess with their budget promises. It's amazing that any of the metro actually managed to be extended beyond the district boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
hypnorotic posted:I feel like DC is hosed because the metropolis has three different governments to deal with, which at any time could have obstructionist governments who poo poo on any project that will mess with their budget promises. It's amazing that any of the metro actually managed to be extended beyond the district boundaries. Well it is more the DC Metro itself is hosed because of it, but at the same time DC itself is more livable than most American cities [unless you go to a career focused happy hour]. Still it is rather amazing to see how much local governments try to handicap the Metro system even though the almost entire region depends on it. That said, if they actually had gone through with the plan to build freeways across DC, what kind of nightmare would have resulted from that? DC at least dodged a couple bullets there. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I'd like to point out that knocking down buildings to replace them with parking lots was never about economics. The popularity of cars does nothing to change the fact that downtown, in any city—even the dumpiest, shittiest commercial area in the dumpiest, shittiest city—is, in terms of business and government finance, too valuable to turn into parking lots. Parking lots are literally economic deadweight. Cities that knocked down buildings for parking lots saw their per-acre tax revenue go down, not up, and commercial areas with less parking produce more revenue per acre than those with more. Look, I understand this. You understand this. How the gently caress do you effectively communicate this to the commercial establishment owner in a downtown that their business is dying because of too much parking and not enough residents immediately surrounding their location, without them just bitching about the weather?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Look, I understand this. You understand this. How the gently caress do you effectively communicate this to the commercial establishment owner in a downtown that their business is dying because of too much parking and not enough residents immediately surrounding their location, without them just bitching about the weather? I think the problem is there's too much long-stay parking and too few loading zones for couriers or people who are picking something up. Ultimately, there are businesses that sell certain products which are difficult to carry on foot or on a bicycle or on transit -- liquor stores come to mind -- but they don't need huge parking lots, they just need a loading zone nearby that can hold two or three vehicles. We need more loading zones and 1-Hour spaces at the expense of long-stay spots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think the problem is there's too much long-stay parking and too few loading zones for couriers or people who are picking something up. Ultimately, there are businesses that sell certain products which are difficult to carry on foot or on a bicycle or on transit -- liquor stores come to mind -- but they don't need huge parking lots, they just need a loading zone nearby that can hold two or three vehicles. We need more loading zones and 1-Hour spaces at the expense of long-stay spots. Believe you me --- a motivated drinker will find a way. Take a backpack with ya, and those 4 bottles of scotch become that much easier to carry. Came across a wonderful resource that I've been binging on this week that I thought I'd share -- bit outdated, Euro-centric, and fails to consider implications of migrant issues, still, entertaining enough to have on in the background. https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/transport-studies-unit-podcasts
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Believe you me --- a motivated drinker will find a way. Take a backpack with ya, and those 4 bottles of scotch become that much easier to carry. Four bottles is easy as pie. I'm thinking a case of wine -- that's a prick to carry over a kilometre or so. Most of the liquor stores around here have delivery services for such things, which is good (because a large delivery van can make multiple pickups and dropoffs in a single trip, increasing efficiency) but it does require loading zone availability to be efficient on both ends. Long-term parking fucks everything up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:urban renewal and 'slum clearance' was a well known process in the mid 20th century. lots of older development was torn down for public works or sometimes just the 'public interest' which in the case of a city as light on regulation as houston could easily be left to rot for parking. here's a couple more examples from pittsburgh and st louis White folk see slums. Know what I see? I see affordable housing in racially and economically diverse, integrated communities which have been torn down to appease the sensibilities of white suburbanites. Above all, gently caress St. Louis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Four bottles is easy as pie. I'm thinking a case of wine -- that's a prick to carry over a kilometre or so. Most of the liquor stores around here have delivery services for such things, which is good (because a large delivery van can make multiple pickups and dropoffs in a single trip, increasing efficiency) but it does require loading zone availability to be efficient on both ends. Long-term parking fucks everything up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:White folk see slums. Know what I see? I see affordable housing in racially and economically diverse, integrated communities which have been torn down to appease the sensibilities of white suburbanites. Edit: this was a bad post. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Apr 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Cicero posted:A case of wine doesn't sound too hard to carry on bike with a large basket, or a rack with cables. Lots of people in bike-friendly cities do grocery shopping on bikes. A very large basket indeed, assuming you have a case of 12 bottles. And it doesn't scale, whereas a delivery van can carry tens of cases of wine. I do grocery shopping on foot and carry everything home on a regular basis. A case of wine is way heavier and more awkward than a few bags of groceries. Besides which, my original point was about the fact there's good reasons for loading zones to exist when compared with parking spots in general, just like commercial vehicles are often granted access to streets that are otherwise restricted. Sometimes a motor vehicle really is the best tool for the job, and by removing personal motor vehicles as a common means of just getting from point A to point B and staying for a while, we can make those other motor vehicles even more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think the problem is there's too much long-stay parking and too few loading zones for couriers or people who are picking something up. Ultimately, there are businesses that sell certain products which are difficult to carry on foot or on a bicycle or on transit -- liquor stores come to mind -- but they don't need huge parking lots, they just need a loading zone nearby that can hold two or three vehicles. We need more loading zones and 1-Hour spaces at the expense of long-stay spots. What's awesome is in California and many other states, a disabled parking permit lets you park for free as long as you want, even in a 15min spot. Due to rampant fraud and abuse, you can't find an open 15 min spot (or 10 hour spot) during busy times. I do agree generally. I bike to work and do most things by bike, but I do need to drive to pick up dry cleaning. While I have a garment bag on my bike, it can't pick up a week of clothes without wrinkling the hell out of them. A usable loading zone/15 minute zone (they have one that "disabled" people park in front of before walking 4 blocks to thier office) outside of my dry cleaner would make everyone's life easier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:A very large basket indeed, assuming you have a case of 12 bottles. And it doesn't scale, whereas a delivery van can carry tens of cases of wine. I do grocery shopping on foot and carry everything home on a regular basis. A case of wine is way heavier and more awkward than a few bags of groceries. So make a friend and have them help you. Bring a radio flyer with you to pull back. Make two trips. Hire an Uber, but for alcohol. All of those make more money for everyone in accord with the evidence-based best-practices for community development. Alternatively, eliminate mandatory closing hours for alcohol serving establishments and allow folk to get drunk 24/7 rather than need to purchase a cask on Thursday to keep them through shabbos and the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:A very large basket indeed, assuming you have a case of 12 bottles. And it doesn't scale, whereas a delivery van can carry tens of cases of wine. I do grocery shopping on foot and carry everything home on a regular basis. A case of wine is way heavier and more awkward than a few bags of groceries. quote:Besides which, my original point was about the fact there's good reasons for loading zones to exist when compared with parking spots in general, just like commercial vehicles are often granted access to streets that are otherwise restricted. Sometimes a motor vehicle really is the best tool for the job, and by removing personal motor vehicles as a common means of just getting from point A to point B and staying for a while, we can make those other motor vehicles even more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:A very large basket indeed, assuming you have a case of 12 bottles. And it doesn't scale, whereas a delivery van can carry tens of cases of wine. I do grocery shopping on foot and carry everything home on a regular basis. A case of wine is way heavier and more awkward than a few bags of groceries. Yes, there are great reasons for loading zones. I think the issue is that businesses want a 40" semi to be able to back up to their front door, when their delivery takes up only 16 cubic feet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Popular Thug Drink has exactly the opinions on urbanism you'd expect a white guy from Atlanta who picked the name "Popular Thug Drink" to have. i'm sorry that you're upset that i made fun of your stupid posts but i actually hold a post grad degree in this topic whereas you seem to think being a suburbanite is an inherited cultural trait do you also have some issue with the factual basis of mid 20th century urban renewal or what are you salty about this time? you seem to be calling me some kind of racist without understanding the context of my post at all or why i put 'slum clearance' in scare quotes
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Eh, I carry my four year old on my road bike and it's not so bad, he probably weighs a similar amount to a case of wine. Yes, but he's an usually convenient shape for carrying on a bicycle, almost as if bicycles were designed for carrying people. Weight isn't the only concern: cases that are packed 2x6 horizontally instead of 4x3 vertically would be somewhat more difficult to carry, for example. But ultimately it doesn't matter. There's also dry-cleaning, delivering equipment to a business/home, etc. My Imaginary GF posted:So make a friend and have them help you. Bring a radio flyer with you to pull back. Make two trips. Hire an Uber, but for alcohol. All of those make more money for everyone in accord with the evidence-based best-practices for community development. And where will the Uber for alcohol park as he is picking things up and dropping things off? I agree 100% that courier services are the better way to go, which is precisely why I want more loading zones to allow them to do their job efficiently. My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, there are great reasons for loading zones. I think the issue is that businesses want a 40" semi to be able to back up to their front door, when their delivery takes up only 16 cubic feet. Oh yeah, that's dumb. I'm thinking a courier fleet with Transit vans, or in particularly congested areas, Transit Connect-sized vehicles. The loading zones could be exactly like on-street parking is right now (in fact, this is how they work in my city), except if you linger there like a bad fart, they fine you or tow your vehicle. I'm looking at it as more of a way to do more with fewer spaces by encouraging/mandating those spaces to turn over on an extremely regular basis. That way, you could take a street that has parking on both sides, and put a bike lane in on one side (eliminating the parking) and still have sufficient space for people to go about their business. That's basically what they did in my city, but they kept the parking on the other side as a 2-hour zone, so it's nearly goddamn impossible to find a parking spot when you just need to do a pick-up or drop-off of something awkward, large or heavy. EDIT: Also, I think congestion charging in city centres and toll roads in general would be a good thing. You want the convenience of a car? Good, then you can drat well pay for it. EDIT 2: To simply as much as possible: motor vehicles should be used almost exclusively for moving goods. Transit systems, bikes and walking should be used to move people. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, but he's an usually convenient shape for carrying on a bicycle, almost as if bicycles were designed for carrying people. Pretty sure my road bike wasn't designed to carry an adult AND a little person at the same time. You need special attachments for that, same as in your example. I'm sure there are larger racks that would work for that, e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Origin8-Classique-Cargo-Front-Rack/dp/B00B135SSE/ quote:EDIT: Also, I think congestion charging in city centres and toll roads in general would be a good thing. You want the convenience of a car? Good, then you can drat well pay for it. Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Apr 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
Are you paying the transporter to park, or to deliver the goods?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Are you paying the transporter to park, or to deliver the goods? Well, I don't want him to throw it out the window as he drives by, nor accept the pickup by having it unceremoniously hurled into his trunk, so I consider parking (twice!) to be a necessary part of the delivery of goods. Do you have a way of avoiding this problem?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, I don't want him to throw it out the window as he drives by, nor accept the pickup by having it unceremoniously hurled into his trunk, so I consider parking (twice!) to be a necessary part of the delivery of goods. Do you have a way of avoiding this problem? Yes. I inspect the goods upon arrival and pay for them when they are undamaged. Why the gently caress are you trying to do the job of someone you've paid? Do you micromanage every little contractor in your life? It must be hell to work under you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes. I inspect the goods upon arrival and pay for them when they are undamaged. How are they delivering things to you without stopping their vehicle somewhere, though? How are they picking the goods up without stopping their vehicle somewhere? I guess you're correct that, technically, the delivery of the goods is the important part, but I fail to see how it can be accomplished without stopping the vehicle for a time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
How loving often are you guys buying cases of wine? Jesus, what a dumb point to goon about.
Eskaton fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:How loving often are you guys buying cases of wine? Jesus, what a dumb point to goon about. Local Goon complains about  in the
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:How loving often are you guys buying cases of wine? Jesus, what a dumb point to goon about. Not frequently at all, but occasionally. That's exactly why an infrastructure that supports primarily goods handling via motor vehicle and people-moving by transit is the best system, instead of using private motor vehicles as a primary means of transportation for people. My point is that this could be easily accomplished by removing on-street parking and replacing it with short-term loading zones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How are they delivering things to you without stopping their vehicle somewhere, though? How are they picking the goods up without stopping their vehicle somewhere? I guess you're correct that, technically, the delivery of the goods is the important part, but I fail to see how it can be accomplished without stopping the vehicle for a time. Why the gently caress is this your problem? It's not, so quit loving thinking every single detail and trust the transporter to deliver the goods. Jesus loving christ, it must be hell to work with you. You sound like you micro-manage every single loving small detail. I bet you're one of those people who puts two spaces after every period, aren't you? Like christ maybe the transporter brings his kids, has them go in to buy and carry the goods out while he circles the block. Just because you aren't creative enough to find a solution doesn't mean that someone you're paying to get some poo poo done is as incapable as you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Whenever someone mentions that cars are useful for some things in these threads someone needs to chime in that it's perfectly feasible to move that futon on a bike no probs like the idea that the only other possibility from using cars for everything is no cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Whenever someone mentions that cars are useful for some things in these threads someone needs to chime in that it's perfectly feasible to move that futon on a bike no probs like the idea that the only other possibility from using cars for everything is no cars. Indeed. Particularly when the point is, fine get rid of most of the parking, but make sure there's some loading zones for when you actually need a car/truck. At minimum, I need to be able to park a u-haul for when I get priced out of my neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Whenever someone mentions that cars are useful for some things in these threads someone needs to chime in that it's perfectly feasible to move that futon on a bike no probs like the idea that the only other possibility from using cars for everything is no cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:15
|
|