Architphil-
Glad to hear you are going to bring it up in class and are commenting on it their papers. I agree with jump, students need to learn to substaniate their claims. The whole world could probably use a little head hitting when it comes to substaniating their claims.
Montegneux - GIS presentation on haunted houses? Seriously?
Rfuller and holx-
Congrats on the little ones on the way.
I mean I can see the validity there. But I think it speaks more to the absent-mindedness and lack-of-criticality (I know that's probably not a word Firefox) of wealthier people.
To make a gross generalization:
80% of planners are typically from well to do upper-middle class and upper class families
15% of planners are the typical rags-to-riches type stories-- people comforted with poverty who have figured out that the majority of poverty is caused by the physical environment rather than monetary policy and behavior
5% are individuals who have ended up in the profession after noticing the pattern of place that consistently shows up in arenas like politics, history, art, sociology, engineering and architecture
It is generally the 80% that bothers me. I know a portion of that realizes the potential profit margins present in landlording and development. But I would say the majority of these people have a fascination with "making things better" without realizing that there is relatively nothing quantifiable about "making things better."
And I think those types generally assume that their way of life trumps others because they were personally successful within the construct that makes up their own physical environment.
So, I think successful planning comes down to "progressiveness." Not just the progessiveness typically attributed to liberalism, I'm suggesting that progressive in this nature mean a hands-on approach of intentionally causing change through reform and direct action.
That's why I don't particularly like political labels or adhering to political ideology (despite that planning is a foundation of politicking). The reason I say that is there are many "conservative" communities in the last 20 or 30 years that have adopted wild totalitarian and populist development practices for their communities. And there are many highly liberal communities who have developed very lassiez-faire and liberterian development practices.
Examples for both:
Arlington, Va is a good example of a conservative leaning community adopting very liberal planning practices. Where as Miami, Fl is a very liberal community that has adopted very conservative planning practices.
Too long, don't reply version-- Political ideology should not be used a planning tool as political ideology is often self-referential.
A good planner should make it a priority to maintain objectiveness and learn to detach themselves from their work. The work should speak for itself and should be representative of more basic considerations rather than complex scheming.
Interference in planning and even neglect ultimately leads to a broken machine that can rarely be fixed without rebuilding that machine. It is better to build a working machine and let it run without tweaking or adjusting it because constant adjustment obscures and convolutes results.
montagneux So, I think successful planning comes down to "progressiveness." Not just the progessiveness typically attributed to liberalism, I'm suggesting that progressive in this nature mean a hands-on approach of intentionally causing change through reform and direct action.
this matches my thoughts exactly and is why I want to pursue
planning/design/policy field professionally and as a citizen. It is one of the reasons I have already gotten involved on some city boards etc..
and i completely agree with the whole progressive but not in the typical Political sense but small P political sense is more important.
My name is Linda
I am tall ,good looking, perfect body figure and I saw your profile
on(www.academia.edu) and was delighted to contact you, I hope you will
be the true loving, honest and caring man that I have been looking 4,
And I have something special to tell you about me, So please contact me directly through my email address at( [email protected]
)so that I can also send my picture directly to you.
regards
Linda
Anybody dare contact Linda?
Nam, thanks for the new post - got 286 visitors to infrascape yesterday - more than twice the previous record!
wow Barry, that's awesome that you got so many visitors! BTW, I meant to thank you for the link to me, I've gotten a couple hits off of it (not anything near what you're getting, but every little bit helps!)
nam, in regards to the relationship between architecture/planning/design/policy, (not to pimp my own school) you might want to consider upenn... our new dean (marilyn jordan taylor) is really interested in this exact topic... she brought mark alan hughes on as a "senior fellow"... he's awesome... two years ago he was actually a first year m.arch. student here (his third career) when mayor nutter asked him to come aboard as the sustainability coordinator for the city of philadelphia... he also ended up being nutter's chief political advisor... i'm currently sitting in on a class of his this semester that is about the relationship between design/policy and the ability of designers to think in ways that can begin to shape policy (this is the class with planners that i was ranting about on the last TC page)... really cool stuff...
I finished my quarter! Now, I'm going to enjoy this beautiful sunny Seattle day by lounging in Gas Works Park and sipping on some whiskey with my friends.
Whew. Sorry about that - had to stop into Thread Central for a breath of non-political discussion and to clear my head. It's getting so nasty out there on the main discussion board!
i feel much better (regarding my ivy league angst in the previous two rants) after yesterday... had a good day with friends and molding young archi-minds... we had one of the best recitation discussions yet (about the highline and morphosis' cooper square) and it just so happened to coincide with the week that the professor came to watch my section, so i looked good! :) then had a nice long discussion with said professor over lunch... then met with one of my students for an hour to talk about team 10 (my dissertation subject) since he's incorporating some of the main concepts into his studio project... met with 3 other students to help them formulate topics for their final papers... then a few glasses of wine whilst watching one of my friends/phd colleagues give a talk on the beginnings of his research... then a few beers at the weekly penndesign happy hour... good day.
I can't wait to take the time to sit down and watch Marlin's latest installment of Archinect Travels. But, I need to make the time and lately the only thing I've had time for is drinking. Tonight marks my 10th night of St. Patrick's Day, i.e., the 10th night in a row I've imbibed. (Should I be proud? A little worried? Eh, I'm fine...) After today I will get back on a better diet and exercise regimen, but wow, have these last 10 days been interesting...
my teaching news was that I posted the midterm grades after several days of analysis and pondering how to curve. even with a hell of a curve, I ended up failing 5 students and giving 12 folks D's (out of 176). 16 out of 50? really? did you even study? The high score was 45/50. So I've summoned all those that got below 20 out of 50 to meet with me or a TA to discuss their awful performance. Not that I have the time, but I don't want to see anybody fail if I can help it.
I gave a midterm in my intro to environmental design mega lecture a week ago thursday. The exam was 50 multiple choice graded via scantron. There were 5 really tough questions (obscure factoids from their text or lectures) that I didn't expect most folks to get. But it proved to be harder then I thought it would be - I even made four mistakes on the answer key the first time! There was also a language issue since 75% of the lowest scores were from international students. The biggest cause of wrong answers were not understanding the difference between 'porosity' (ie holes in swiss cheese), versus 'perviousness' & 'permeability'. The other big issue was between 'alluvial' (deposited by water), eluviation (leaching of minerals in soil), and iluviation (depositing minerals in soil) - each of these vocabulary words played across several questions. Soil horizons also escaped many of their synapses - even though we spent two lectures discussing soils. Most everybody got reading solar charts, reading a soil texture chart, and locating places via the public land survey system.
Overall, the curve was (out of 50 questions):
A: 45-37 n=43
B: 31-36 n=65
C: 30-25 n=52
D: 24-20 n=14
F: 19-16 n=5
The mean was 32 (a B- by the curve)
The mode was 34.
I'm not a statistician, so the missus was a huge help in determining a fair curve.
Oh, the mid-term and final exams are each worth 20% of the course.
The toughest question (only 3 folks got it right), involved them knowing how many square feet were in an acre (which was only mentioned once in a lecture in passing), and what a 2.0 F.A.R. meant so they could calculate the gross area of a development. Yeah, I'm a bastard for asking that sort of question...
they ask that acre question in license exams too. but eluviation and iluviation? for me a live and learn question and a wild guess...
so, looking from grades, you have thought well professor lehrman.
thanks nam for spotting this - a comment by Evan Sharp to Kazys's blog:
In architecture school today the best teachers have almost no grasp of the tools being used by students, and students have very little exposure to the theory and history being mined by teachers. The result is a hell of a lot of pseudo-academic and aesthetic wankery, all of which is at odds with the spirit of the age.
Then there is the insertion of ecology/sustainability that demands even more time in the curriculum and leaving students even more lacking in theory, history, and other knowledge...
In architecture school today the best teachers have almost no grasp of the tools being used by students, and students have very little exposure to the theory and history being mined by teachers. The result is a hell of a lot of pseudo-academic and aesthetic wankery, all of which is at odds with the spirit of the age.
I alluded to this a while back in the "parametricism vs." thread. I might have posted a longer argument on another thread a while back (I definitely remember complaining about this exact same issue to a colleague a few years ago), but I cannot remember. anyway - I share the same sentiments and I think it's very similar to the technology gap within offices.
the exchange in the comments is far more interesting than I realized - the lack of interest in history is troubling to me - not just how katsy's views history (art history/theory), but also in terms of technique and construction methods - especially in the context of sustainability.
I totally agree with the seduction of "complexity."
barry, I'm with Orhan... I would have gotten the acre and F.A.R. question but I've never even seen the word "iluviation" before, let alone heard what it means. Is this a landscape architecture class? I would like to learn about soil horizons, whatever they are - sounds cool! - but never have :o/
it's an intro to environmental design course for both arch & 'scape undergrads.
Soil horizons are layers of soil that have specific properties associated with how much organic mater they contain.
&
Soils from around the world will have a combination of the following (depending on the climate, plant community, and age):
O consists mainly of organic matter from the vegetation, which accumulates under conditions of free aeration.
A eluvial (outwash) horizon consisting mainly of mineral matter mixed with some humified (decomposed) organic matter.
E strongly eluviated horizons having much less organic matter and/or iron and/or clay than the horizons underneath. Usually pale coloured and high in quartz.
B illuvial (inwashed) horizon characterised by concentrations in clay, iron or organic matter. Some lime may accumulate, but if the accumulation is excessive, the horizon is named K.
K horizon containing appreciable carbonate, usually mainly lime or calcium carbonate.
G gleyed horizons which form under reducing (anoxic) conditions with impeded aeration, reflected in blueish, greenish or greyish colour.
C weathered parent material lacking the properties of the solum and resembling more the fresh parent material.
R regolith, the unconsolidated bedrock or parent material.
I actually knew this not because of taking a similar class before...
But the biggest thing as to why I know the soil thing was this special on T.V. about rainforests and alpine forests.
The secret to them is that they are giant rotting cesspools. Places like Siberia and the Amazon have extraordinarily crappy soils despite being two of the world's largest biomes.
According to Barry's chart, they go from O and A straight to C and R. The special was basically (aside from ethical and ecological reasons) as to why clear cutting was inherently a bad idea.
With out the forest constantly throwing up on the floor below it, there is actually almost no real productive soil underneath the organic layer. It was pretty interesting to consider that... well that and the forests make more money per acre intact.
Apparently people thought 100-200 years ago that since the area could sustain such huge forests, it would be an awesome place for agriculture. But the forests exist because of constant dampness and a thick layer of rotting mush!
you know what I find amazing about TC aside from the wonderful people? It's that you never know what you are going to learn. We should be earning CPD credits for coming to here. Paul can you arrange that... but make it international otherwise it's no use to me. First a little History and then an Intro to Environmental Design. Barry I wouldn't of gotten those questions either.
that gap between professors and students is certainly true. i don't take the same negative from it that some do, but did think it is a little bit like the early bauhaus where the designers and the builders were two subsets in the school to start with, then the students began to teach (like marcel breuer and gunta stolzl) and things shifted a bit. truly interesting transformations began to happen once designers and makers were the same people. maybe we are coming to that point again. which would be quite cool. although i still don't think there is that big theory gap. it doesn't seem to be something the students i talk to are missing, least of all the ones who go to AA and so on. maybe i am just missing the bad stuff. ?
nam said "mean either". Today at dinner Brian said "...so I got off work and went to the Museum" but what I heard was "so I got a fork and went to the museum". I laughed for ten minutes!
I'm out of wine again. Jeez, I really should buy by the case. Discounts that way, too!
Thread Central
Architphil-
Glad to hear you are going to bring it up in class and are commenting on it their papers. I agree with jump, students need to learn to substaniate their claims. The whole world could probably use a little head hitting when it comes to substaniating their claims.
Montegneux - GIS presentation on haunted houses? Seriously?
Rfuller and holx-
Congrats on the little ones on the way.
Yes, melt.
I mean I can see the validity there. But I think it speaks more to the absent-mindedness and lack-of-criticality (I know that's probably not a word Firefox) of wealthier people.
To make a gross generalization:
80% of planners are typically from well to do upper-middle class and upper class families
15% of planners are the typical rags-to-riches type stories-- people comforted with poverty who have figured out that the majority of poverty is caused by the physical environment rather than monetary policy and behavior
5% are individuals who have ended up in the profession after noticing the pattern of place that consistently shows up in arenas like politics, history, art, sociology, engineering and architecture
It is generally the 80% that bothers me. I know a portion of that realizes the potential profit margins present in landlording and development. But I would say the majority of these people have a fascination with "making things better" without realizing that there is relatively nothing quantifiable about "making things better."
And I think those types generally assume that their way of life trumps others because they were personally successful within the construct that makes up their own physical environment.
So, I think successful planning comes down to "progressiveness." Not just the progessiveness typically attributed to liberalism, I'm suggesting that progressive in this nature mean a hands-on approach of intentionally causing change through reform and direct action.
That's why I don't particularly like political labels or adhering to political ideology (despite that planning is a foundation of politicking). The reason I say that is there are many "conservative" communities in the last 20 or 30 years that have adopted wild totalitarian and populist development practices for their communities. And there are many highly liberal communities who have developed very lassiez-faire and liberterian development practices.
Examples for both:
Arlington, Va is a good example of a conservative leaning community adopting very liberal planning practices. Where as Miami, Fl is a very liberal community that has adopted very conservative planning practices.
Too long, don't reply version-- Political ideology should not be used a planning tool as political ideology is often self-referential.
A good planner should make it a priority to maintain objectiveness and learn to detach themselves from their work. The work should speak for itself and should be representative of more basic considerations rather than complex scheming.
Interference in planning and even neglect ultimately leads to a broken machine that can rarely be fixed without rebuilding that machine. It is better to build a working machine and let it run without tweaking or adjusting it because constant adjustment obscures and convolutes results.
montagneux
So, I think successful planning comes down to "progressiveness." Not just the progessiveness typically attributed to liberalism, I'm suggesting that progressive in this nature mean a hands-on approach of intentionally causing change through reform and direct action.
this matches my thoughts exactly and is why I want to pursue
planning/design/policy field professionally and as a citizen. It is one of the reasons I have already gotten involved on some city boards etc..
and i completely agree with the whole progressive but not in the typical Political sense but small P political sense is more important.
i didn't know that steven holl said that steven, but couldn't agree more. we are living in an urban epoch and getting more so.
the ideas of your colleagues about urbanity are curious archi. sounds political.
very long day today and no end in sight. blech.
Well the chair was a fraud. The lower back and arms connecionwas not correct. Thanks all.
Congrats to the baby-makers.
Spam or a stalker?
helloMy name is Linda
I am tall ,good looking, perfect body figure and I saw your profile
on(www.academia.edu) and was delighted to contact you, I hope you will
be the true loving, honest and caring man that I have been looking 4,
And I have something special to tell you about me, So please contact me directly through my email address at( [email protected] )so that I can also send my picture directly to you.
regards
Linda
Anybody dare contact Linda?
Nam, thanks for the new post - got 286 visitors to infrascape yesterday - more than twice the previous record!
Spam
wow Barry, that's awesome that you got so many visitors! BTW, I meant to thank you for the link to me, I've gotten a couple hits off of it (not anything near what you're getting, but every little bit helps!)
Barry, is that from a student? Tsk tsk. What did th Mrs say?
not a student!
Copper - my pleasure!
BL, yikes, scary email...
nam, in regards to the relationship between architecture/planning/design/policy, (not to pimp my own school) you might want to consider upenn... our new dean (marilyn jordan taylor) is really interested in this exact topic... she brought mark alan hughes on as a "senior fellow"... he's awesome... two years ago he was actually a first year m.arch. student here (his third career) when mayor nutter asked him to come aboard as the sustainability coordinator for the city of philadelphia... he also ended up being nutter's chief political advisor... i'm currently sitting in on a class of his this semester that is about the relationship between design/policy and the ability of designers to think in ways that can begin to shape policy (this is the class with planners that i was ranting about on the last TC page)... really cool stuff...
just out of curiosity i google linda edwin
archit,
thanks for the heads up. Penn was def already on the list if only because of Barry's repping...
But good to have some more specifics
****melt, what's wrong with either of those businesses?
... except maybe for the mopwater.
#371
Congrats to the parents-to-be!
I finished my quarter! Now, I'm going to enjoy this beautiful sunny Seattle day by lounging in Gas Works Park and sipping on some whiskey with my friends.
lol
love the pic *m!! You might have a little retro or puddles in you yet.
Jump - very political indeed.
i've had one beer already - wondering how long it will take before I have the second. Enjoy your weekend all.
oh yea - thread central is turning out to be a veritable baby factory
how much more blessed are the cheese-makers, than the baby-makers?
Dear architechnophilia,
Your comment: love the pic *m!! You might have a little retro or puddles in you yet.... after the discussion about making babies made me blush.
That is all.
Signed,
your friend dub K
That pic with tattoos/piercing reminds me of the Jesse James/Sandra Bullock fiasco, which for some reason really has me down. Poor Sandra.
Congrats rfuller, I see a big ol' smile on your little blob!
techno I just opened beer #2. Finished up my ProPractice work and have nothing to do but go watch Archinect Travels...
Whew. Sorry about that - had to stop into Thread Central for a breath of non-political discussion and to clear my head. It's getting so nasty out there on the main discussion board!
dj dub I realised the comedy in it after I hit send... heh heh glad you liked it.
i feel much better (regarding my ivy league angst in the previous two rants) after yesterday... had a good day with friends and molding young archi-minds... we had one of the best recitation discussions yet (about the highline and morphosis' cooper square) and it just so happened to coincide with the week that the professor came to watch my section, so i looked good! :) then had a nice long discussion with said professor over lunch... then met with one of my students for an hour to talk about team 10 (my dissertation subject) since he's incorporating some of the main concepts into his studio project... met with 3 other students to help them formulate topics for their final papers... then a few glasses of wine whilst watching one of my friends/phd colleagues give a talk on the beginnings of his research... then a few beers at the weekly penndesign happy hour... good day.
I sent out my application to Goldman Sachs.
Here's hoping!
archinect travels? how did I miss this?
I can't wait to take the time to sit down and watch Marlin's latest installment of Archinect Travels. But, I need to make the time and lately the only thing I've had time for is drinking. Tonight marks my 10th night of St. Patrick's Day, i.e., the 10th night in a row I've imbibed. (Should I be proud? A little worried? Eh, I'm fine...) After today I will get back on a better diet and exercise regimen, but wow, have these last 10 days been interesting...
my teaching news was that I posted the midterm grades after several days of analysis and pondering how to curve. even with a hell of a curve, I ended up failing 5 students and giving 12 folks D's (out of 176). 16 out of 50? really? did you even study? The high score was 45/50. So I've summoned all those that got below 20 out of 50 to meet with me or a TA to discuss their awful performance. Not that I have the time, but I don't want to see anybody fail if I can help it.
barry, did you have a midterm exam? what class?
wow that is crazy barry. the test was that hard?
I gave a midterm in my intro to environmental design mega lecture a week ago thursday. The exam was 50 multiple choice graded via scantron. There were 5 really tough questions (obscure factoids from their text or lectures) that I didn't expect most folks to get. But it proved to be harder then I thought it would be - I even made four mistakes on the answer key the first time! There was also a language issue since 75% of the lowest scores were from international students. The biggest cause of wrong answers were not understanding the difference between 'porosity' (ie holes in swiss cheese), versus 'perviousness' & 'permeability'. The other big issue was between 'alluvial' (deposited by water), eluviation (leaching of minerals in soil), and iluviation (depositing minerals in soil) - each of these vocabulary words played across several questions. Soil horizons also escaped many of their synapses - even though we spent two lectures discussing soils. Most everybody got reading solar charts, reading a soil texture chart, and locating places via the public land survey system.
Overall, the curve was (out of 50 questions):
A: 45-37 n=43
B: 31-36 n=65
C: 30-25 n=52
D: 24-20 n=14
F: 19-16 n=5
The mean was 32 (a B- by the curve)
The mode was 34.
I'm not a statistician, so the missus was a huge help in determining a fair curve.
Oh, the mid-term and final exams are each worth 20% of the course.
The toughest question (only 3 folks got it right), involved them knowing how many square feet were in an acre (which was only mentioned once in a lecture in passing), and what a 2.0 F.A.R. meant so they could calculate the gross area of a development. Yeah, I'm a bastard for asking that sort of question...
43,560 SF... i've made that conversion way too many times to count
they ask that acre question in license exams too. but eluviation and iluviation? for me a live and learn question and a wild guess...
so, looking from grades, you have thought well professor lehrman.
TECHNO, from the books thread, send me an email about my dissertation and i'll send you the current draft of the proposal...
thanks nam for spotting this - a comment by Evan Sharp to Kazys's blog:
In architecture school today the best teachers have almost no grasp of the tools being used by students, and students have very little exposure to the theory and history being mined by teachers. The result is a hell of a lot of pseudo-academic and aesthetic wankery, all of which is at odds with the spirit of the age.
Then there is the insertion of ecology/sustainability that demands even more time in the curriculum and leaving students even more lacking in theory, history, and other knowledge...
a few more thoughts on collecting nothing
I alluded to this a while back in the "parametricism vs." thread. I might have posted a longer argument on another thread a while back (I definitely remember complaining about this exact same issue to a colleague a few years ago), but I cannot remember. anyway - I share the same sentiments and I think it's very similar to the technology gap within offices.
the exchange in the comments is far more interesting than I realized - the lack of interest in history is troubling to me - not just how katsy's views history (art history/theory), but also in terms of technique and construction methods - especially in the context of sustainability.
I totally agree with the seduction of "complexity."
barry, I'm with Orhan... I would have gotten the acre and F.A.R. question but I've never even seen the word "iluviation" before, let alone heard what it means. Is this a landscape architecture class? I would like to learn about soil horizons, whatever they are - sounds cool! - but never have :o/
it's an intro to environmental design course for both arch & 'scape undergrads.
Soil horizons are layers of soil that have specific properties associated with how much organic mater they contain.
&
Soils from around the world will have a combination of the following (depending on the climate, plant community, and age):
O consists mainly of organic matter from the vegetation, which accumulates under conditions of free aeration.
A eluvial (outwash) horizon consisting mainly of mineral matter mixed with some humified (decomposed) organic matter.
E strongly eluviated horizons having much less organic matter and/or iron and/or clay than the horizons underneath. Usually pale coloured and high in quartz.
B illuvial (inwashed) horizon characterised by concentrations in clay, iron or organic matter. Some lime may accumulate, but if the accumulation is excessive, the horizon is named K.
K horizon containing appreciable carbonate, usually mainly lime or calcium carbonate.
G gleyed horizons which form under reducing (anoxic) conditions with impeded aeration, reflected in blueish, greenish or greyish colour.
C weathered parent material lacking the properties of the solum and resembling more the fresh parent material.
R regolith, the unconsolidated bedrock or parent material.
okay, that ends your soils 101 tidbit...
Dub K.
I actually knew this not because of taking a similar class before...
But the biggest thing as to why I know the soil thing was this special on T.V. about rainforests and alpine forests.
The secret to them is that they are giant rotting cesspools. Places like Siberia and the Amazon have extraordinarily crappy soils despite being two of the world's largest biomes.
According to Barry's chart, they go from O and A straight to C and R. The special was basically (aside from ethical and ecological reasons) as to why clear cutting was inherently a bad idea.
With out the forest constantly throwing up on the floor below it, there is actually almost no real productive soil underneath the organic layer. It was pretty interesting to consider that... well that and the forests make more money per acre intact.
Apparently people thought 100-200 years ago that since the area could sustain such huge forests, it would be an awesome place for agriculture. But the forests exist because of constant dampness and a thick layer of rotting mush!
Hi all I spent Sat gardening and chopping firewood and Sun brunching with friends...
Mmmmmm
you know what I find amazing about TC aside from the wonderful people? It's that you never know what you are going to learn. We should be earning CPD credits for coming to here. Paul can you arrange that... but make it international otherwise it's no use to me. First a little History and then an Intro to Environmental Design. Barry I wouldn't of gotten those questions either.
yeah mean either. Good night yall
too true archi. that is interesting stuff barry.
that gap between professors and students is certainly true. i don't take the same negative from it that some do, but did think it is a little bit like the early bauhaus where the designers and the builders were two subsets in the school to start with, then the students began to teach (like marcel breuer and gunta stolzl) and things shifted a bit. truly interesting transformations began to happen once designers and makers were the same people. maybe we are coming to that point again. which would be quite cool. although i still don't think there is that big theory gap. it doesn't seem to be something the students i talk to are missing, least of all the ones who go to AA and so on. maybe i am just missing the bad stuff. ?
nam said "mean either". Today at dinner Brian said "...so I got off work and went to the Museum" but what I heard was "so I got a fork and went to the museum". I laughed for ten minutes!
I'm out of wine again. Jeez, I really should buy by the case. Discounts that way, too!
LB I'm all about buying alcohol in bulk - even if you don't drink it all they make great random gifts
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.