The best cities on the planet make interesting places happen around every corner. Many times thats unplanned, but planning is what allows a small oncert to appear at lunch on a wednsday, a bench in front of a fountain, a movie in the park. Often it ain't about no architecture or cityt planning - it might be the right, motivated people working within the constraints of their 'city', their 'field', or some beach/mountain/ancient ruin/blah/blah/blah.
Archoitectors: Sometimes it is about the spaces you design & build. ButMOSt of the Time it's about what some dude or group of dudettes decides to do w/ what places they've got to work with.
In other woids: Make the best spaces that you can, then let the people, the democratic urges take over. Socialism? Naw, you can tell people what to do. Individualism: Naw, you can't tell people what to do. Just do a good job & your project will get used. It's the old cliche by Burt Lancaster & K. Costner.
jump-
wow, been trying to follow a little about the projects in paris. thats very cool your connected to someone involved. im just at the begining of getting an education, potentially applying for Masters in arch this year, have a B.S. in env sci from a few years ago. I guess my question was more what brought you to Japan in the first place.
thanks tho
sorry for any confusion, but I lived in Tokyo for 4 yrs. I also graduated (masters) from UT - Matsumura Lab (Uchida-sensei) - I studied space architecture/ infra-free (terrestrial adaptation of space arch). I met Ohno sensei a few times related to his concept of Fiber City. I’m currently living/ working in London and doing a joint PhD with Loughborough University and UT, so I’m still in Tokyo off and on. The conference is in Edinburgh – that’s all.
in that case i would recommend an article by andre sorenson that responds, among other things, to kenworthy and newman's assertion that density is a reasonable indicator of sustainability.
it is called Major Issues of Land Management for Sustainable Urban Regions in Japan and can be downloaded here in pdf format . the first page spells it out rather clearly, and for reasons i agree with. density is impt but confusing density for good urban form is a mistake in my opinion. if you are interested in this point i would recommend mike jenks' series of books on sustainable urban form, where he points out that research does not say one way or another whether density should be high or low in order to achieve sustainability.
sustainability is not your topic, but in some ways a "good" city is measured by many of the same things as a sustainable city, so could be a good starting point.
unrelated but if interested feel free to drop a line next time you are in tokyo. you can explain to me what exactly "terrestrial adaptation of space arch" means ;-)
thanks for the reference. i've havent read andre's paper yet. i met andre when he brought a group of his students from toronto to tokyo a few years ago.
i agree that density is important, but it is not intrinsic to success/ sustainability - there needs to be some kind of rules/ logic, even if that logic resides as tacit or informal. I'm a fan of Batty's work with Cities and Complexity at UCL:
The terrestrial adaptation of space arch simply meant a building as a self-sustaining or autonomous entity - a very technology/ systems-driven approach to design. www.infrafree.com (the website a bit dated now, was to serve as a simple intro to the research).
my research currently is about desiging for future adaptablility; what that means and how that affects the design process and product.
i'm in tokyo begining of july, would be interesting to have a chat. i'm always intrigued by gaijin who can start their own company in tokyo!
thanks for link to batty. not an area i know much about so is cool to see.
andre is by far the most objective of urban researchers on japan so i like his work a lot. no talk of 'ma', no references to shinto, and no talk about how easily japan is able to change because of its adaptability evolving out of its special cultural history. it is soooo nice to read about japan without that baggage.
so, you are doing a kind of metabolism for the 21st century? profs from princeton were here recently for a conference at todai where they discussed revisiting metabolism with japanese architects, including ohno, kengo kuma, naito. the japanese architects seemed less interested in continuing the idea, but stan allen and reiser and umemoto seemed to make a good argument that the ideas are still being pursued, at east in their work.
would be great to meet when you head back to tokyo. drop a line. we'll hopefully still be here ;-)
Cities of Opportunities (psy arch referenced earlier)
(9 indicators and 32 variables)
1) Intellectual capital
a) Top 500 universities
b) Population with higher education
c) Nobel Prize winners
2) Technology IQ and Innovation
a) Internet users on broadband
b) high-tech services employment
c)self employment
d) patents
3) Transportation Assets
a) Registered taxis
b) Underground track
c) Airline carriers
d) Passenger flows
e) Airport cargo
4) Demographic Advantages
a) Population density
b) Working age population
c) diversity
5) Financial Clout
a) Global 500 headquarters
b) Employment in financial and business services
c) Domestic market capitalization
d) Value of private equity
6) Cost
a) cost of business occupancy
b) cost of living
c) purchasing power
7) Lifestyle assets
a) Entertainment
b) Recreational space
c) Hotel beds
8) Safety and security
a) Hospital beds
b) Crime statistics
c) Personal safety and security
9) Ease of doing business
a) Corporate tax
b) Ease of hiring
c) Work/ life benefits
d) Seperation requirements
Orahn, while rereading your dialogue of the city...it made me think about what I love so much about inhabiting cities - concomitant stories (stories = interactions/ events). No matter where you are, you're constantly comprehending a dense web of fragmented stories: fragments left behind, concurrent/ adjacent fragments, and fragments in gestation - the dynamic composition of any city.
And it's Psy arch's understanding of JJ Gibson's Affordances which help define the context to which this is possible (or intensified through urban agglomerations) - density affording novel interactions/ diversity of form and life.
But its also important to contextualize density within a sustainable/ manageable framework (i.e. the other 26 accumulated characteristics described by the other contributors) as a set of explicit (building/ planning laws) and tacit (people, culture, communities) rules.
hi rsii,
that was mostly what i grew up with in izmir, turkey. still the most liberal (left wing) city there.
i should also add 'density' to my list. cities without density just don't cut it for me. however, being a harbor city around the bay also helps.
i have written about izmir here.
It's interesting in your post about Izmir you mention the Infra-less architecture conference sponsered by Kale. I was part of that conference in Istanbul, and is the research I mentioned to Jump that I was part of at the University of Tokyo with Serkan Anilir (www.infrafree.com). I've actually been to your hometown Izmir as well as part of my travels through Turkey, which I enjoyed very much. :)
your mention of a harbor city brings to the foreground the original attraction for most intensified clustering - geography or attraction to a valuable natural resource.
Just to toss out an idea that I don't think has been mentioned yet - I think that scalability is crucial to a really successful city. Great cities are able to create desirable environments at a scale as small as the single block (neighborhood associations, small public places/amenities) and as large as the region (transit, anyone?), and then integrate those various scales.
Something else that comes into play with the idea of scalability is mobility. Frequently in the US, mobility across the larger scale (car) is given priority over the experience of the smallest user (pedestrian) with pretty stark results (see Donald Appleyard's landmark study on livable streets).
Personally, I also think that scalability is an interesting lens to turn on Tokyo - although it's stereotypically depicted as a monolithic warren, I found that Tokyo has a number of development patterns that support livable, properly-scaled environments. The one thing that comes immediately to mind is the mixed-use nature of many of the small neighborhood streets, which lack clear delineation but support a range of transportation modes safely.
Livable density - meaning dense enough to support a walkable environment, close proximity between living and commercial and retail mixes.
Mix of housing types for all types of lifestyles from small studios to single family homes.
Greenery. All the talk of Tokyo above makes me think in the pictures Ive seen of it, never been there, that there so little green outside of the big plot in the center it seems. I love that in Chicago there is a virtual forest canopy covering most of the city. In NYC theres little squares and parks all over to give relief from the density.
Transit is critical. Dont ban cars nessearily but interweave a great road system with transit options. Key word = options!
People. A good city should attract and nuture people from various nationalities and backgrounds and view points in order to sustain idea exchanges, to this extant a university or two is very helpful.
Architecture. A city is humanity on display and by what better means than through the expresion of architecture. Cities with a binding architectural style such as Amsterdam, Boston, or districts in Chicago and New York where the structures enforce each other and share a common langauge seem to appeal instinctively to humans. Paris may be the ultimate example of this unifying style in the 2nd empire apartment houses lining the boulevards and courtyard buildings in the side streets.
that an interesting point TK. thats one thing i have had a hard time understanding about tokyo. it has great opportunities for living on the water but most of the buildings facing it turn their backs to it. i was told this is because the waterways used to be used for sewage, so the city that used to be a kind of venice (tokyo was once a canal city-with the best brothels at the bridges) slowly became a city that covered its waterways with roads and ignored it as best it could, and the attitude has not caught up with the clean water. the result is that now the city really has put most of its crap functions on the water and few seem to be interested in changing, even though the water isn't so dirty anymore...its odd to take a boat trip up some of the canals and all you see are the backs of restaurants....and yet the city is quite ok.
EP, tokyo is scattered with parks, some bigger than others, so is not so bad. where i live is green everywhere. you are right though, it is a pretty harsh environment in a lot of places. like living on the moon. "magnificent desolation" sometimes comes to mind.
i am still worried about density. my personal preference is for having it. but as an urban researcher/theory-boy/planner i worry that we accept it as required too readily. lots of research shows that it has a great deal of negatives attached to it, not all of them easy to compensate for. objectively i have to admit the possibility of another perfectly sustainable typology for urbanism that is closer to broadacre city than to ville radieuse. but most research starts with the assumption that it is not possible. since most of the developed world's cities are not dense it at least seems worth our time to investigate the possibility of sustainability (in the three pillars sense) without looking to density as the machine for getting it.
Green Areas in Tokyo: In 1955 there were a total of 12,000 ha. of green space in the 23 wards (as well as 26,000 ha. in Tama), which was 200% of the residential area at that time. By 1980 after the rapid economic growth period (1960-1975) had consumed 9,000 ha. of the green space in the 23 wards (18,000 ha. in Tama) leaving the ratio at 60%, which is low compared to most cities. In 2004, the government initiated "Green Tokyo Project" which has attempted to bring green areas back to the city, but like Jump mentions most of the green areas are small pockets of greenery specifically located in the residential areas. They've had less success greening the 'toshin san ku' which is the very center of Tokyo and primarily work dominated area.
From what I understand, a large part of the current relationship with the canals in the city steam from the 1959 decision to use the waterways as infrastructure (pathways) for the metropolitan expressway system (part of the preparation for the 1964 Olympics). Also, by the end of the economic growth period, Tokyo bay was 95% artificial coastline with a 100% of its natural habitat gone.
Imperfection
Natural planning clumsiness
Average people
Average things
Average stores
Average places
Background buildings
Underwhelming Buildings
Trade Schools
It's not all glitz and glamor that make cities great.
our cities definitely embody the full spectrum of what we offer as humans; along the lines of your point:
"Our cities embody our nations greatest triumphs and most daunting challenges. They give us rich diversity, cultural achievement, and cultural values that characterize our nations spirits. At their worst they reflect our countries most persistent social ills - economic disparity, hopelessness, neglect and abandonment."
i am frankly sick of planners measuring or looking for disneyland cities as though the flipside was not as impt.
when i visited liverpool last year i saw lots of that sort of thing done in the name of urban revitalisation on the waterfront. very careful planning, some genuinely good architecture, and so much editing that i felt rather uncomfortable. i hope the revitalisation takes this time around, but am somehow rather doubtful. it was done too much by numbers to work.
about tokyo and its waterways, that sounds right rsii. on other hand one of my favorite places in the city is the bridge in nihonbashi where they built an elevated highway over the ancient center of japan.
awesome space. more memorable than if they just put up another bloody marker and planted a tree. it feels more alive for its abused state, not less so.
am not sure being human-made is relevant. lots of holland is made from whole clothe too, but the waterfronts there work quite nicely. i think it is not the presence of water but how it is treated. if you are japanese and think water is unclean then it is not surprising that the govt is still covering canals over and the ones that are open tend to be fenced off as though they are criminals.
there are some new laws in play now about making greenspace in tokyo rsii. my colleague is studying it for post-doc research - if you are interested i am happy to make introduction. it sounds like the effect is so far underwhelming though. my guess is that for the immediate future it will be efforts to make emergency gathering spaces/refuges (earthquakes) that will have the most impact. and of course the urban fringe is already turning back to wild as population drops and properties are abandoned. it is like detroit in some parts of the greater met area...
What makes successful cities?
The best cities on the planet make interesting places happen around every corner. Many times thats unplanned, but planning is what allows a small oncert to appear at lunch on a wednsday, a bench in front of a fountain, a movie in the park. Often it ain't about no architecture or cityt planning - it might be the right, motivated people working within the constraints of their 'city', their 'field', or some beach/mountain/ancient ruin/blah/blah/blah.
Archoitectors: Sometimes it is about the spaces you design & build. ButMOSt of the Time it's about what some dude or group of dudettes decides to do w/ what places they've got to work with.
In other woids: Make the best spaces that you can, then let the people, the democratic urges take over. Socialism? Naw, you can tell people what to do. Individualism: Naw, you can't tell people what to do. Just do a good job & your project will get used. It's the old cliche by Burt Lancaster & K. Costner.
jump-
wow, been trying to follow a little about the projects in paris. thats very cool your connected to someone involved. im just at the begining of getting an education, potentially applying for Masters in arch this year, have a B.S. in env sci from a few years ago. I guess my question was more what brought you to Japan in the first place.
thanks tho
ah well, why i came to japan?
random chance. like all best moments in life it was unplanned.
which is why orhans post is of course the best answer of all.
jump -
sorry for any confusion, but I lived in Tokyo for 4 yrs. I also graduated (masters) from UT - Matsumura Lab (Uchida-sensei) - I studied space architecture/ infra-free (terrestrial adaptation of space arch). I met Ohno sensei a few times related to his concept of Fiber City. I’m currently living/ working in London and doing a joint PhD with Loughborough University and UT, so I’m still in Tokyo off and on. The conference is in Edinburgh – that’s all.
ah very cool, rsiii.
in that case i would recommend an article by andre sorenson that responds, among other things, to kenworthy and newman's assertion that density is a reasonable indicator of sustainability.
it is called Major Issues of Land Management for Sustainable Urban Regions in Japan and can be downloaded here in pdf format . the first page spells it out rather clearly, and for reasons i agree with. density is impt but confusing density for good urban form is a mistake in my opinion. if you are interested in this point i would recommend mike jenks' series of books on sustainable urban form, where he points out that research does not say one way or another whether density should be high or low in order to achieve sustainability.
sustainability is not your topic, but in some ways a "good" city is measured by many of the same things as a sustainable city, so could be a good starting point.
unrelated but if interested feel free to drop a line next time you are in tokyo. you can explain to me what exactly "terrestrial adaptation of space arch" means ;-)
jump -
thanks for the reference. i've havent read andre's paper yet. i met andre when he brought a group of his students from toronto to tokyo a few years ago.
i agree that density is important, but it is not intrinsic to success/ sustainability - there needs to be some kind of rules/ logic, even if that logic resides as tacit or informal. I'm a fan of Batty's work with Cities and Complexity at UCL:
http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/people/person.asp?ID=2
The terrestrial adaptation of space arch simply meant a building as a self-sustaining or autonomous entity - a very technology/ systems-driven approach to design. www.infrafree.com (the website a bit dated now, was to serve as a simple intro to the research).
my research currently is about desiging for future adaptablility; what that means and how that affects the design process and product.
i'm in tokyo begining of july, would be interesting to have a chat. i'm always intrigued by gaijin who can start their own company in tokyo!
thanks for link to batty. not an area i know much about so is cool to see.
andre is by far the most objective of urban researchers on japan so i like his work a lot. no talk of 'ma', no references to shinto, and no talk about how easily japan is able to change because of its adaptability evolving out of its special cultural history. it is soooo nice to read about japan without that baggage.
so, you are doing a kind of metabolism for the 21st century? profs from princeton were here recently for a conference at todai where they discussed revisiting metabolism with japanese architects, including ohno, kengo kuma, naito. the japanese architects seemed less interested in continuing the idea, but stan allen and reiser and umemoto seemed to make a good argument that the ideas are still being pursued, at east in their work.
would be great to meet when you head back to tokyo. drop a line. we'll hopefully still be here ;-)
I like three basic descriptors:
Magnectic: draw us in
Functional: support our needs
Expressive: tell a story
also...
Cities of Opportunities (psy arch referenced earlier)
(9 indicators and 32 variables)
1) Intellectual capital
a) Top 500 universities
b) Population with higher education
c) Nobel Prize winners
2) Technology IQ and Innovation
a) Internet users on broadband
b) high-tech services employment
c)self employment
d) patents
3) Transportation Assets
a) Registered taxis
b) Underground track
c) Airline carriers
d) Passenger flows
e) Airport cargo
4) Demographic Advantages
a) Population density
b) Working age population
c) diversity
5) Financial Clout
a) Global 500 headquarters
b) Employment in financial and business services
c) Domestic market capitalization
d) Value of private equity
6) Cost
a) cost of business occupancy
b) cost of living
c) purchasing power
7) Lifestyle assets
a) Entertainment
b) Recreational space
c) Hotel beds
8) Safety and security
a) Hospital beds
b) Crime statistics
c) Personal safety and security
9) Ease of doing business
a) Corporate tax
b) Ease of hiring
c) Work/ life benefits
d) Seperation requirements
Orahn, while rereading your dialogue of the city...it made me think about what I love so much about inhabiting cities - concomitant stories (stories = interactions/ events). No matter where you are, you're constantly comprehending a dense web of fragmented stories: fragments left behind, concurrent/ adjacent fragments, and fragments in gestation - the dynamic composition of any city.
And it's Psy arch's understanding of JJ Gibson's Affordances which help define the context to which this is possible (or intensified through urban agglomerations) - density affording novel interactions/ diversity of form and life.
But its also important to contextualize density within a sustainable/ manageable framework (i.e. the other 26 accumulated characteristics described by the other contributors) as a set of explicit (building/ planning laws) and tacit (people, culture, communities) rules.
hi rsii,
that was mostly what i grew up with in izmir, turkey. still the most liberal (left wing) city there.
i should also add 'density' to my list. cities without density just don't cut it for me. however, being a harbor city around the bay also helps.
i have written about izmir here.
Orhan,
It's interesting in your post about Izmir you mention the Infra-less architecture conference sponsered by Kale. I was part of that conference in Istanbul, and is the research I mentioned to Jump that I was part of at the University of Tokyo with Serkan Anilir (www.infrafree.com). I've actually been to your hometown Izmir as well as part of my travels through Turkey, which I enjoyed very much. :)
your mention of a harbor city brings to the foreground the original attraction for most intensified clustering - geography or attraction to a valuable natural resource.
Just to toss out an idea that I don't think has been mentioned yet - I think that scalability is crucial to a really successful city. Great cities are able to create desirable environments at a scale as small as the single block (neighborhood associations, small public places/amenities) and as large as the region (transit, anyone?), and then integrate those various scales.
Something else that comes into play with the idea of scalability is mobility. Frequently in the US, mobility across the larger scale (car) is given priority over the experience of the smallest user (pedestrian) with pretty stark results (see Donald Appleyard's landmark study on livable streets).
Personally, I also think that scalability is an interesting lens to turn on Tokyo - although it's stereotypically depicted as a monolithic warren, I found that Tokyo has a number of development patterns that support livable, properly-scaled environments. The one thing that comes immediately to mind is the mixed-use nature of many of the small neighborhood streets, which lack clear delineation but support a range of transportation modes safely.
Such a big topic!
Livable density - meaning dense enough to support a walkable environment, close proximity between living and commercial and retail mixes.
Mix of housing types for all types of lifestyles from small studios to single family homes.
Greenery. All the talk of Tokyo above makes me think in the pictures Ive seen of it, never been there, that there so little green outside of the big plot in the center it seems. I love that in Chicago there is a virtual forest canopy covering most of the city. In NYC theres little squares and parks all over to give relief from the density.
Transit is critical. Dont ban cars nessearily but interweave a great road system with transit options. Key word = options!
People. A good city should attract and nuture people from various nationalities and backgrounds and view points in order to sustain idea exchanges, to this extant a university or two is very helpful.
Architecture. A city is humanity on display and by what better means than through the expresion of architecture. Cities with a binding architectural style such as Amsterdam, Boston, or districts in Chicago and New York where the structures enforce each other and share a common langauge seem to appeal instinctively to humans. Paris may be the ultimate example of this unifying style in the 2nd empire apartment houses lining the boulevards and courtyard buildings in the side streets.
Food
water is critical for a city's health and beauty. The best cities have either a harbor, a river or both (a lake/pond just doesn't cut it).
that an interesting point TK. thats one thing i have had a hard time understanding about tokyo. it has great opportunities for living on the water but most of the buildings facing it turn their backs to it. i was told this is because the waterways used to be used for sewage, so the city that used to be a kind of venice (tokyo was once a canal city-with the best brothels at the bridges) slowly became a city that covered its waterways with roads and ignored it as best it could, and the attitude has not caught up with the clean water. the result is that now the city really has put most of its crap functions on the water and few seem to be interested in changing, even though the water isn't so dirty anymore...its odd to take a boat trip up some of the canals and all you see are the backs of restaurants....and yet the city is quite ok.
EP, tokyo is scattered with parks, some bigger than others, so is not so bad. where i live is green everywhere. you are right though, it is a pretty harsh environment in a lot of places. like living on the moon. "magnificent desolation" sometimes comes to mind.
i am still worried about density. my personal preference is for having it. but as an urban researcher/theory-boy/planner i worry that we accept it as required too readily. lots of research shows that it has a great deal of negatives attached to it, not all of them easy to compensate for. objectively i have to admit the possibility of another perfectly sustainable typology for urbanism that is closer to broadacre city than to ville radieuse. but most research starts with the assumption that it is not possible. since most of the developed world's cities are not dense it at least seems worth our time to investigate the possibility of sustainability (in the three pillars sense) without looking to density as the machine for getting it.
public space and private space, and the spectrum in between
pedestrian / transit infrastructure
diverse industry, entrepreneurship
natural, built, and human landscapes
history and memory
designed and undesigned quality
lived in spaces
resting places and destination places
everyday life and occassional spectacles
comfort of the predictable, and the interest of the unexpected
culture, music scene, musuems
morning, day and night life
historic preservation
a healthy academic presence
demographic diversity
last but not least: good food and drink!!
Green Areas in Tokyo: In 1955 there were a total of 12,000 ha. of green space in the 23 wards (as well as 26,000 ha. in Tama), which was 200% of the residential area at that time. By 1980 after the rapid economic growth period (1960-1975) had consumed 9,000 ha. of the green space in the 23 wards (18,000 ha. in Tama) leaving the ratio at 60%, which is low compared to most cities. In 2004, the government initiated "Green Tokyo Project" which has attempted to bring green areas back to the city, but like Jump mentions most of the green areas are small pockets of greenery specifically located in the residential areas. They've had less success greening the 'toshin san ku' which is the very center of Tokyo and primarily work dominated area.
From what I understand, a large part of the current relationship with the canals in the city steam from the 1959 decision to use the waterways as infrastructure (pathways) for the metropolitan expressway system (part of the preparation for the 1964 Olympics). Also, by the end of the economic growth period, Tokyo bay was 95% artificial coastline with a 100% of its natural habitat gone.
Some underrated ones that makes great cities:
Imperfection
Natural planning clumsiness
Average people
Average things
Average stores
Average places
Background buildings
Underwhelming Buildings
Trade Schools
It's not all glitz and glamor that make cities great.
med - nice point.
our cities definitely embody the full spectrum of what we offer as humans; along the lines of your point:
"Our cities embody our nations greatest triumphs and most daunting challenges. They give us rich diversity, cultural achievement, and cultural values that characterize our nations spirits. At their worst they reflect our countries most persistent social ills - economic disparity, hopelessness, neglect and abandonment."
too true, med.
i am frankly sick of planners measuring or looking for disneyland cities as though the flipside was not as impt.
when i visited liverpool last year i saw lots of that sort of thing done in the name of urban revitalisation on the waterfront. very careful planning, some genuinely good architecture, and so much editing that i felt rather uncomfortable. i hope the revitalisation takes this time around, but am somehow rather doubtful. it was done too much by numbers to work.
about tokyo and its waterways, that sounds right rsii. on other hand one of my favorite places in the city is the bridge in nihonbashi where they built an elevated highway over the ancient center of japan.
awesome space. more memorable than if they just put up another bloody marker and planted a tree. it feels more alive for its abused state, not less so.
am not sure being human-made is relevant. lots of holland is made from whole clothe too, but the waterfronts there work quite nicely. i think it is not the presence of water but how it is treated. if you are japanese and think water is unclean then it is not surprising that the govt is still covering canals over and the ones that are open tend to be fenced off as though they are criminals.
there are some new laws in play now about making greenspace in tokyo rsii. my colleague is studying it for post-doc research - if you are interested i am happy to make introduction. it sounds like the effect is so far underwhelming though. my guess is that for the immediate future it will be efforts to make emergency gathering spaces/refuges (earthquakes) that will have the most impact. and of course the urban fringe is already turning back to wild as population drops and properties are abandoned. it is like detroit in some parts of the greater met area...
children and old people.
Reduce police numbers to 2% of current levels and things are looking up.
Everywhere I go, all I see are cops.
An the funny thing is there is minimal crime.
Whats the best way to rob a bank? OWN IT!
three more thoughts...
advanced information access
practical management of resources
high-speed logistics
good pot dealers.
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.