HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 12:07 AM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,509
I think in terms of percentages they did. London has only just superseded the medieval record of foreign born (one third), and not yet of the Roman times though, where the majority of inhabitants were from the empire.

Of course in terms of bulk numbers nowhere can compete with today's figures as after all, all our cities are much bigger. Also arrivals are from further afield due to modern travel.

NYC at its height of its immigration heyday was only 40% foreign born I may add, something many cities, many times over in history have had more of. But we get it, NYC has been a great migrant magnet for over a century, and the biggest one in that time (though its recently been superceded).

however its immigrant rise is definitely not an unprecedented event in history, and many cities much earlier have followed the same paths - unless of course you choose to stipulate certain aspects of that immigrant wave (eg ignoring percentages, and only from separate continents, and only in numbers over 100,000)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 12:21 AM
SHiRO's Avatar
SHiRO SHiRO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 15,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by bricky View Post
Dude I don't post a lot, but I read sometimes. And you are as big a nationalist (or regionalist??) as anyone else on this site.

The fact that you can't decide between nationalist or "regionalist" says enough...

Quote:
London and Amsterdam in their Golden Ages did not have the global immigration, both in source cultures, and volumes, that London and Amsterdam have today.
What's so hard to understand about the difference between 30% and 60%?
One is double of the other. As for "global" --> historical context.
If one person speaking Mamuju in contempory New York is proof for it being "the most linguistically diverse", then so is a small community of Malay in 17th century Amsterdam. There needn't have been mass immigration from South East Asia for that.

Quote:
Again, I'm not making this into a European or American thing. As you do with everything. I'm making this into a then and now thing.
You're making this into a trolling thing. I'm not the one making things Europe vs America, I get dragged into that by people like you. Your post is ample evidence. Stop it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 1:02 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
Black Britons - of the 20,000 during the 1760s, marry into a White family. Their children marry into another white family - and so on, until Black genes are so diluted the children are born blonde and blue eyed within 2 generations.


This paragraph displays a complete lack of knowledge of either history or genetics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 2:02 AM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
I think in terms of percentages they did. London has only just superseded the medieval record of foreign born (one third), and not yet of the Roman times though, where the majority of inhabitants were from the empire.

Of course in terms of bulk numbers nowhere can compete with today's figures as after all, all our cities are much bigger. Also arrivals are from further afield due to modern travel.

NYC at its height of its immigration heyday was only 40% foreign born I may add, something many cities, many times over in history have had more of. But we get it, NYC has been a great migrant magnet for over a century, and the biggest one in that time (though its recently been superceded).

however its immigrant rise is definitely not an unprecedented event in history, and many cities much earlier have followed the same paths - unless of course you choose to stipulate certain aspects of that immigrant wave (eg ignoring percentages, and only from separate continents, and only in numbers over 100,000)
I guess we don't really disagree, but place emphasis on different points. I'll try to summarize what I'm trying to say. It's my fault that it wasn't clearer.

Differences between then (Ancient Rome, 18th C London, etc) and now (contemporary London, NY, Syndey etc):

1) raw numbers. Imagine a city of 50,000 people, that is 5% Indian. That's 2500 Indians. Imagine another city of 2,000,000 people, that is also 5% Indian. Meaning 100,000 Indians. I would argue that there is a qualitative difference in Indian communities, even though the percentages are the same. This isn't the first city's "fault". Just a statement of fact.

2) Then (let's use the example of Ancient Alexandria), the bulk of a city's foreign-born or ethnic minority population was from relatively nearby cultures. While there were probably some Indians, and perhaps a literal handful of Chinese, most of Alexandria's "minorities" were from Greece and Judea. Most of Rome's "minorities" were from the rest of the Roman Empire, or places adjacent. Now (let's use the example of London), it is often the case that the bulk of a city's foreign-born population is from distant cultures and places. London has something like 1 million South Asians? And several hundred thousand East Asians? Several hundred thousand people from the Middle East? You know London's demographics better than me. But suffice it to say, that there are a lot of people in London in 2010, from very far away.

3) Then (let's use the example of 18th C London), the "minorities" or foreigners from very distant places, while they existed, represented a small portion of the total population. 20,000 Africans (if that is not an exaggeration, as almost all non-census population estimates are), would represent something like 2-4% of London's population at that time. There were almost certainly a heck of a lot more Irishmen (and Heugenots) in London in the 17th or 18th C, than there were Indians, Chinese, and Africans. In today's Toronto however, the bulk of new foreigners are from culturally distant places. Not from culturally similar Europe or the US, but from China, India, etc.

Do we still disagree? I would argue that the above three points really separate diversity today, from any other case in the past. It's not Ancient Rome's "fault" that there weren't any jetliners back then. It's not 17th C Amsterdam's "fault" that it was a small city in comparison to modern Amsterdam. You can have two cities separated by time, with a similar percentage of foreigners, but very different in the distribution of immigration sources, and in the sheer volume of immigrants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 3:08 AM
SHiRO's Avatar
SHiRO SHiRO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 15,292
In other words, you have trouble with perspective.

The armed forces of Swaziland are more powerfull than the British Empire was because if it were possible to pit them against eachother, Swaziland would win on account of their modern weapons.

It's all besides the point anyway, because New York isn't even unique in having large scale immigrant communities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 11:58 AM
pico44's Avatar
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
Mate seriously learn some history before you make assumptions. Many Britons today have African or other genes, the phenomenon of genetic throwback is not uncommon (where seemingly White parents give birth to ethnic offspring).

I've heard this before, in the exact same context, and i still don't believe that it exists.



Quote:
Also London had its first Black mayor in 1913

You know, it's funny, I actually wasted time researching this. And unless I am mistaken (in which case I am truly sorry), you are referring to a man of mixed race who was elected mayor of Battersea, not London. Battersea being a relatively small, working-class, municipality south of the Thames. I thought it sounded too fishy to be true.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 12:34 PM
pico44's Avatar
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHiRO View Post

There are a hundred Captain Americas on here, including obviously you. I didn't say anything about Europe, just amazed at ignorant people who don't know or deny American imperialistic history or the fact that immigration and multiculturalism existed before 1624 when New York was founded by the Dutch.
There are a dozen cities in the world that can make the same claims as New York regarding # of languages spoken and diversity and there are hundreds who can in a historical equivalent context.



Perhaps I didn't give enough credit to all the great slave-importing empires of the past, but this is exactly what I referred to in my original post. Why is it so unpalatable to people from Europe to recognize the exceptionalism of the New York immigrant experience? Why are you so desperate to one-up a truly original and impressive thing? Are there really 12 cities with the diversity found in New York? Name them. Thats right, name each and every one of them. I suspect by the time you get to city number seven or eight, we'll all have a good laugh.

Let me be as clear as possible, what happened in the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries was a historical novelty. New York, Chicago, LA were all created through voluntary immigration from around the world in hitherto unseen scale and scope. Furthermore, the New York of the latter 20th century was the first real global society, with significant populations of people (not 100 malays shipped in from the colony) from every corner of the world (not 20% Irish and 40% Huguenot to make 60% immigrant). In fact, once people saw that it provided enormous benifit for cities like NYC and LA, it created a new paradigm that the rest of the world quickly copied. Don't believe me? Lets look at the relative ethnic populations of London and New York in 1980 and 2010. For this, New York deserves a special place in history.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 12:55 PM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post


This paragraph displays a complete lack of knowledge of either history or genetics.

Please do fill me in (and my family) on that - see post 69 http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4846371&postcount=69. Is it really hard to comprehend that if a Black population stops emigrating into the country (as did in the peaks and troughs of Uks immigration thropugh the centuries), plus there are high rates of intermarriage, unlike historical US, that remaining ethnic population will dwindle, as the genes get gradually more diluted?

Look at the Native American or Chinese labourers in US during the 19th Century - what happened to those communities? Why didnt take over in huge numbers by the early 20th century? the prsent Asian population is by far from the 20th century - not ancestors of the 19th, although of course a few can trace their lineage back then - but far, far from the majority.

I mean seriously, if a half Black woman marries a White man, her child will only be quarter Black. If that child in turn yet again marries a white person, their children will be 1/8 Black. Her child in turn follows suit, and their offspring will be 1/16 Black - and by then their Black genes will be unnoticeable. Churchill would be a good example, 1/16 Native American.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 12:59 PM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,509
REPOST PLEASE READ BLACK HISTORY OF BRITAIN EXCERPTS


NOTE THE RISE AND FALL OF THE COMMUNITY NUMBERS



Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
note the periods:

http://www.chronicleworld.org/tomsite/capsule.htm

1555 onwards: RISE

""Certain black slaves" arrive from Africa with John Lok; and marks beginning of continuous Black presence in London.
Late 16th century, opening up of West African trade. Africans became part of London's population in seafaring centres like Deptford."

1596-1601: FALL

"Fear of increased black population in London and other towns leads to Royal proclamation by Queen Elizabeth I to arrest and expel all "Negroes and blackamores" from her kingdom."


1700s RISE

"First era of large scale settlement of blacks in Britain.
Significant presence of Black people brought as slave-servants of returning ex-colonial officials, traders, plantation owners, andmilitary personnel.

Growing evidence of Black presence in the northern, eastern and southern areas of London.

In addition, there were small number of free slaves and seamen from West Africa and South Asia.

Black Londoners number 10,000-15,000 of the nation's 20,000 black people. London by now home to communities of Blacks, and of Jews, Irish, Germans, and Huguenots."


early 1800s FALL

"Parliament abolishes slavery throughout the British Empire.

Steady decline in numbers and visibility of London's black population as fewer blacks were brought by West Indian planters and restrictions on immigrants from Africa."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 1:30 PM
909's Avatar
909 909 is offline
architechno
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by bricky View Post
Don't you get it? 20,000 black Africans in 18th Century London (I'll take your word on the count, as there was no ethnic census back then, and people love to exaggerate numbers), is not the same as 1,000,000 blacks in NY in 1950. Or 500,000 Asians in NY in 1990. There is this little matter of both scale, and percentage.
There is this little matter of mobility and zeitgeist. Comparing 18th century London with 1950's of '90s New York is nothing more than a form of incorrect reasoning in argumentation. Not only were those other times, the mobility of people in that time should also placed in context. Captain Europe is right:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHiRO View Post
Wow, I'm absolutely amazed at the ignorance in this thread...
As long as some people define multiculturalism as 'New York' than any discussion would be pointless.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 2:51 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppet View Post
Please do fill me in (and my family) on that - see post 69 http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4846371&postcount=69. Is it really hard to comprehend that if a Black population stops emigrating into the country (as did in the peaks and troughs of Uks immigration thropugh the centuries), plus there are high rates of intermarriage, unlike historical US, that remaining ethnic population will dwindle, as the genes get gradually more diluted?
For starters, you grossly overstate the historical incidence of mixed race marriage (or procreation) in the UK, which of course occurred but was extremely rare. The average Englishman does not have any black ancestry (unless your time horizon extends beyond proto-Caucasoid peoples). You come from a mixed race family but this is not typical.

In fact there was far more in the U.S. - perhaps not marriage, but certainly plenty of offspring produced by slave owners and slave women such that the majority of the African American population today is of mixed race.

Second, you ignore basic biology and genetics. You can't mix races in whatever fractions and get something in between like you're mixing oil paints. For instance, there are such things as dominant and recessive genes, etc. Both blonde hair and blue eyes, by the way, are caused by recessive genes, so to produce this result both parents must have the appropriate gene on at least one chromosome. Any significant mixing of races over long periods of time cannot produce a population with a high incidence of such recessive traits. This is why blonde hair and blue eyes are, without continued racial/ethnic segregation, basically endangered and bound to disappear from the human population at some point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 3:21 PM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHiRO View Post
In other words, you have trouble with perspective.

The armed forces of Swaziland are more powerfull than the British Empire was because if it were possible to pit them against eachother, Swaziland would win on account of their modern weapons.

It's all besides the point anyway, because New York isn't even unique in having large scale immigrant communities.

The better comparison might be with the armed forces of Holland in the 16th C, and America in 2010. Contemporary NY (or London) has immigrants from far more places, in far greater numbers, than 17th C Amsterdam, or 18th C London. Remind me again how this is controversial?

Is it really hard to believe that something has qualitatively changed, when there are more Asians in NY today, than there were people in 18th C London? When the number of Asians in old London and modern London, may have differed by a factor of 500? That Flushing and Manhattan Chinatown together, have more people than Amsterdam during it's Golden Age? Our frickin Chinatowns are bigger than many capital cities used to be. Not to mention that Chinese, are not even close to the biggest immigrant group in NY!

Last edited by bricky; May 20, 2010 at 3:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 4:10 PM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHiRO View Post
The armed forces of Swaziland are more powerfull than the British Empire was because if it were possible to pit them against eachother, Swaziland would win on account of their modern weapons.
By the way, I forgot to shout out your comparison of modern NY with Swaziland, and old London with the British Empire. Not many people would have thought that up!

Actually, I have to hand it to you... you somehow manage to take the worst aspects of the American Right, the blind jingoism and the false logic, but still manage to despise America at the same time. The cognitive dissonance is amazing!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 4:27 PM
brickell's Avatar
brickell brickell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: County of Dade
Posts: 9,143
Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane.
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv’d all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.

Which medly canton’d in a heptarchy,
A rhapsody of nations to supply,
Among themselves maintain’d eternal wars,
And still the ladies lov’d the conquerors.

The western Angles all the rest subdu’d;
A bloody nation, barbarous and rude:
Who by the tenure of the sword possest
One part of Britain, and subdu’d the rest
And as great things denominate the small,
The conqu’ring part gave title to the whole.
The Scot, Pict, Britain, Roman, Dane, submit,
And with the English-Saxon all unite:
And these the mixture have so close pursu’d,
The very name and memory’s subdu’d:
No Roman now, no Britain does remain;
Wales strove to separate, but strove in vain:
The silent nations undistinguish’d fall,
And Englishman’s the common name for all.
Fate jumbled them together, God knows how;
What e’er they were they’re true-born English now.

The wonder which remains is at our pride,
To value that which all wise men deride.
For Englishmen to boast of generation,
Cancels their knowledge, and lampoons the nation.
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction.
A banter made to be a test of fools,
Which those that use it justly ridicules.
A metaphor invented to express
A man a-kin to all the universe.


For as the Scots, as learned men ha’ said,
Throughout the world their wand’ring seed ha’ spread;
So open-handed England, ’tis believ’d,
Has all the gleanings of the world receiv’d.

Some think of England ’twas our Saviour meant,
The Gospel should to all the world be sent:
Since, when the blessed sound did hither reach,
They to all nations might be said to preach.

‘Tis well that virtue gives nobility,
How shall we else the want of birth and blood supply?
Since scarce one family is left alive,
Which does not from some foreigner derive.

-Daniel Defoe 1701
src: http://whatenglandmeanstome.co.uk/?page_id=80
__________________
That's what did it in the end. Not the money, not the music, not even the guns. That is my heroic flaw: my excess of civic pride.

Last edited by brickell; May 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 4:36 PM
brickell's Avatar
brickell brickell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: County of Dade
Posts: 9,143
Just to pile on, to argue that Rome, Alexandria or Constantinople were less diverse is to ignore the the much more diverse landscape they came from. Cultures and languages changed valley to valley, not country to country.

Yes we do live in a more mobile and modern world but we're also drawing from a much smaller pool, in my opinion.
__________________
That's what did it in the end. Not the money, not the music, not even the guns. That is my heroic flaw: my excess of civic pride.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 4:44 PM
pico44's Avatar
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,452
While i have a moment, here's another thing that bothers me about this thread. About 20 years ago, New York really started to embrace its immigrant present by bragging that there were 160-some languages spoken within the 5 burroughs. This was completely novel thing because up until that point New Yorkers had a proud tradition of hating every immigrant group as they showed up with vigorous passion. But as i stated before, the paradigm had shifted.

Then a few years ago, some british group did a study showing that there were over 300 languages spoken within London. Very suddenly, according to a group of very vocal boosters on the internet, London became the most multiethnic in the world. And there was much rejoicing. And there was also much ignorance. Ignorance about the fact that New York and LA had created the the archetype that made it braggable statistic in the first place.

Based on travels to London and living in new York, I kind of doubted the claims that London was now more diverse, but for the most part i was happy that we lived in a world where one boasted about tolerance, so i never really said anything. Now that the NY Times has confirmed my suspicions, I just find it bizarre that, in a desperate attempt to maintain some type of superiority, this stat is now meaningless. I mean, Shiro just said there are a dozen cities where 800 languages are spoken.

What the hell is up with that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 4:52 PM
pico44's Avatar
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickell View Post
Just to pile on, to argue that Rome, Alexandria or Constantinople were less diverse is to ignore the the much more diverse landscape they came from. Cultures and languages changed valley to valley, not country to country.

Yes we do live in a more mobile and modern world but we're also drawing from a much smaller pool, in my opinion.


Wrong. The fact that they were speaking different languages valley to valley only serves to destroy your contrarian argument. Have you ever driven across Europe? The architecture, culture, appearance of people and food vary immensely in the matter of miles. It is a wonderful thing to experience as a tourist, but it is also a reminder of the isolationist nature of European societies for thousands of years. These weren't open borders until very very recently.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 4:58 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,535
It's also important to note that when you're discussing modern travel as a reason for more diversity, it can actually be a reason for less diversity. Today, if you as a European want to trade with someone in China, you can get on the phone or email or take a weekend trip to China. Historically, the reason a lot of ethnic communities (Chinatown, Koreatown, etc.) sprant up was for trading purposes. Traders needed a network to trade with when they arrived at foreign ports, so middlemen stayed behind: Chinese traders trade with Chinese in Chinatown, who are bilingual and trade with locals. There's no need for an ethnic community to stay behind and build trading networks today because of modern travel and trade methods. When you're talking about any major trading city of the middle ages though you have to remember that it would have been filled with trading communities from all corners of the globe. In Bangkok, for example, Chinatown and the Arab and European communities are as old as any part of the city because they are historical trading towns. Rome would have been filled with migrants, servants, POWS, etc. rom all corners of the empire (England to North Africa to the middle east), but it also would have been riddled with Chinese, Indian, etc. trading communities. 5 or 10% of the population of a smaller city may have represented a smaller total number of people, but they're still going to have a major impact on the rest of the citizens in the city because the majority population is also relatively smaller.

Btw, this is off-topic since it's only seasonal, but I've been to LA, NYC, London, etc., and Phuket, Thailand is easily the most diverse place I've ever been to. It's a Thai city founded by Chinese tin miners and Portuguese traders in the 17th century, but in modern day the population of Phuket more than doubles with hundreds of thousands of foreign tourists from all over the world. You can walk down a street lined with restaurants from around the world crammed with people and every group of a few people will be from a different country. Forget cities, nothing creates diversity like the most popular beaches in the world
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 5:08 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by pico44 View Post
Wrong. The fact that they were speaking different languages valley to valley only serves to destroy your contrarian argument. Have you ever driven across Europe? The architecture, culture, appearance of people and food vary immensely in the matter of miles. It is a wonderful thing to experience as a tourist, but it is also a reminder of the isolationist nature of European societies for thousands of years. These weren't open borders until very very recently.
No, it had to do with the fact that there were no phones, no dictionaries, and no such thing as a centralized government. Borders weren't even invented until very very recently, historically, closed borders are the anomaly, not open borders. People in villages may have moved around less frequently, maintaining their own traditions and culture, but trade was as robust as ever and traders and laborers moved easily from region to region.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted May 20, 2010, 5:17 PM
pico44's Avatar
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor View Post
No, it had to do with the fact that there were no phones, no dictionaries, and no such thing as a centralized government. Borders weren't even invented until very very recently, historically, closed borders are the anomaly, not open borders. People in villages may have moved around less frequently, maintaining their own traditions and culture, but trade was as robust as ever and traders and laborers moved easily from region to region.



Cute theory. So explain why french is spoken from Normandy to Cannes? But not in Milan?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:27 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.