HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2014, 4:15 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,823
Heritage Properties of Ottawa & Gatineau

Historic Bells Corners hotel tapped for heritage designation

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 13, 2014, Last Updated: November 13, 2014 9:49 PM EST




The former home of Al’s Steakhouse in Bells Corners should be granted a heritage designation, a city committee recommended Thursday.

The two-storey stone building at 1993 Robertson Rd. was built as a hotel sometime around 1870. It was named after and operated by David Hartin, a well-known farmer and businessman in 19th-century Goulbourn Township.

Earlier this year, the former Hartin Hotel building was sold and the new owner is renovating the interior to open a restaurant, according to a staff report submitted to the built heritage subcommittee.

The request to designate the building came from College Coun. Rick Chiarelli.

As a result of the various uses of the building throughout the 20th century — which include a bank and several restaurants — the interior of the building has been updated and additions have been added to the north and east of the building. These elements are not recommended for inclusion in the designation.

In outlining the case for heritage designation, the city says the building is a good example of a 19th-century hotel, is associated with the devastating fire of 1870 and the prominent local businessman Hartin, and has contextual value for its location at the strategic junction of Robertson Road and Old Richmond Road.

The building has been listed on the City of Ottawa heritage reference list since amalgamation and was also listed on the former City of Nepean’s heritage list.

The proposed designation still requires approval of the planning committee and city council.

mpearson@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ge-designation
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2014, 11:04 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,823
Council grants heritage status to former Bells Corners hotel

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 28, 2014, Last Updated: November 28, 2014 2:34 PM EST


City council has approved a heritage designation for the former home of Al’s Steakhouse in Bells Corners.

The two-storey stone building at 1993 Robertson Rd. was built as a hotel sometime around 1870.

It was named after and operated by David Hartin, a well-known farmer and businessman in 19th-century Goulbourn Township.

Earlier this year, the former Hartin Hotel building was sold and the new owner is renovating the interior to open a restaurant.

The building is a good example of a 19th-century hotel, is associated with the devastating fire of 1870 and the prominent local businessman Hartin, and has contextual value for its location at the strategic junction of Robertson Road and Old Richmond Road, the city says.

College Coun. Rick Chiarelli had pushed for the designation.

mpearson@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-corners-hotel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2014, 8:00 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,823
Request for Broadview heritage designation complicates rebuild plan

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: December 5, 2014, Last Updated: December 5, 2014 6:31 PM EST



Broadview Public School is seen in this undated photograph. The city is considering designating part of the school as a heritage building. The 'tower' is visible in the background.

A request to consider a portion of Broadview Public School for heritage designation could complicate the years-long effort by some parents to get the aging Westboro elementary school rebuilt.

The current plan is to build a modern, two-storey school on the south end of the lot, keeping the existing school open until the new school is built. At that point, in September 2016 if all goes according to plan, students and staff would move into the new building and the old one would be torn down.

But heritage planner Lesley Collins notified the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board this week that the city’s planning department has received a request to designate part of the school under the Ontario Heritage Act, a provincial law that gives cities such authority.

The city has already determined that the oldest portion of the school building, which dates back to 1927 and is commonly known as the tower, meets the criteria for designation. It’s also conducted an initial heritage survey and evaluation, which considers the design, historical and contextual value of a particular building. A property may be designated under the act if it meets one or more of these criteria.


Proposed site plan for rebuilding of Broadview Public School.

The city’s evaluation says Broadview, which is considered an example of the collegiate Gothic style popularized during the first part of the 20th Century, meets all three.

But that hasn’t convinced the parent group Better a Better Broadview, whose campaign to rebuild the school dates back to 2011.

“It may very well have architectural merit, however I think there are extenuating circumstances that should over-ride that,” said Stephanie Craze.

In addition to getting their children out of what many parents say is an unhealthy school, Craze said the board has been clear that it has no intention of using the old building, regardless of whether it’s designated heritage.

And if it remains standing, the building would also eat up green space and delay the rebuild project slightly while the board figures out a new storm water management plan.

The OCDSB received provincial approval in March to spend $15.4 million — a combination of new provincial money and cash from its own reserves — to build a school for 782 students (Broadview’s current student population already exceeds this number but is expected to level off over time).

The board initially looked at integrating the tower within the designs for a new school, but later discounted the idea, said chief financial officer Mike Carson (his portfolio also includes facilities).

Bringing the tower portion up to current standards, including asbestos remediation, accessibility requirements and the provision of services for natural gas and hydro, as well as renovating the interior could cost up to $5 million, which isn’t possible given the current budget, he says.

David Jeanes, a nearby resident advocating for the designation, says the intention is not to delay or complicate the rebuild effort, but rather to address the separate question of whether the old building has heritage value.

If so, he proposes a new partnership with the city that would see Broadview use the 10-classroom building as an annex during the day (instead of portables) and the public use it in the evenings and on weekends to address a shortage of community space in the Carlingwood, McKellar Park and Highland Park neighbourhoods.

Talk of a possible heritage designation is not new, he said, adding people held off until the board secured provincial funding for the rebuild and the proposed demolition became more imminent.

The city’s planning department will now prepare a report and recommendations for consideration of the built heritage subcommittee, perhaps as early as January. If that committee recommends the designation, the planning committee and city council would have the final say.

mpearson@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...s-rebuild-plan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 12:51 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,823
Let's put our money where our heritage heart is

Joanne Chianello, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: December 8, 2014, Last Updated: December 8, 2014 5:06 PM EST


You would think that a community would be pleased to discover that a local school has heritage value. But as is so often the case, it turns out that heritage designation is a concept that’s nice for other people.

Case in point: the upcoming designation of the original 1927 section of Broadview Public School. According to municipal heritage planner Lesley Collins, the city has received a number of calls over the past couple of years — including an inquiry in 2013 — about the possible designation of a number of pre-Second World War schools in the city. This past summer, the city’s heritage department launched a “mini-project” to look at several Ottawa schools, which identified the Westboro-area school and three others — York Street P.S., École élémentaire publique Francojeunesse and the former Overbrook P.S. — as having heritage value.

A more recent heritage evaluation from the city states that Broadview meets all three of the provincial heritage act’s criteria for designation: design, historical and contextual value.

Great news, right?

Not for everyone. In particular, the news that the old school may very well receive heritage protection is worrying some Broadview parents who’ve been arguing for a brand new school for years.

As Stephanie Craze of the parent group Build a Better Broadview told the Citizen’s Matthew Pearson, “It may very well have architectural merit, however I think there are extenuating circumstances that should override that.”

You can have some sympathy for Craze’s view. Broadview is, by all accounts, in dismal shape, and parents fought hard for the school to be rebuilt. Earlier in the process, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board had balked at re-purposing the old school as it would have added millions to the price tag, which is currently set at $15.4 million. Naturally, parents fear that the heritage designation — which must be approved by the city’s heritage sub-committee, then planning committee before finally going to full council — could delay or even mangle the current plans.

But these concerns are no reason to ignore the heritage importance of the building. Indeed, many people feel that, when faced with possible heritage designation, they have “extenuating circumstances that should override protecting heritage buildings.” That’s why, until the 1980s, heritage buildings were torn down all the time in Canadian cities. Sadly, some still slip through the wide cracks in our heritage-designation process.

Sure, heritage can be a hassle — it means renovations are more expensive and there are restrictions on what you can and can’t do to the building. It’s no wonder that, so often, it’s the owners who are against a property being designated as heritage.

And yet, protecting our built heritage is vitally important not just to our local history, but to keeping our communities interesting from an architectural point of view. To paraphrase Jane Jacobs, how boring would our city streets be if buildings were continually re-constructed every decade or two?

Our governments tell us that heritage is important by passing legislation to protect it, and employing experts to designate it. What they don’t do is pay for it.

Look at the Ottawa’s own paltry “heritage grant” program. Ottawa will match funds up to $5,000 for restoration work on heritage buildings. In some projects, $5,000 doesn’t pay for a single historically appropriate window (which would have to be custom built).

Compare that with Edmonton’s program, which offers to pick up as much as 50 per cent of the costs for restoration, as well as 30 per cent of the maintenance costs. Now, the heritage laws in Alberta are slightly different than in Ontario — that province calls for property owners to be compensated for any financial loss a heritage designation might cause — but by any measure, Edmonton offers much more robust support for heritage property owners.

That’s as it should be.

Championing heritage in theory isn’t that helpful without the cash to back it up. Faced with a heritage designation for Broadview P.S. — or any public building — the provincial government needs to pay the additional costs of protecting that bit of local history. Governments expect private property owners to pony up to preserve heritage interests, and that’s fair enough. But surely governments themselves must lead by example by putting their money where their legislative mouths are.

jchianello@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/jchianello

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-col-chianello
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 12:05 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 9,408
Edmonton has far fewer heritage properties to begin with than Ottawa (same goes for Alberta vs. Ontario) so obviously they can afford to spend more on each one. Not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2014, 12:07 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 9,408
I wonder, would a City of Ottawa heritage designation even do anything? I thought the city has no authority over provincial or federal projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 8:43 AM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,722
*

Last edited by Urbanarchit; Aug 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 3:53 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,823
Broadview school heritage designation clears first hurdle

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 12, 2015, Last Updated: February 12, 2015 7:10 PM EST


The built heritage subcommittee threw a wrench in plans to rebuild an aging Westboro elementary school on Thursday by recommending that the city give the 1927 building a heritage designation.

But despite a possible delay of up to three months, Ottawa’s public school board says it will forge ahead with plans to build a new, modern Broadview Public School on the same lot as the current school.

“We have the money, we have made a commitment to the province that we will rebuild in the way that we said we would, so I don’t think parents should be concerned that there will be a big delay,” said Shirley Seward, chair of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

“That’s not in anybody’s interests, and the board is certainly ready to proceed as soon as possible.”

What the OCDSB is not ready to do, however, is spend an estimated $5 million to renovate the two-storey tower, which was built in 1927 in the collegiate gothic style popularized in the early 20th Century. It is the only portion of Broadview slated for heritage designation.



“That is $5 million we do not have,” Seward said.

“It is frustrating that one level of government can make a decision on heritage but is not in a position to help fund that, and what I heard from councillors is the province is no longer providing grants for the restoration of heritage sites. So yes, we have a problem.”

That sense of frustration was palpable among some parents who fear the designation could complicate or even jeopardize the rebuild. They say the tower — which is inaccessible and has overheated classrooms that sometimes reach 32 C in the winter — hasn’t met the needs of students for many years.

“Our children and teachers have struggled with an inadequate learning environment long enough,” said Ashley Brasfield. “Our children are being lost in the discussion.”

Moved as they might have been by such concerns, committee members are tasked with considering heritage value alone.

A property can be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria: design or physical value, historical or associative value, and contextual value, a heritage planner told the committee.

Broadview meets all three, according to heritage planner Lesley Collins.

She also told the committee she was only recommending that the building’s exterior receive the designation.

Opposition to the proposed designation was not universal. In addition to the parent of a current Broadview student, the committee heard from David Jeanes, a neighbourhood resident who spoke on behalf of Heritage Ottawa.

Broadview is a “prominent neighbourhood landmark” and bulldozing the building to make way for a parking lot for the new school is “out of line with today’s values,” he said.

The OCDSB had said the impact of council ultimately approving the designation would be reduced green space on the property and amendments to the site plan to account for the change in stormwater management and parking.

Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper, who doesn’t sit on the committee, said he’s aware of concerns that the tower could sit vacant if it’s designated as heritage, but added he’s confident the OCDSB won’t let it become a safety concern.

After the meeting, Leiper said that he hopes the city and perhaps some private-sector partners could come together to transform the building into a new community space.

“This is an area of town that needs a good community space,” he said. “I think it’s critical we explore it before we demolish the building.”

mpearson@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...s-first-hurdle
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 5:11 PM
HighwayStar's Avatar
HighwayStar HighwayStar is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: PHX (by way of YOW)
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
A property can be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria: design or physical value, historical or associative value, and contextual value, a heritage planner told the committee.
What nebulous, subjective criteria...
- "physical value" -- I'm sure most buildings have at least a "physical value".
- "historical value" -- pretty much anything built before 1960.
- "Contextual value" -- what the hell is that??

Beyond insane for a committee to have this type of power is all I can say.... and based on Leipers comments, the city is going to embrace the recommendation.

Somebody please post the "why doesn't anyone think of the Children" picture
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 5:27 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighwayStar View Post
What nebulous, subjective criteria...
- "physical value" -- I'm sure most buildings have at least a "physical value".
- "historical value" -- pretty much anything built before 1960.
- "Contextual value" -- what the hell is that??

Beyond insane for a committee to have this type of power is all I can say.... and based on Leipers comments, the city is going to embrace the recommendation.

Somebody please post the "why doesn't anyone think of the Children" picture
I think Leiper is going to be a real thorn in the side for anybody with any development aspirations in his ward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 5:32 PM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,722
*

Last edited by Urbanarchit; Aug 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 5:53 PM
HighwayStar's Avatar
HighwayStar HighwayStar is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: PHX (by way of YOW)
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by defishel View Post
However, I support this heritage designation. It's a decent looking building that has been there for 90 years. It can be gutted and repurposed, instead of replacing it with surface parking.
Fine... but it begs the obvious question... who pays? Are you saying OCDSB should foot the bill?

If someone comes up with a specific proposal and the $$ to pull it off then I'm all for it.... but please don't take valuable $$ out of the education system (or my tax $ for that matter) to pay to maintain the structure until someone is found to pony up the cash required.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 6:12 PM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,722
*

Last edited by Urbanarchit; Aug 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 7:06 PM
HighwayStar's Avatar
HighwayStar HighwayStar is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: PHX (by way of YOW)
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by defishel View Post
If the building is sold off to a developer or the city, then they can foot the bill. But otherwise the building still can be used by the school board, so they should foot the bill. They were aware of this property they owned and its historical ties to the neighbourhood, and it was their responsibility to be maintaining their facilities anyway, instead of neglecting them for years. They neglected the property and subjected children and residents to its poor conditions, and then were banking on demolishing it to construct new facilities. They could have asked the architect to gut it and then include it as a wing to a newly designed building. This could have allowed space for fields and surface parking (it makes sense to put that underground though).

Instead, they went ahead with designing a new building with the intentions of erasing proof of their neglect, and never spending more than the minimum on inner-city schools. So now, they can pony up the money for a building that they can still use. I feel it's safe to say that instead of blaming those who supported heritage designation for forcing the OCDSB to spend more on this project, they could have saved money if they just maintained their facilities or planned to include it in a redesign in the first place.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the woulda/coulda/shoulda argument here. School Boards purpose is to provide an education.... not to cater to the whims of historical architecture enthusiasts. I'm not in a position to state that $xxx spent 25 years ago would have been enough to salvage the building for the next 100 years... but I do think it realistic that property owners can put a lifespan on their holdings, and make future investment plans based on such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by defishel View Post
Alternatively they could give it to NHS next door and allow them to use in place of portables or whatnot. The school is already over-capacity (when I started there Laurentian and another school closed down so we had an influx from students who'd be going there). Classes were really full, and they added a few more portables, so why not give it to them considering its proximity and similar style?
Nice idea... but it sounds like the ongoing maintenance costs alone are prohibitive... not to mention the full plumbing/electrical/HVAC retrofit likely required. I've lived in the neighbourhood 20 years and like the architectural ambiance as much as anyone... but in this day and age I don't believe it prudent to remove money from education based on the arbitrary whims of a committee.

I'm not denying that the building is more attractive than a parking lot... by a long shot.. but I do think it's unfair to expect the OCDSB to cover the cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 8:41 PM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,722
*

Last edited by Urbanarchit; Aug 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 9:27 PM
silvergate's Avatar
silvergate silvergate is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 452
I wonder if combining with the Catholic School Board would give the public system enough funds to renovate buildings like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2015, 6:25 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,823
City planning panel approves Broadview school heritage designation

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: February 24, 2015, Last Updated: February 24, 2015 12:43 PM EST


Ottawa’s planning committee approved a heritage designation for the oldest portion of Broadview Public School on Tuesday.

A property can be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria: design or physical value, historical or associative value, and contextual value, a heritage planner told the committee.

Broadview meets all three, according to heritage planner Lesley Collins.

Her recommendation to designate only applies to the building’s exterior.

Although the designation — if approved by council — could create a delay of up to three months, Ottawa’s public school board says it will forge ahead with plans to build a new, $15-million Broadview Public School on the same lot as the current school.

What the OCDSB does not appear ready to do, however, is spend an estimated $5 million to renovate the two-storey “tower,” which was built in 1927 in the collegiate gothic style popularized in the early 20th Century. It is the only portion of Broadview slated for heritage designation.

“We have no plans for using that building,” said Mike Carson, the OCDSB’s chief financial officer.

In fact, according to him, the board stands to lose 30 per cent of its provincial funding for the project if the current building is to be used for classroom space. The province has approved funding based on the complete demolition of the current school.

Possible future uses of the old Broadview building, if designated, remain unknown at this point. The OCDSB may seek to sell the land, but provincial law dictates that it can only do so at fair-market value and must first circulate it to other public bodies, such as the city and publicly-funded colleges and universities.

Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper has suggested there is a lack of community space in the neighbourhood and pushed for those options to be considered before signing off on the building’s demolition, as the OCDSB had intended.

mpearson@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ge-designation
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 12:13 PM
HighwayStar's Avatar
HighwayStar HighwayStar is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: PHX (by way of YOW)
Posts: 1,049
I think the OCDSB should call the cities bluff on this one.... scrap the school project and propose to spend $5m to "rehabilitate" the tower... then call it even.

Again... I have nothing against old buildings... I just find it beyond the pale that one small group of architecture enthusiasts has the power to abstractly determine (i.e. just look at the criteria) how another group should spend $5m on their OWN real estate.

If this group of architecture enthusiasts (NOT the city) were to fund the project, then thats one thing... but like this ????

aaarrrggghhh!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 2:45 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 9,408
Heritage rules are a mixed blessing. On the one hand they protect our collective memories, on the other hand they inhibit redevelopment and lead to a waste of space. How many heritage buildings do we know that are abandoned for years because the heritage designation makes it almost impossible to do anything with them?

Kingston has this problem in its historic core, especially with churches. It's very hard to repurpose a church. One was converted into an event space, another may become a weird sort of condo project, however the price point (necessitated by the high cost of dealing with such a structure) is putting it into doubt due to Kingston's low real estate values.

As for schools... there's at least two schools in the Kingston core that are sitting, abandoned, with no plans to repurpose them, a number that could hit 6 by the end of the decade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 4:13 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,281
Quote:
In fact, according to him, the board stands to lose 30 per cent of its provincial funding for the project if the current building is to be used for classroom space. The province has approved funding based on the complete demolition of the current school.
Sounds like a job for the local MPP to get the funding formula changed for this project to make it right. Not an insurmountable problem.
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 > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:12 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.