HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 9:21 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
I think Jasoncw's questioning the terminology is an excellent question.

Art Deco seems to be grouped along with Modernism or pre-Modernism, but really it's not. True Art Deco buildings represent an abstracted classicism; that is, they used ornamentation as heavily as did the Beaux-Arts style (which was precisely what Modernism was railing against) but did so in a highly stylized and abstracted fashion (which is why we today often associate Art Deco with Modernism). I actually think that Art Deco, like the Prairie School, grew out of the fin-de-siècle Art Nouveau, especially that of Sullivan. If you think about it, both are not less-is-more types of antiornamentationism; rather, both Art Nouveau and Art Deco represent a stylized ornamentation, an architectural school and style that was nascent in the Americas and had a few brief flashes of fad before being steamrollered by the Rohian brand of the International Style in the postwar period.

Or has it? Postmodernism is very vague and general, yes, but in general I think the common thread throughout all postmodern buildings is a reaction to the austere brand of Modernism promoted by Rohe, Corb, Kahn, etc. and a desire to return to ornamentation and contextualization. Even though there are as many different brands of postmodernism as, quite literally, postmodern architectural houses, this desire for a return to ornamentation and excess seems to embody the postmodern spirit--and furthermore, since postmodernists seem concentrated in the U.S., home of Art Nouveau and Art Deco, I think you can build a case that there is an indigent American form of architecture at work here--a response to Victorianism in Art Nouveau, to Beaux-Arts in Art Deco, to Modernism in Postmodernism. A style which generally seeks abstracted, stylized ornamentation--but not one which has, as of yet, found its full expression (although the regard in which we hold Art Deco despite its faddiness suggests there's really something there).
I think this assessment is essentially correct. A recent college course I took on the history of architecture post-Renaissance mentioned Art Deco only in passing and lumped it together with the "Countermodernist Movement"; a movement that embraced the traditional use ornamentation on structures in contrast to the Modernist philosophy of designing "nothing arbitrary."

It is important to note the difference between architectural "movements" vs. architectural "styles." Terms like "Countermodernism," much like "Postmodernism" and "Victorian" describe time periods and philosophical movements. Terms like "Gothic," Classical," "Romanesque," or "Art Deco" for that matter refer to architectural styles that oftentimes disappear and resurface many times during different movements. Differences in things like structural systems, floorplans, ect. can distinguish between different historical periods of revival within a given style.

Of course lumping many unrelated historical styles together with a contemporary style like Art Deco is in many ways a very "modernist" point of view. But the fact that it has been taught this way in many colleges for decades goes a long way to explain why modernism eventually "won out" amongst the establishment and killed all other "styles."

Postmodernism is in many ways a movement that has not yet entirely determined what it "wants to be." It may be entirely possible (especially with digital-fabrication making new forms of ornamentation easy to produce with quality once again) that postmodernism may eventually splinter into an array of new movements, styles, and revivals. But as of now, it seems any kind of stylistic "revival," be it Deco, Classical or whatever is generally grouped (at least by my professors) into the "postmodern" category. This is partly because it represents a rejection of the simplicity that modernists preached, and partly because postmodern design tends to liberally "mix" elements of many styles together with each other and with modernism rather than remaining true to the original style.

Either way I think it is quite possible that a revival of Art Deco (or at least a modern version of it) may be nearing, as architects and consumers of architecture begin to embrace ornamental styles once again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 9:23 PM
THE BIG APPLE's Avatar
THE BIG APPLE THE BIG APPLE is offline
Khurram Parvaz
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
When is the last time you saw a Deco building clad in pink granite?
Many times! Like the Anzac War Memorial in Sydney, Australia.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 2:52 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE View Post
And is EVERYONE seriously saying that a building like the World Wide Plaza, deserves to be in the SAME category (Post Modern) as the Bank of America Tower (NYC). NO.
It's not about deserving anything. Sometimes there's nuance to categorizing buildings but most of the time it's pretty cut and dry. What you posted are all postmodern buildings, which simply isn't the same as art deco or art deco revival.

I wouldn't say Bank of America Tower is postmodern. It's too early to say though, it might be postmodern or it might be something else, not enough time has passed to definitively categorize it.

One Worldwide Plaza is postmodern though, but you know what else is postmodern? All of deconstructivism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 2:57 AM
THE BIG APPLE's Avatar
THE BIG APPLE THE BIG APPLE is offline
Khurram Parvaz
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 2,424
^ That's fine and all, but I'd say the World Wide Plaza, is closer to Art Deco, but was shoved into the Post Modern category (since the Art Deco style is dead), just like every other building mentioned on the previous page.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 3:29 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
No, those buildings were never intended or considered to be art deco by anyone ever.

They were intended and considered to be postmodern from the very beginning. If you told one of those architects "hey that's a nice art deco building you designed" they'd either get confused, or they'd cringe and then correct you. If you asked them what kind of an architect they were they'd say a postmodern architect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 3:54 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,285
Where I differentiate art deco from postmodernism is in the details. Postmodern will stick with the massing and geometrical forms but leave out the details. However there are structures in Chicago constructed in the 1990's that are of art deco style using ornate grillwork, tiles, fluted and sawtooth pilasters, etc.

I think we are well on our way back into modernism. Minimalist curtain walls, large monolithic surfaces of a single material, light weight and high tech materials. And modernism doesn't have to be boxy like it was in the past, unique shapes just need to posses clarity in form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 4:06 AM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
It's not just about the details though, it's about the intentions and spirit of the architecture. The details are left out because they're not important to that architecture (although they'd be incredibly important in actual art deco or art deco revival).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 5:42 AM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,059
Again, I think it is important to remember that historical periods are different from architectural styles. "Classical" for example has had MANY different incarnations including Renaissance, Beaux Arts, Federal, Palladian, Georgian, ect. They are all distinct from each other, but all broadly fit into the "Classical" style. True "Countermodernist" Art Deco as we remember it will NEVER return because certain details, such as large curtain wall windows as was mentioned above, will never revert to their 1930's form.

This is not to say however that "neo-deco" or "deco echo" or whatever it becomes called is "not true art deco." Is the Palace of Westminster in London is "not true Gothic" because it is in fact 19th century Gothic-revival and not medieval Gothic? Or is the U.S. Capitol "not true Classical" because it isn't from Ancient Greece?

It is hard to say where the line will be drawn with Art Deco because a full-fledged revival has yet to happen (although the NBC Tower in Chicago put forth an extremely respectable effort at it). I cetainly hope that it does resurface as a style though, because it is perhaps the only ornamental style that looks modern, progressive, and yet beautiful and timeless all at once.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 3:39 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by DecoJim View Post
So this was a ground up recreation or when you say "rebuilt" did they remove the a modernized facade and replace it with the art deco recreation?
I wonder if they used Vitrolite in this recreation, it certainly is intended to give the look of Vitrolite. Hopefully they used a more long lasting substance since Vitrolite tended to break fairly easily. Imagine try to sell a product that was billed as "structural glass"!
I don't think it is Vitrolite, didn't they stop manufacturing that years ago? This renovation happened like 5 years ago.

It wasn't a from the ground up reconstruction, but rather tearing off the modern (and my Modern I mean some horrendous monstrosity that was a combination of exposed structural brick, 1960's modernism, and 1980's marquee) and rebuilding the original 1930's facade.

I think the glass is painted glass akin to what we have on the Sofitel building here in Chicago that has been arranged in a pattern that resembles the original vitrolite.



In any case, if you are ever in Milwaukee and want to visit an architectural/preservationist paradise, take a day trip up to Cedarburg, WI which is a small town 25 miles North of Milwaukee of about 10,000 people. There are actually at least two members of this website that I know of from that town, CGII and myself and we don't actually know each other IRL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 3:56 PM
WilliamTheArtist's Avatar
WilliamTheArtist WilliamTheArtist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMarko View Post
Wow - where to begin.

Art Deco got it's influences DIRECTLY from Eqyptian and Mayan and American Indian influences - but it started with the discovery of Tut's tomb and the colors and geometric patterns that were discovered there-in. The zigzag patterns are traced directly to the Egyptians - altho the other American Indian styles colorations also had a great influence. Later on, it incorporated Mayan and other South American design elements, but those are rare - the United Office Building in Niagara being unique in it's Mayan decorative elements.

Art Deco is in no way shape or form influenced by "Gothic". Gothic is just GOTHIC - it is not "Art Deco".

Just because something was built at the same time period that Art Deo occured, does not make it Art Deco!

Neither is Classical, Roman or Greek. They are and always be, just classical, roman or greek - NOT "Art Deco".



The US was certainly NOT the "home" of Art Nouveau - it was simultaneously occuring in France (known as the "Liberty Style"), as well as England, Germany and most other European, South American and even Asian countries. Nor was Art Deco - the US had much more of it because it was in the process of it's great growing spurt, so it would naturally have "more" of almost everything. The only thing one could say is that the US did indeed DOMINATE the production of Art Nouveay and Art Deco structures and design... Anybody who has even minimally studied basic Architectural History classes would know as much...

Wow - Where to begin....


Yes Art Deco was inspired by other styles like Egyptian, but also any style, especially classical ones of any culture or time period, from Mayan, to Greek and Roman, Gothic, Tudor, Italian, French, Chinese, etc. can be stylized to look Art Deco.

Look at the front of the Bronx County Courthouse for instance, not the best for example for this style but one I could think of right off. It's has Greek columns and other structural/decorative elements out front that were "stylized" to be Art Deco. I guess you could either say the columns are Art Deco with a Greek "styling" or Greek columns with an Art Deco styling? I also remember another Art Deco building that had some Roman columns inside with its ornate tops being stylized to appear Art Deco. There is also another building I remember seeing that had Egyptian columns in it, mural artwork etc. that was all stylized to be Art Deco. Yes Art Deco took elements of the Egyptian style and used them here and there, but in this instance, the whole room was essentially an Egyptian Temple reconstructed with an Art Deco twist.

I could take any classical structure, home, church, mosque, temple, etc. and then stylize its elements, any carved figures, artwork, etc. so that you could make an Art Deco version of that building and its decorative elements.

And there are quite a few buildings with Mayan influence and or that took elements of Mayan architecture and artwork and stylized them to look Art Deco. One of them being the Fire Alarm building right here in Tulsa.

I can take anything, a plant, an animal, person, piece of furniture, tea set, light fixture, frame, painting, building, architectural element, a pile of rocks lol, WHATEVER, and give it an Art Deco look. I have some Holy Cards that have baby Jesus being held by Mother Mary, with a dove overhead and sunbeams coming down, clearly remeniscent of an earlier medieval painting that is stylized to look Art Deco. I can take a cactus and make it look Art Deco. A train, a radio, a toaster, a clock tower, a rose, a rabbit, a Gothic Cathedral, a Chinese Temple, letters and numbers, etc. etc. etc. and make it look Art Deco.

Yes Art Deco pulled from many styles, but it can also just as easily take many styles or items and have an Art Deco styled version of it be created.

Its THAT element that I think of when I ask the question "What is Art Deco?" or better yet, "What are those fundamental "stylizing" characteristics that make something Art Deco?" Again you can give me just about any picture or architectural element/style and I can then change the lines and forms just so, such that a person looking at it would then go "Oh, thats Art Deco". I know it when I see it, but trying to define it is another matter lol. And then of course as with just about anything, there truly are no perfect lines that can be drawn for Artists and Architects love to borrow, and mix and match, and put their own unique twist on things, and styles evolve and change.

I get this question asked a lot at the Art Deco museum here...Is this radio Art Deco or 50's Mod? Sometimes an object, especially like radios or clocks in which the style changes a bit each year, will have elements of both. The grill and over all curvy stairstepped (waterfall) shape look quite deco, but then the thin stretched out V shaped element on the front and scrolly lettering may say 50's mod. Or that radio may have the same elements and the lettering may be Art Deco.

There are several buildings in our downtown built during the 50's. Some are very simple with practically no ornamentation, then there are a couple that are essentially stylistically the same in every respect, similar brickwork and coloring, simple window surrounds, plain boxy shape, etc..... except that here and there is a touch of Art Deco ornamentation, and we say they are Art Deco buildings.

One of the things I find interesting when looking at old magazines from the 30s is articles with titles like "What is this style called Modern?" And then they show you pictures of living rooms, bedrooms and kitchens with Art Deco furniture and items in them. To them Art Deco was the "popular and most common" modern design of its day. I even remember how one article mentioned what came before, in the 20's, as being the first clumsy and messy attempts at the modern style, that was still cluttered with ornamentation and such. It still hadn't evolved to be as "clean" and sleek as it was in the 30's. There again, you and I can find early, very sleek and clean lined stuff from even the 20s, but for the average person, what could be more commonly found in architecture and in every day items, was the "primitive modern design" having floraform, and or zig-zag elements, etc. vrs. the later items that were more streamlined. And of course there were the transitional pieces that had a bit of both, that can especially be found in say "waterfall style" bedroom furniture. Early on it had lots of ornamentation (sometimes purely art-deco or art deco with a mix of some other style like Italian, Gothic, Victorian, Country, etc. later more and more of the ornamentation fell away and the waterfall design was more simple. And then again, you and I can find very early pieces that were as simple and sleek, and "modern" as the later pieces.
__________________
Tulsa

Last edited by WilliamTheArtist; Feb 21, 2012 at 4:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 7:16 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
In any case, if you are ever in Milwaukee and want to visit an architectural/preservationist paradise, take a day trip up to Cedarburg, WI which is a small town 25 miles North of Milwaukee of about 10,000 people.
Just don't ever ever ever live there.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 7:28 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post
Just don't ever ever ever live there.
Haha, I'd agree, though it's not a horrible place to grow up, you could have been raised in a real suburb like *shudder* Brookfield... Or worse, somewhere like Schaumburg, IL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 7:41 PM
Jasoncw's Avatar
Jasoncw Jasoncw is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 402
About the different themes that Art Deco incorporated, today they don't fully make sense, but back then stuff like ancient Egyptians or Mayans were actually symbols of science and discovery and progress. So even though those cultures are ancient, they were incorporated into art deco because they are also futuristic. And that's why mayans can be next to radios and trains and factories in art deco ornamentation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138 View Post
This is not to say however that "neo-deco" or "deco echo" or whatever it becomes called is "not true art deco." Is the Palace of Westminster in London is "not true Gothic" because it is in fact 19th century Gothic-revival and not medieval Gothic? Or is the U.S. Capitol "not true Classical" because it isn't from Ancient Greece?
Actually that's exactly right, lol

For classical architecture it's especially easy to see that it's not a continuous tradition. The neoclassicalists knew so little about actual classical architecture that they didn't even know that it was originally colorfully painted, not left white.

The same thing with gothic. Gothic architecture was high tech architecture. They were building taller than ever before using less and less material and more advanced engineering than ever before. They opened up spans of glass that were completely unprecedented in the history of mankind. And all of this is tied with man's relationship with god, and man's relationship with the business/government/institution of the church.

Who knows, maybe someday they'll be copying Frank Gehry designs, because they're so traditional and quaint and wholesome, lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 8:48 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasoncw View Post
Actually that's exactly right, lol

For classical architecture it's especially easy to see that it's not a continuous tradition. The neoclassicalists knew so little about actual classical architecture that they didn't even know that it was originally colorfully painted, not left white.

The same thing with gothic. Gothic architecture was high tech architecture. They were building taller than ever before using less and less material and more advanced engineering than ever before. They opened up spans of glass that were completely unprecedented in the history of mankind. And all of this is tied with man's relationship with god, and man's relationship with the business/government/institution of the church.

Who knows, maybe someday they'll be copying Frank Gehry designs, because they're so traditional and quaint and wholesome, lol
Fair enough. Though not all neo-classical is pure white In any case, no period-specific architecture can ever really resurface in its original form. But that's not to say that we can't have a "postmodern" or even "post-postmodern" (whatever that may be) "neo-deco", albeit with some adaptations for the modern era.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2012, 9:36 PM
DecoJim's Avatar
DecoJim DecoJim is offline
Art Deco Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
I don't think it is Vitrolite, didn't they stop manufacturing that years ago? This renovation happened like 5 years ago.

It wasn't a from the ground up reconstruction, but rather tearing off the modern (and my Modern I mean some horrendous monstrosity that was a combination of exposed structural brick, 1960's modernism, and 1980's marquee) and rebuilding the original 1930's facade.

I think the glass is painted glass akin to what we have on the Sofitel building here in Chicago that has been arranged in a pattern that resembles the original vitrolite.
Thanks for answering my questions.
I thought that glass masquerading as Vitrolite might be the case. This is the first time I have seen a recreation of the look of Vitrolite. Detroit used to have a few small storefronts covered in Vitrolite but they appear to be long gone.

You probably will see no significant buildings from Detroit in this discussion. While Detroit has a few postmodern towers, there is no Neo Deco or Deco Echo. Any Deco found in this city is the real McCoy from the 1920s/30s.
__________________
My Detroit and Lego architecture photos: flickr/decojim/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 2:42 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
^^^ Not only is the Deco in Detroit generally the real McCoy, it's also usually some of the best Deco ever built. This is probably because the automobile was one of the ultimate symbols of progress which is a huge Deco theme. It's no coincidence that Chrysler built possibly the greatest Deco tower in history; the Chrysler Building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 4:15 PM
WilliamTheArtist's Avatar
WilliamTheArtist WilliamTheArtist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
^^^ Not only is the Deco in Detroit generally the real McCoy, it's also usually some of the best Deco ever built. This is probably because the automobile was one of the ultimate symbols of progress which is a huge Deco theme. It's no coincidence that Chrysler built possibly the greatest Deco tower in history; the Chrysler Building.
It's interesting in a way to see how Tulsa and Detroit actually share some things in common. Detroit built the cars, Tulsa's oil and gas got them going (at one time the Tulsa area was churning out around a third of the entire worlds oil production and the companies she started expanded out all over the world bringing even more wealth back into the city). Both boomed during a similar time and built an impressive collection of art deco buildings. Both cities suffered when their industries fell into decline or moved away.
__________________
Tulsa
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 6:26 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is online now
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Where I differentiate art deco from postmodernism is in the details. Postmodern will stick with the massing and geometrical forms but leave out the details. However there are structures in Chicago constructed in the 1990's that are of art deco style using ornate grillwork, tiles, fluted and sawtooth pilasters, etc.

I think we are well on our way back into modernism. Minimalist curtain walls, large monolithic surfaces of a single material, light weight and high tech materials. And modernism doesn't have to be boxy like it was in the past, unique shapes just need to posses clarity in form.
I think really what we are seeing is the post-modern take on modernism. We can't really have true modernism anymore, as modernism was just as much a cultural feelings as it was an architectural style. Our society doesn't have a modernism mindset, our cities aren't built in the modernism way, and we don't adhere to the modernism values. Thus, even if our buildings are built to look like modernism, they are not true modernism. It's like how art deco was emulated in the 80s. It wasn't true Art Deco, as it wasn't built because society was in an 'art deco' mindset. It was simply trying to emulate was was built 'back in the day'. I'm not really sure if what I am saying makes sense, but I think I am getting the general point across. Architecture is derived from whatever zeitgeist the current time has. When architecture is being emulated from another time, it becomes post modern.


Anyways, 'modernism' nowadays has a lot more architectural detail then it would have in the 60s. The fact that is is often comprised of organic shapes alone makes it not modernism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2012, 8:11 AM
JohnMarko JohnMarko is offline
Architect
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Henderson (Las Vegas)
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miu View Post
The U.S. has Art Nouveau buildings?

I always considered Art Nouveau European and Art Deco quintessentially American (there are really only very few Art Deco structures in Europe).
To begin with, Art Nouveau preceded Art Deco - they are two distinctly different styles.

And, yes, there were many examples of Art Nouvea in the US - don't know how many still survive. And there are really a lot of Art Deco style buildings in Europe - and many of them still survive! England, France, Germany, Belgium and many other countries have literally hundreds of them them.

Here's the Statler Hotel from Buffalo, New York, designed by Esenwein & Johnson, that was demolished in 1968 for a "shovel ready" site that remained that way till the 90's when the city's new ball park was built:

From: Buffalo As An Architectural Museum website: http://buffaloah.com/a/archs/ej/bechs/stat1/index.html
These are just a small sampling of the photos from the website.













Then there is the Guaranty/Prudential Building - the "second" skyscraper ever after the Wainright Building in St Louis, and considered Louis Sullivan's best.

http://buffaloah.com/a/church/28/tc.html
















Last edited by JohnMarko; Feb 24, 2012 at 9:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:31 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.