 
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3735
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 4:02 pm: |    |
I think that one earned a pair of kneepads. Where should we send them? ;) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4614
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 4:10 pm: | |
That was such a cocksucker of a post, I don't even know where to begin to respond. :-)
I do think it's kind of interesting, though, that 3rdworldcity was not only in the oil business, but is a master real estate developer, and has a law degree to boot. Really, not unlike our political savant on the "other side" of the forum, who happens to be a medical doctor with a great resentment of science and compassion for others.
(Message edited by DaninDC on March 25, 2009)
(Message edited by DaninDC on March 25, 2009) |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 4:12 pm: | |
3wc, I don't understand why you think designing cities that function properly is some arbitrary bullshit invented by intellectuals with no grounding in reality. You keep repeating that over and over, and it still doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Cities, no matter how much money you dump into them, don't flourish as interesting, vibrant places unless they are designed for people instead of cars. Anyone who likes cities, spends time in them, and understands how they work knows this. Development based around cars is the result of people not paying attention to the reality on the ground, and trying to force something into cities that has no place there. That is intellectual, ivory-tower bullshit for you.
This is not something Dan and Novine made up, or lifted wholesale from the misguided ramblings of some obscure, discredited intellectual. |
Jams
Member
Username: Jams
Post Number: 7963
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 4:23 pm: | |
quote:...frankly. I don't trust them, especially Mirian...
Despite your mispelling, I realize you know of what you speak. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 8:08 pm: | |
"Now, Novine: I defy you to prove I've turned this into a personality pissing contest."
Go back and read your posts. I'll give Detroitnerd a slice of the blame for the kneepads comments but your next response was a full-on diatribe attacking anyone who didn't acknowledge the brilliance of your previous comments.
"The numbered points in your post are just more of the same, unsubstantiated accusations. How many buildings has he acquired? Which ones has he failed to maintain? What maintainence standards do you refer to. (I'll acknopwledge one, the United Artists, but he's rehabbing that currently, I understand.)"
I don't have a comprehensive list handy of all of the buildings that Ilitch has acquired, let rot and then demolished over the years. I know others do. A quick Google search will turn up numerous buildings that have met that fate, almost all through taxpayer dollars over the year.
The list would be even longer if Chuck Forbes hadn't moved the Gem and Elwood out of the path of Ilitch's destruction. Perhaps you can enlighten us with all of the buildings that Ilitch has acquired and restored or the sites where his buildings have been demolished and new construction has taken place? Take as much space as you need to make that list.
Madison-Lenox - You're right, it had no historical significance.
"Despite the efforts of the National Trust and local preservation groups, the Madison-Lenox Hotel in Detroit, one of the 2004 America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places, was demolished to make room for a parking lot."
http://www.preservationnation. org/travel-and-sites/sites/mid west-region/madison-lenox-hote l.html
You may not think it was historic but your opinion was not shared by others including those beyond the local preservationists.
"More importantly, the guy can do whatever he wants with his properties as long as his actions or inaction is not against the law. You don't like it buy your own property and do with it what you want. You people act like it's YOUR property he's not managing as you wish."
In that fantasy world you describe, the Ilitch's of the world don't get sweetheart deals to acquire properties and let them rot and then get taxpayer dollars to knock them down. Until we live in that world, people have every right to argue against that corrupt process and Ilitch's role in it.
"Finally, what are these so-called "basic principles of urban development" you guys reference."
You mean ideas like not chopping up your street fronts with parking lots that rival the size of what you find at a suburban mall? Or not knocking down every other building resulting in the loss of a continuous streetscape? Designing buildings so that they respect the context in which they exist? Designing buildings that provide a positive pedestrian experience? How about creating developments that recognize that they are in an urban environment where walking and mass transit are the primary modes of accessing the development versus the suburban model which places a priority on meeting the needs of those who drive cars. I'm just getting started. I'm sorry to hear that your educational and professional experience left your woefully uneducated in the difference between design in urban environments and suburban environments. Perhaps you can take some time to educate yourself before sharing your ignorance with the rest of us. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 8:18 pm: | |
3rdworldcity, here's a good primer on some of the basic concepts of urban design. While this was written for Ann Arbor and there are some principles more applicable to larger urban cities like New York or Toronto (both places that don't follow Detroit's pattern of development and many people consider successful urban cities) that don't get mentioned, this will be enough to fill in that gap in your education that will save you those moments of awkward silence when you tell professionals in the architectural field or in urban planning that there are no principles in urban planning.
http://www.a2gov.org/a2d2/desi gnguidelines/Pages/Recommendat ions.aspx
http://www.a2gov.org/a2d2/desi gnguidelines/Documents/2008-04 -04_01_Design_Concepts.pdf |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4425
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 - 8:42 pm: | |
3WC: I recommend simply pausing and considering if you have an inner-aesthete, or, if not, if you can at least respect that many people, especially those that choose to live in historic cities, are certainly aesthetes. Good planning matters, and not just for the gratification of the aesthetes, but for the success and economic potential of a city. Simply developing a place is one thing. Place-making is another. That is the difference between Las Vegas and Manhattan. People don't go to the former for its urban scenery. Economies depend on people, and people want to live in good places. Companies that create jobs are made up of people, and while they consider tax load and growth potential, when choosing among which city/metro area to locate, they consider the city's amenities and distintiveness. In other words: do they want to live in that place and consequently do their business there?
Going forward, what will make Detroit distinctive and appealing to people who want to decide where their home base will be? [Setting aside that we have major perception issues to overcome,] how will somebody that is indifferent between Columbus, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit, for example, choose to make metro Detroit their home and place of business, ceteris paribus? Perhaps it will be that Detroit has awesome cultural amenities? But what else? What else can Detroit offer that the other Great Lakes cities don't have?
I'm not hedging my bets on casinos, new stadia, and cheap parking to persuade people. A city that's true to itself, which preserves its distinctive historical identity...in addition to a place that offers quality living options both urban and suburban as well as transportation options...sounds like more of a living habitat where people will have OPTIONS, as opposed to a place where you must have a car, where you must live in the suburbs to be "safe," and where all the buildings and monuments that give the city its "feel" by connecting it to its history are being removed.
People need a living habitat with diverse options therein more than they need cheap parking. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 1:31 pm: | |
OK kids, it's report card time with respect to your posts commenting upon my most recent post.
Urbanity-Dan, you of course get an "F." You state: "I don't even know where to begin." Of course you don't because you tried and were unable to refute the points I made re: corporate welfare and some other issues which several others responded to with no problem. Actually, I've changed my mind about your grade. You get an "F-" because you are not only inarticulate but you're foul-mouthed as well. Even after 2 edits.
Bear. you get a "B" out of the goodness of my heart. You state: "Cities, no matter how much money you pump into them, don't flourish as interesting, vibrant places unless they are designed for people, not cars." Ever been to Rome? What about Chicago? Your quote above I'm sure reflects your oipinion, to which you are of course entitled, regardless of how impractical it may be. By the way, don't "people" drive cars? Finally, why don't you name a city that qualifies according to your quote above. Nice try.
(Jams, sorry about the misspelling. Good eye.)
Novine #1287: You get an "A" for effrot but a "C" for content. By the way, the City, at least indirectly, paid for the relocation of the Gem/Century theaters. Small point and I'm sure you agree that it was a wise use of your and my tax dollars. You may call me ignorant all you want (no reduction in grade for doing so), but you ignored the comments in my post re: planning standards.
Novine #1287: I'm giving you a "B" on this one primarily because you went to the trouble to post the links to the AA2 Code. (One link got me to the AA website but the other links inside did not work. The second link did not work at all.)
I did not reduce your grade for failing to read my post carefully and for your snide comment that "...this will be enough to fill in the gap in your education that will save you those moments of awkward silence when you tell professionals in the architectural fields or in urban planning that there are no principles in urban planning."
Had you read my post you would have seen that I acknowledged that there are "countless urban planning standards and their use depends on a myriad of factors." Did I not say that? Apology accepted in advance as I know you'd want to do that.
Actually, a couple of my best cases were in AA. I represented a guy who owned 28 shopping centers areound the state, including one in AA. We sued the City to force it to permit my client to open two curb cuts on a busy street; the City Planning Commission was adamently against it. They had their professional urban planning testimony and we had ours. We won. Two or three years later, a competing center was built across the street and they granted that center two curb cuts across from my client's cuts. Then, those assholes, who hated my client for various reasons, and me as well, filed a lawsuit to compel the closing of my client's cuts. Those people in AA were just simply political hack whores.
I then brought in local AA lawyer Clan Crawford, Jr. He is the author of "Michigan Zoning and Planning," the leading treatise on the topic, and recognized as the leading legal expert in the field. We won again.
I dare say I have interacted with far more urban planners and architects than you have, Novine, but of course I'm basing that on your posts alone.
Let's get back to the topic of Ilitch and his alleged planning sins. You all should flunk for failing to recognize, and admit, that every municipality in MI is required to have a zoning and planning master plan. They're supposed to employ professional planners to implement them. Those plans are approved by the voters.
Guess what. Detroit has one. Ilitch complied with it, at the cost of much grief and expense I'm sure. So, folks, instead of bashing Ilitch, why don't you people use all your influence and bright ideas and get the city to change its master plan so satisfy your dreams and desires for a better world in which we live.
Mackinaw: I'm way out of time but would otherwise like to comment on a couple of your points. Maybe later. Anyway, you get an "A" for civility and content. I enjoy reading your views even if I don't agree with all of them. I do agree with most of them. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3886
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 2:21 pm: | |
quote:One final comment, Dan; you use the word "urbanity" frequently, as in "Ilitch has dstroyed Detroit's urbanity." To me it's a typical bullshit word used by those who are spinning something that we mere mortals wouldn't understand anyway. Perhaps you'd like to show me I'm wrong.
LOL. Oh. BOY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U rbanity
quote:Urbanity refers to the characteristics, personality traits, and viewpoints associated with cities and urban areas.
http://dictionary.reference.co m/browse/urbanity
quote:urâ‹…banâ‹…iâ‹…ty
–noun, plural -ties.
2. urbanities, civilities or amenities.
3. the quality or state of being urban.
http://www.askoxford.com/conci se_oed/urbanity?view=uk
quote:urbanity
• noun 2 urban life.
http://www.thefreedictionary.c om/urbanity
quote: 2. urbanity - the quality or character of life in a city or town; "there is an important difference between rusticity and urbanity"
And for good measure:
http://www.merriam-webster.com /dictionary/urban
quote: ur·ban
Pronunciation:
\ˈər-bən\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin urbanus, from urbs city
Date:
1619
: of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 3:30 pm: | |
Iheartthed: You have truly performed a public service, and I've learned a new real word. Thanks. I'll bet Urbanity-Dan is surprised it's a real word as well.
I will never use it, however, because it just sounds like a phony, made-up word and my guess is that few, very few, people ever heard of it.
Is "suburbanity" a word? |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1379
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 3:37 pm: | |
Iheartthed: P.S.
Based on your definitions, how can a city's urbanity be destroyed as Dan alleges? Mexico City has "urbanity." Hongkong has "urbanity", Baghdad has "urbanity," Detroit has "urbanity." They're all different (except maybe the latter two.) My guess is that regardless of the City or its condition, the condition it's in is its "urbanity."
I may be getting to like the word. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3888
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 3:40 pm: | |
>Is "suburbanity" a word?
Not a widely recognized word. And I'm sure that I don't have to point out to you that suburban is not the opposite of urban, thus "suburbanity", if it were a word, wouldn't be the opposite of urbanity. The opposite of urbanity is rusticity.
quote:rusticity
Main Entry:
1rus·tic Listen to the pronunciation of 1rustic
Pronunciation:
\ˈrəs-tik\
Variant(s):
also rus·ti·cal Listen to the pronunciation of rustical \-ti-kəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English rustik, from Latin rusticus, from rus open land — more at room
Date:
15th century
1: of, relating to, or suitable for the country : rural <rustic> |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3890
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 3:46 pm: | |
quote:Based on your definitions, how can a city's urbanity be destroyed as Dan alleges? Mexico City has "urbanity." Hongkong has "urbanity", Baghdad has "urbanity," Detroit has "urbanity." They're all different (except maybe the latter two.) My guess is that regardless of the City or its condition, the condition it's in is its "urbanity."
Its urbanity can be destroyed if you take away the characteristics that make it urban (i.e. a walkable, densely populated environment). So to give a more clear example, if the city removed the sidewalks on Grand River, then I think that we all could agree that it would be a blatant act of making the city less urban. What urban environment exists without sidewalks on major thoroughfares? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4627
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 3:52 pm: | |
quote:My guess is that regardless of the City or its condition, the condition it's in is its "urbanity."
Again with the guessing. Didn't we have a discussion about your guessing? |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1380
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 5:14 pm: | |
Thank you Iheartthed. Very informative posts.
Well Urbanity-Dan, my guess is that my guesses are more accurate than most of your facts. And the answer to your question is "no." |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4639
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 6:51 pm: | |
quote:Well Urbanity-Dan, my guess is that my guesses are more accurate than most of your facts.
Which is precisely why you're not in the construction business. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 9:55 pm: | |
I may be missing something but your post doesn't make any sense to me.
And, I was never in the construction business directly. It's a lousy business.
I and another lawyer from my firm took over a land acquisition, development and construction lender, a REIT, and one of the larger firm clients. We built about 4000 condos and some other commercial projects over 8 years in the '80's after foreclosing on our defaulted borrowers and completing their projects. We did not do any construction ourselves but contracted out the actual construction to construction managers.
Also, there are many better businesses in my opinion than the construction business, and not nearly as fun as oil and gas.
What business are you in when your not posting on here several hours a day?
By the way, your recent posts evidence a great lack of focus and commitment, and are a little lackluster and defeatist. Cheer up. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4643
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 11:14 pm: | |
quote:By the way, your recent posts evidence a great lack of focus and commitment, and are a little lackluster and defeatist. Cheer up.
Not that you have a superiority complex or anything.... |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 6:33 pm: | |
".....superiority COMPLEX? Maybe I'm just superior (in urban planning matters, that is.) |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 6:47 pm: | |
quote:By the way, don't "people" drive cars? That's the way it's supposed to work. Around here, it's more like the cars drive the people.quote:Finally, why don't you name a city that qualifies according to your quote above. Munich is one of my favorites. Most cities (except those in the Sunbelt, which don't really count) do a better job of it than we do here.quote:Nice try. Thanks, Karl.  |
Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine
Post Number: 638
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 6:53 pm: | |
Well, when I sit back not wanting to read all the new posts in this thread, all I can say is, I dislike downtowns with way too much parking. It's unattractive. A downtown needs to have DENSITY. It's more interesting to walk past businesses than it is to walk past surface parking. You could even build 100 stadiums downtown, but I still find that walk down Brush between FF and CP bland and desolate. There's terms for what I'm talking about in urban design...coarse grain and fine grain.
I hope there are plenty of others out there that share my view that parking is unattractive, and that we should try to minimize it, I wish Ilitch would do the same. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4432
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009 - 7:07 pm: | |
It's the ultimate urban eyesore. |
Emu_steve
Member
Username: Emu_steve
Post Number: 754
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 8:06 am: | |
Posters are looking at the 'here and now' and that isn't where Ilitch is.
He is out in the future, be it a few months or even a few years, but it isn't a few weeks (the Final Four).
It's not about another parking lot. Those parking lots will be somehting else in a few years.
Lack of patience is one of our problems.
Gistok's post is very informative:
"As I mentioned earlier... it's not in Ilitch's interest to start redevelopment (beyond what he's already done) in the area until he has the land he needs to build an arena, or?.
If he were to put all his proverbial cards on the table, then it would just drive land speculation even higher than it currently is.
As 3rdworldcity mentioned in another thread, the price that Ilitch payed for that building on Grand River that was recently demolished... was a record (per square foot) for a downtown building. Somehow I don't think that he will ever profit on that parcel by just turning it into a parking lot. Ditto for other high priced parcels he's purchased in the area.
As much as I don't like what he's doing with his real estate holdings, I can understand his logic for not starting ANY new developments until he has all the parcels he needs.
The Ilitch's may be pushing 80... but I don't think they're using their own mortality as part of their business decisions. I think they are looking out for the family business, whether or not they live to see its' potential come to fruition.
At one time (early 1990s) the Ilitch's had planned an Agora (Greek/Macedonian for marketplace) on the closed stretch of Columbia St. between Woodward and Park. Perhaps their future plans are to have a pedestrian business/entertainment district that ties together the stadia/theatre district with an arena farther west.
But until they get all their ducks in a row... their silence on future plans for the area is annoying a lot of people here.
(Message edited by Gistok on March 24, 2009) |
Emu_steve
Member
Username: Emu_steve
Post Number: 755
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 8:11 am: | |
I wonder what effect the problems in the credit markets (and recession) have had on Ilitch?
Is it possible that we might have had shovels in the ground for a new Quicken Loans building AND a new hockey arena had the bottom not fallen out of the economy???? |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 3850
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 9:12 am: | |
quote:I wonder what effect the problems in the credit markets (and recession) have had on Ilitch?
Is it possible that we might have had shovels in the ground for a new Quicken Loans building AND a new hockey arena had the bottom not fallen out of the economy????
^Well haven't you been stuck under a rock.
The better question is what effect the problems in the credit market (recession) will have on downtown Detroit's progress thus far?
We've already lost almost all the potential riverfront residential development, Cadillac Center, we only received half of "The Griswold", Borders is closing, Avis closed, the Book Tower is abandoned, The Broderick Tower continues to sit abandoned, 1001 Woodward has nearly been abandoned, Johnny Rockets closed, we've lost Comerica, GM is teetering on bankruptcy row, and more significant buildings in downtown Detroit may meet the wrecking ball for a surface lot. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 1310
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 9:18 am: | |
Emu_steve, the criticism about Ilitch isn't focused on his unwillingness to share plans. If Ilitch doesn't want to tell anyone, that's his business. I don't even have a problem with Ilitch going out and buying up property. That's his business. I think his buy and destroy mentality is bad for downtown but when it's his dollars, there's not a lot that can be done to stop it.
But what's happened with a lot of properties is that Ilitch has gotten sweetheart deals from the DDA/DEGC to acquire property. Then he's gotten dollars from the DDA/DEGC to demolish properties. And to what end? Those are taxpayer dollars. Those are dollars that are supposed to be for Downtown DEVELOPMENT, not Downtown DEMOLITION. When it's taxpayer dollars, taxpayers have every right to ask how and why Ilitch is getting those sweetheart deals and why that money is being spent on demolition. At that point, Ilitch needs to be sharing his plans. Or he shouldn't be getting those deals and dollars. |
Emu_steve
Member
Username: Emu_steve
Post Number: 756
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 10:13 am: | |
Let me tie the two posts ahead of this one together with this one.
As long as I have been on this board, it has been my opinion that Ilitch wants to put a new arena behind the Fox conditions permitting. That includes site assembly and last year's 'latest wrinkle' - credit markets.
The recession and credit market mess and tearing down buildings and putting down parking lots are simply points along on a line which will continue into the future.
If the credit markets turn around and Ilitch doesn't have an arena up in 5 years, then I'll come back here and admit I'm wrong.
I'm still saying "Demolition precedes Development'.
I refuse to believe Ilitch is doing parking lots for the sake of parking lots.
Got to think 'bigger' then that. |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 12:11 pm: | |
^He should still pay his own demo costs. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4435
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 12:22 pm: | |
Thinking big is not doing big. The reality is, regardless of his intetions, we still have empty lots along Woodward, at the Madison-Lenox site, all over Foxtown, and another one coming to Grand Circus. Tearing down significant buildings without any plans for replacement, and using taxpayer money, is unacceptable and it is atrocious corporate citizenship, to revive that terminology.
It's not as if once a certain keystone building is removed and we have "just one more" parking lot-- when the proverbial planets are aligned-- that all of a sudden Ilitch-backed building will commence, even if credit was available. The man truly loves parking for parking sake. It enhances the gameday experience of his season ticket holders-- let's be honest. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4650
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 12:32 pm: | |
^^^Exactly. As much as we'd LOOOOOVE to think Mike Ilitch is a saint because he paid "the highest dollar per square foot value" for that property he demolished, there's a reason he did so. Will profit from a parking lot cover his costs? Maybe. Maybe not. What is a near-certainty, though, is that a new arena project absolutely does not work without that property as a parking lot. |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 28, 2009 - 7:47 pm: | |
Danindc, you think that the fact Ilitch paid $1.6 million for that little building (purchased by Dennis Keffalinos about 10 years before for $15,000) was because "there's a reason he did so?" No shit? That's why he did it?
And lest you think that there's a chance that "a parking lot will cover his costs," think again. There is no chance under any scenario that the .17 acre site could ever pay for itself as a parking lot.
Bear: I asked you to name a city hat satisfied your criteria for livable cities (or whatever you were extolling.) From the 16,000 major cities in the world, you chose one, Munich, that not one in a million Americans have ever visited, so you are not likely to get any conflicting opinions. Not fair. I should have said New World cities.
You're welcome.
(Message edited by 3rdworldcity on March 28, 2009) |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.