Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 81

Thread: "Lifestyle Center?"

  1. #51
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Townville
    Posts
    1,047
    Appreciate your comments Michele but I think we will have to just agree to disagree on the homeownership thing. It is the single most important and wealth building investment anyone can make. And suburban land is cheaper--that's why the houses are cheaper.

    Everyone can feel good tonight, I am headed out to a Community Meeting with an HOA and will likely have my head handed to me.

  2. #52
    Cyburbian Michele Zone's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally posted by gkmo62u
    Appreciate your comments Michele but I think we will have to just agree to disagree on the homeownership thing. It is the single most important and wealth building investment anyone can make. And suburban land is cheaper--that's why the houses are cheaper.
    I don't understand where you think we are "disagreeing". B-)

  3. #53
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894
    If my town is anything like the rest of the us.. and for the most part it is:

    People are forced into the suburban lifestyle choice because:

    We (significant portion of americans) are lazy. Most people would rather sit in a car and complaint about traffic for 40 minutes than to walk 20 minutes to the store or work. Plus, if they walk.. they'll be subject to the weather.

    Real Estate professionals, conciously or unconciously, are directing new buyers to purchase homes that fit the suburban model. On my first home buying excursion, the real estate agent CONSTANTLY showed me post WW-II properties. I begged and pleaded to see some 1910-1940 neighborhoods and after much coaxing he finally caved in. If I wasn't so young and naive, I would have switched agents. But acting like most people, you stick with what you have and assume the real estate agent is looking out for you...and not for the market and his wallet.

    3) Lifestyle centers are a marketing ploy. The same merchandise, from the same retailers, in a different format. My local gripe with lifestyle centers is that my community already had a walkable, urban feeling area with parrallel parking and a mix of uses... it is called downtown. See #1 for why people feel that retail in downtown won't work and why they'd rather drive there instead.

    We should offer choices as planners. But we should also realize that planning is not only about choices, it is about financial stability and wise developemnt decisions for the communities we work for. The decisions made at the Plan Commission meetings, the words in the code, and the whims of self-fulfilling politicians instruct indirectly how city funds will be used to serve these developments. Reuse of a more than adequate downtown or main street will save a community tons more money than assisting a developer to develop a greenfield. No significant new infrastructure costs, no new expanded police and fire coverage, no new road maintenance.

    Banks are still giving preferential financing to devlopers with conventional, safe projects in most areas.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  4. #54
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Who cares.
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally posted by gkmo62u

    We all ought to be in this to build better places.

    I would just like for the public sector folks to try and integrate why developers make business decisions in their own decision making processes.

    Thats all.
    Just to jump in to this and drag it slightly ot:
    Off-topic:
    gkmo62u--public sector planners, at least those who are not in economic development, cannot take financial or marketing issues into consideration. It would bias the process. All we can consider is the land, the proposed and surrounding uses, and what the comp plan recommends. We're asked all the time to take business considerations into account, and we simply cannot. We leave that to the economic development folks and the developers themselves.
    But I do agree, we should all work together to improve the built environment. The more we all understand each others' processes and limitations, the easier that will be.
    Having gotten that off my chest, (and it wasn't a rant, or it wasn't meant to be--it's been a long day )it does seem that there is definitely a place for lifestyle centers. They do provide places to walk around, and they're a nice change from strip malls. It's a little surreal to have to drive out into greenfields to be able to walk around a "town", but then, all towns were greenfields once. If some kind of connectivity--like paths or something not car-based--is provided to surrounding subdivisions, that helps it feel less like a strip mall with fancy facades. And perhaps seeing the "new, improved" version of old downtowns will spur people to want to restore the real thing more.
    I don't dream. I plan.

  5. #55
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally posted by gkmo62u
    We all ought to be in this to build better places.
    Ageed.

    Quote Originally posted by gkmo62u
    I would just like for the public sector folks to try and integrate why developers make business decisions in their own decision making processes.
    I come from a family of developers and think I can sum up their side in a word, "dinero"....and that would be at any social cost allowable. I sat at the kitchen table with them for my entire rearing years so I have no problem saying this is an accurate statement.

    There are only two forces that developers follow. 1. The market and 2. The law. And unfortunatly the law has to regulate safety and 'sense' because the 'majority' of the market does not. :-S

    Good luck at your HOA meeting tonight. I have been there, done that many time. There is nothing worse than an angry HOA mob waiting to burn you at the stake.
    Last edited by H; 26 May 2004 at 10:24 PM.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally posted by H
    {snip}There are only two forces that developers follow. 1. The market and 2. The law. And unfortunatly the law has to regulate safety and 'sense' becuase the 'majority' of the market does not. :-S
    I would add that developers -- those that I have worked with, at least -- are myopic in the sense that whatever happens beyond their property lines does not matter so long as it is 1) positive (proof that the developers are right in their site selection) or 2) neutral (proof that an HOA is not going to try to hand the developer his or her head). In the event that the goings on outside their property line are 3) negative to the developer's bottom line, well, it's time to call the Mayor at home or button hole him on the golf course and let him know that "those damn planners" are f***ing up again.

    I am personally offended that some developer would have the balls to tell me that I have to understand and appreciate his carrying costs while he navigates the regulatory process that protects his investment. It's a level playing field and everybody gets their own fair shot. Do it right the first time and you will save yourself a lot of money. Come in half-assed and expect to get run around -- you made your bed, you can sleep in it.

    I'll close with this especially for you gkmo62u -- and if it's over the top I'll apologize -- I'm in the public sector and I'm not in the least impressed by your AICP. My boss isn't some bottom line -- my boss is 38,000 citizens that all know where to find me.
    On pitching to Stan Musial:
    "Once he timed your fastball, your infielders were in jeopardy."
    Warren Spahn

  7. #57
         
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    37

    urban infill in Arlington

    Quote Originally posted by Super Amputee Cat
    I agree. From how she describes the one in Arlington, that one is completely different and there really is no basis for comparison despite the same term. The site of this mall is no "dying area" it was formerally farmland.

    I still hate the term "lifestyle center" - it's so yuppie - but guess I can see the justification for a place, such as Arlington, if it's built on a brownfield and no historic buildings or any neighborhoods are demolished.
    Exactly. But I would still hesitate to call it a lifestyle center. The Fairfax Corner development is a lifestyle center. Bowie Town Center (built and operated by Simon) is more of an outdoor mall, and not a lifestyle center. I believe Cirrus made a similar observation.

    The Market Common, Clarendon (the aforementioned "lifestyle center" in Arlington) was built on the site of the old Sears parking lot (not a brownfield, just underutilized space). In 1996, Sears was one of the last department stores to leave Clarendon, the traditional "downtown" retail area of Arlington. Sears that year closed all of its traditional "main street" stores in the DC area. The company has since focused on its mall oriented stores. The Hecht Company store, built in 1949 less than a mile away on Wilson, remains open minus two levels (since converted to the headquarter offices for Hecht's-Strawbridges).

    The Clarendon JC Penny's and a huge chunk of the Wilson Boulevard streetfront was demolished in 1973 to allow for Metro rail construction. For a quarter century after that the area ceased to be a major retail center. But it never became a "dying area." The adjacent Lyon Village neighborhood has traditionally been one of the tonier North Arlington neighborhoods, and the commercial district did become a major restaurant destination. In less than three years, the Market Common development has made Clarendon a major retail destination once again.

    Mccaffery Interests marketed the Market Common project as upscale urban infill, not as a suburban lifestyle center. While I don't particularly care for the architecture (other than the contemporary Crate & Barrel), it does integrate well within the existing neighborhood. The nearby Fresh Fields/Whole Foods Market, built a few months after Sears closed on the former Home and Garden lot, became the catalyst for the retail-heavy developments in this part of Arlington. It is a beautiful building that fits in well with the historic streamline moderne architecture in Clarendon. It is quite fitting that the family who sold the Sears site to Mccaffery Interests played a huge role in developing Clarendon as a streetcar suburb in the early decades of the 20th century.
    Last edited by rmulrew; 26 May 2004 at 10:05 PM.

  8. #58
    Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator NHPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 1996
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,568
    Quote Originally posted by gkmo62u
    NHP I think you have described your role perfectly and the debate about how and where we develop is timeless.

    But I am fairly certain not everyone in your community shares identical perspectives.
    No, they certainly don't. But another one of my responsibilities is to build coalitions and work towards compromise and consensus. I enjoy that part of my job as much as, if not more than, working on development projects and writing ordinances/regulations.

    It boils down to one word here....PROCESS. It is what it is, and both sides have to deal with it. I disagree somewhat with my fellow BSU alum, Plannerbabs, in that on the public side we shouldn't consider the costs associated with development. I believe it IS important to understand the development side of things, because in order to encourage the type of developments the community wants, you need to create an atmosphere where the private sector will step up to the plate (especially true in NH where we can't use tax abatements and other incentives to generate economic development).
    "Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

  9. #59
    Cyburbian SW MI Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,160
    Quote Originally posted by Plannerbabs
    public sector planners, at least those who are not in economic development, cannot take financial or marketing issues into consideration. It would bias the process. All we can consider is the land, the proposed and surrounding uses, and what the comp plan recommends. We're asked all the time to take business considerations into account, and we simply cannot. We leave that to the economic development folks and the developers themselves.
    Quote Originally posted by NHPlanner
    I disagree somewhat with my fellow BSU alum, Plannerbabs, in that on the public side we shouldn't consider the costs associated with development. I believe it IS important to understand the development side of things, because in order to encourage the type of developments the community wants, you need to create an atmosphere where the private sector will step up to the plate (especially true in NH where we can't use tax abatements and other incentives to generate economic development).
    While I think it's very important to understand the development side of things, I have to agree with Plannerbabs here. If you have a proposed project that meets zoning and site plan requirements, you have no basis for denial - regardless of if it's an ugly strip mall, a lifestyle center, or a target.

  10. #60
    Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator NHPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 1996
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,568
    Quote Originally posted by SW MI Planner
    While I think it's very important to understand the development side of things, I have to agree with Plannerbabs here. If you have a proposed project that meets zoning and site plan requirements, you have no basis for denial - regardless of if it's an ugly strip mall, a lifestyle center, or a target.
    I think both of you are missing my point about the development side of things.....I'm coming from the "creating the environment for good development" angle.....not general project review.

    Understanding the development side can assist you, and your boards/commissions, to craft the right regulatory environment so that you don't get stuck "having" to approve the ugly strip mall. (ie through design guidelines, architectural standards, performance standards, stc.) . Often times you'll need to do a carrot and stick approach through performance standards and regulatory incentives, but, if done right, that ugly strip mall (if it's not what your community wants) CAN be denied for not meeting standards and regulations.

    For example, in my community, there are parts of town where a big box is appropriate, and could be permitted. There are other areas of town where we use an overlay district with performance standards and incentives where a big box would not be permitted under the zoning.
    "Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

  11. #61
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Townville
    Posts
    1,047
    Gedunker, I have no idea why you took a shot at me. It is so noted. I was only trying to draw a distiction that I am a planner too and that we all do not think alike. I was actually disparaging the AICP designation, not flouting it.

    For all. I was not asking you to make recommendations or take positions based on accepting the developers fiscal or business assumptions--just to take a sec every once in a while to ask what a raw piece of ground costs in your juristiction or ask what the delta is between structured parking and surface parking or ask what the absorbtion rate for an office building is.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally posted by Michele Zone
    I am not against homeownership. But it is close to impossible for an ordinary American to own a home that isn't a stereotypical suburban house. And folks don't necessarily want that. They
    I couldn't disagree more, at least in Wisconsin it is far cheaper to buy a modest home on a 40x120 lot in a City or an old inner-ring suburb than to build or buy a suburban home. Yes there are some areas of the City that are too expensive for the ordinary American to live, but you can still find a good home in a nce neighborhood for far cheaper than a newer home on a 1-acre lot in the burbs.People who live in the burbs do so because that is what they want. They want lower taxes, better schools, and an escape from the City. We need to realize that some people don't want to live on a small lot in a small house in a traditional neighborhood.
    "I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are."

    - Homer Simpson

  13. #63
    Cyburbian ChevyChaseDC's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis
    I would love to have one of them in my city... We have a big indoor mall and a few "plazas" but nothing of substance like that. ...
    [resigned]If only Kalamazoo had succeeded in its effort to annex Portage decades ago...[/resigned]

    I don't think Portage or anywhere else in Kzoo County needs a new lifestyle center. The population growth is flat, and the retail market is pretty much saturated, especially in Portage. Any new lifetstyle center built there would a) drain business away from existing shopping centers like Crossroads and Southland (adjacent indoor mall and big box center, respectively), not to mention downtown Kalamazoo which has been slowly on the upswing in the last decade..
    And b) it would be most likely be built on a greenfield, no doubt around Centre Street Parkway or near the Pfizer plant on Portage Road...

  14. #64

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by SW MI Planner
    While I think it's very important to understand the development side of things, I have to agree with Plannerbabs here. If you have a proposed project that meets zoning and site plan requirements, you have no basis for denial - regardless of if it's an ugly strip mall, a lifestyle center, or a target.
    Many cities, though, do undertake design review that goes beyond site plan and zoning conformance.

  15. #65
    Cyburbian biscuit's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Paris of Appalachia
    Posts
    3,902
    Quote Originally posted by BKM
    Many cities, though, do undertake design review that goes beyond site plan and zoning conformance.
    My city does this and our staff and planning commission makes no qualms about taking design review VERY seriously. We’ve found that if a developer really wants a project approved they will make it conform to the standards we have set, regardless of any “hardship.”

    As far as lifestyle centers are concerned, we currently have one built on the site of a former steel mill that is really nothing more than a collection of big boxes, a “Towne Centre” and a collection of apartments that aren’t really within walking distance to the retail. There is also a P F Chang’s (Do these places have to have a P. F. Chang's before they can be classified as a lifestyle center?) I’m not overly fond of the site design, which could have been a lot better, but I will say that I find it much nicer than a traditional strip mall or an enclosed mall.

    There is another lifestyle center under construction in the city’s Southside Flats neighborhood that is also on the site of a former mill. Unlike the first one however, this development actually is mixed use with apartments and condos over retail and commercial space. It also utilizes on street and garage parking instead of surface lots, and is integrated into the pre-existing street grid. This development is really more of a building up of an existing neighborhood even though it contains all of the trappings of lifestyle centers; mall stores, Cheesecake Factory, REI, a movie theatre, and probably another P.F. Chang’s.
    Last edited by biscuit; 27 May 2004 at 11:41 AM.

  16. #66
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally posted by biscuit
    ...and probably another P.F. Chang’s.
    Dude, dont knock the Chang This is possible the only chain that I rank numero uno in its food catagory. Now, I have have good mom n' pop chinese, but none as good as the Chang. Maybe it is because the Chang is westernized, but so am I so make my sauce medium, baby.....

    My wife feels the same way and we eat there a lot lately for Sunday lunch. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmmmmmmm

    *and for the record, I am normally very ANTI chain, but when its good it good.

  17. #67
    Cyburbian biscuit's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Paris of Appalachia
    Posts
    3,902
    Quote Originally posted by H
    Dude, dont knock the Chang This is possible the only chain that I rank numero uno in its food catagory. Now, I have have good mom n' pop chinese, but none as good as the Chang. Maybe it is because the Chang is westernized, but so am I so make my sauce medium, baby.....

    My wife feels the same way and we eat there a lot lately for Sunday lunch. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmmmmmmm

    *and for the record, I am normally very ANTI chain, but when its good it good.
    I wouldn't dare knock the Chang my brotha. I'm not a big fan of Chinese (it's often too greasy and sweet), but I have to agree that Chang's is some pretty good eating.

    And dude, you are such a wuss. I take my sauce hot.

  18. #68
    Cyburbian Michele Zone's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally posted by Repo Man
    I couldn't disagree more, at least in Wisconsin it is far cheaper to buy a modest home on a 40x120 lot in a City or an old inner-ring suburb than to build or buy a suburban home. Yes there are some areas of the City that are too expensive for the ordinary American to live, but you can still find a good home in a nce neighborhood for far cheaper than a newer home on a 1-acre lot in the burbs.People who live in the burbs do so because that is what they want. They want lower taxes, better schools, and an escape from the City. We need to realize that some people don't want to live on a small lot in a small house in a traditional neighborhood.
    Hey, I am not trying to make some sweeping statement that "NOBODY" wants to live in the burbs. And I am not just talking about a small house on a small city lot. In Europe, you can own your apartment. Here, that is far less common. Financing condos and the like, reselling them, and so forth is not well supported by existing mortgage practices. And if they want "lower taxes and better schools", then part of what that tells me is that people who move to the suburbs don't necessarily want to live in the suburbs. They want the things they can FIND in the suburbs. If, for example, inner city schools were better, that might allow SOME people to make a different choice.

    If "lifestyle centers" are defined as "walkable, mixed-use communities", then I assume they must have housing included in some fashion -- and probably NOT your typical suburban tract house with nothing but other houses around. So, if you assume that suburban living is the only thing anybody wants, then there is no point in discussing a "lifestyle center" -- unless you use the other definition of a fake urban environment surrounded by a sea of parking.

  19. #69
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847

    another OT post by H

    Quote Originally posted by biscuit
    And dude, you are such a wuss. I take my sauce hot.
    I would too if it were not for Mrs. H. But do not worry, I add enough extra red sauce to my personal meal to make you cry

  20. #70
    Cyburbian iamme's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally posted by Repo Man
    I couldn't disagree more, at least in Wisconsin it is far cheaper to buy a modest home on a 40x120 lot in a City or an old inner-ring suburb than to build or buy a suburban home. Yes there are some areas of the City that are too expensive for the ordinary American to live, but you can still find a good home in a nce neighborhood for far cheaper than a newer home on a 1-acre lot in the burbs.People who live in the burbs do so because that is what they want. They want lower taxes, better schools, and an escape from the City. We need to realize that some people don't want to live on a small lot in a small house in a traditional neighborhood.
    You say it is cheaper but are you really comparing apples to apples? Do those 40x120 lots have the same crime rates and test scores? The so called market has been providing the 1-acre lot in the burbs" for over fifty years, almost exclusively, because of planners. Maybe something else should even be allowed to be tried. Honestly, the market for something else hasn't even been allowed to exist. I'm not saying everyone should, would, or could live a so called urban lifestyle, but it should at least be allowed as a viable option.

  21. #71
    Quote Originally posted by iamme
    You say it is cheaper but are you really comparing apples to apples? Do those 40x120 lots have the same crime rates and test scores? The so called market has been providing the 1-acre lot in the burbs" for over fifty years, almost exclusively, because of planners. Maybe something else should even be allowed to be tried. Honestly, the market for something else hasn't even been allowed to exist. I'm not saying everyone should, would, or could live a so called urban lifestyle, but it should at least be allowed as a viable option.
    I disagree that the 1-acre lot is due to planners. Planners may have a hand in creating zoning ordinances and land use plans, but Plan Commissioners and Common Council Members, and Citizens have been the ones that forced the larger lots to be the norm. Planners can tout the benefits of 40-60 foot wide lots in traditional style neighborhoods all they want, without the political will their calls will go unheard. I have found that many suburbanites don't want affordable housing in their communities. Mention things like curb and gutter, small homes, small lots and they all say "I don't want that in my Community, if I wanted that I would have stayed in the City." You can even dress up the words "affordable housing" and call it "housing for the workforce" and people still don't want it.
    "I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are."

    - Homer Simpson

  22. #72
    Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator NHPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 1996
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,568
    Quote Originally posted by Repo Man
    I disagree that the 1-acre lot is due to planners. Planners may have a hand in creating zoning ordinances and land use plans, but Plan Commissioners and Common Council Members, and Citizens have been the ones that forced the larger lots to be the norm. Planners can tout the benefits of 40-60 foot wide lots in traditional style neighborhoods all they want, without the political will their calls will go unheard. I have found that many suburbanites don't want affordable housing in their communities. Mention things like curb and gutter, small homes, small lots and they all say "I don't want that in my Community, if I wanted that I would have stayed in the City." You can even dress up the words "affordable housing" and call it "housing for the workforce" and people still don't want it.
    Uh huh. Not really looking forward to my next master plan steering committee meeting when whe tackle the housing affordability portion of the plan.
    "Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

  23. #73
    Cyburbian iamme's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally posted by Repo Man
    I disagree that the 1-acre lot is due to planners. Planners may have a hand in creating zoning ordinances and land use plans, but Plan Commissioners and Common Council Members, and Citizens have been the ones that forced the larger lots to be the norm. Planners can tout the benefits of 40-60 foot wide lots in traditional style neighborhoods all they want, without the political will their calls will go unheard. I have found that many suburbanites don't want affordable housing in their communities. Mention things like curb and gutter, small homes, small lots and they all say "I don't want that in my Community, if I wanted that I would have stayed in the City." You can even dress up the words "affordable housing" and call it "housing for the workforce" and people still don't want it.
    If you don't allow something at all, you can never find out if it a viable option. The market has not been allowed to work. As for the affordable housing issue you raised.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-housing_x.htm

  24. #74
    Quote Originally posted by iamme
    If you don't allow something at all, you can never find out if it a viable option.
    What's more viable about one acre lots that isn't viable with lots one-quarter of the size? The only thing that I can think of is that acre lots cost four times what quarter acre lots cost, therefore those that cannot afford acre-sized lots have to live somewhere else. . . .
    On pitching to Stan Musial:
    "Once he timed your fastball, your infielders were in jeopardy."
    Warren Spahn

  25. #75
    Cyburbian iamme's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally posted by Gedunker
    What's more viable about one acre lots that isn't viable with lots one-quarter of the size? The only thing that I can think of is that acre lots cost four times what quarter acre lots cost, therefore those that cannot afford acre-sized lots have to live somewhere else. . . .
    Why does it have to be a single family dwelling?

+ Reply to thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 5
    Last post: 14 Sep 2011, 8:38 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last post: 16 Mar 2011, 4:31 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last post: 17 Aug 2010, 3:30 PM
  4. "Lifestyle Center?"
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 49
    Last post: 26 May 2004, 5:34 PM