Thought I'd try to launch a thred to discuss the crisis, context and implications of the fires in SoCal. As of this evening, hundreds of thousands -- virtually the entire norhern suburban belt of San Diego -- have been evacuated. Hundreds of homes have been burned and thousands are threatened.
Fire plays a dual role in SoCal as both lifegiver and lifetaker -- much of the floral ecology is fire-based, meaning the plant life life requires fire to reproduce. But urbanization (namely SPRAWL!) puts the fire ecology in close proximity to city. Moreover, the successful efforts are to contain or prevent fire, simply begets more powerful fires in the future... the forests and shrub cultures become denser each year that they aren't allowed to burn, laying the groundwork for even worse fires. Years of policy neglect have caused much of the hinterland to become a veritable jungle of dry shrub, chaparral, trees and vegetation... all kinder and fuel for what looks like the worst firestorm of an era.
What does this mean? How should urban designers and architects respond?
By um, not building cities in the paths of firestorms I guess? Look man, fires in SoCal are as inevitable and hurricanes in Louisiana. I hope those folks have good homeowners insurance, but don't say I didn't warn you when you decided to settle in a place known for firestorms and earthquakes.
just published an apropos article on the fires in griffith park last year.
Statistically, there is no correlation between the length between fires and the number of fires- the link is between human population. as a region becomes more populated and developed the number of wildfires is directly proportionate. So whether arson or accidental (think sparks from a lawnmower or blown down electric lines) human activity, not fire suppression is the cause of the fires.
I just heard on TV some discussion that the arson might be a product of the mortgage crisis.
God knows real estate in Cali is way out of whack. People falling behind on their sub-prime, zero down, reverse, 40 year, 50 year, interest only mortages might be thinking about convenience fires as the easy way out.
Back to the original question of the post. My suggestion would be to stop all development in southern california. At very least don't rebuild anything that burns this go around. You know it'll happen again in 3-5 years.
The LA to SD metro-plex is something around 20 million people large. That is vastly over the carrying capacity of that area. As I said after Katrina, Detroit has room for you. They don't have a lack of water, or annual forest fires, or threat of earthquakes in Michigan. The infastructure is already there.
Population shifts and rapid growth in the USA over the past 30 years borders on lunacy. People have left stable areas to live in places like LA, Las Vegas, Phoenix. I'll even throw drougt crippled Atlanta in there. I still say the old "rust belt" cities will have the last laugh.
A-town is in some shit now, I'm serious those assholes building McMansions in my old neighborhood need to move back to those godless lands known as California and the North-east.
That is vastly over the carrying capacity of that area.
I disagree. I think any area is capable of sustaining human activity if we build on it properly and take into account environmental conditions.
That said, you can't build a house on a dry, sun-soaked hill in the canyons north of LA that is just like a house in Detroit and expect everything to be OK.
The fires that has ravaged through Southern California has been quite unpredictable and devastating in their reach and scope. Rebuild San Diego, a chapter of Architecture for Humanity, has already been working on the ground responding to volunteer needs at Qualcomn Stadium (go to Gate A for volunteer opportunities).
Currently 400 senior citizens have been evacuated and sent to San Diego High, 1402 Park Blvd, downtown SD. members of the chapter are their at the moment helping set up bedding and food services. If any of you are interested in volunteering with Rebuild San Diego, you can get in contact rebuildsandiego@gmail.com
I agree with DubK. Dont build shit out of dry wood in the middle of a bunch of dry wood. Build out of concrete. They build out of concrete in the Bahamas; you know why? HURRICANES
2 layers of type-x drywall aint gonna protect your McMansion from one of these....
as long as housing is driven by greedy, free market capitalists, we are going to have shit like this happening.
The city should require that all new building, regardless of type, include sprinkling for the roof area of all structures as well as for 100% of the site. Only native vegitation should be allowed to be planted.
When the city requires brush clearing of lots (which they do) those who dont clear their lots should be fined $50,000 and get 6 months in jail.
If you are told to evacuate your residence by the fire department and you dont, and then they have to come save your sorry ass, you should be fined $100,000 and get a year in jail. YOUR STUPIDITY AND / OR LAZINESS SHOULD NOT JEAPORDIZE THE LIVES OF THE FIREFIGHTERS
I think any area is capable of sustaining human activity if we build on it properly and take into account environmental conditions.
While I agree that good building practices and technology can increase the carrying capacity of a given region, I don't believe this is limitless.
For example, in addition to shelter, humans need water and food to survive. The aqueducts going into LA can provide the water, but there is hardly enough airable land locally to provide a local source of nutrition for 20 million people. The same could be said of most large urban areas around the globe. Thus we rely on a huge fossil fuel powered supply lines hauling agri-products that have pumped up yields thanks to fossil fuel produced fertilizers and herbicides.
My argument would be, no matter how energy saving your built environment is, the carrying capacity of an area is more multi-fold than architecture alone. Thus, I was hardly referring to the built environment singularly.
Back onto topic...the population is the problem in SoCal...not the annual fires.
detroit has a worse arson problem (puddle nailed it), gun problem, car problem and snow problem then socal, and I'd rather swim in santa monica bay then lake michigan. just cause the white stripes and eminem are from motown, that doesn't qualify the state as having culture- I don't want to live in a state where a bank gives you a gun for opening an account.
I think it is still worthwhile having a discussion about carrying capacity though. Cities in California are fine. I doubt either downtown San Diego or downtown LA are vulnerable to these massive brush fires.. but the thin fingers of sprawl organized along highways, penetrating into fire-brush country may be just asking for trouble. Somehow, I think we need to come up with new urban forms that mediate between dense center cities and the surrounding hinterland in a way that doesn't put people and buildings in the path of sensitive habitats whose very nature and survivability (not to mention the source of its natural beauty) requires periodic firestorms.
For a project, I put together the following graphic showing San Diego's growth (sprawl) over the years.
Notice what happened from 1945 to 1985. If you subtract the 1945 footprint from the 1985 footprint, those are pretty much the areas burning down now.. or at least at risk of burning down.
hehe treekiller.. good point. The process we're seeing now as actually a self-regulating one... small fires are supposed to clear away underbrush every few years. If that doesn't happen across a large area, that brush just gets thicker and thicker (junglelike), providing all the more kinder and fuel for a much larger fire, that'll accomplish the same ecological objective. Sooner or later, equilibrium will occur and a fire will clear out the lower reaches of the city's green canopy.. it's just a question of how long human intervention manages to forestall the fire and, therefore, how humanly devastating the fire will be when it finally. Ecosystems will find balance, even if it means burning down a city.
mdler,
I'm pretty sure somebody in the Bush administration actually tried to make that argument.. that we should allow timber companies to thin out forest preserves all over the country, as a means of protecting us from the risk of fire. There's simply no end to their greed.
Antisthenes,
I have no doubt that global warming might cause more forest fires in the future, especially if it results in drier conditions, but it's still scientifically speaking rather uncertainty whether San Diego will get wetter or drier in the fire season as a result of climate change, there's no unusual El Nino effect in the area at all at this exact moment in time, and the Santa Ana was normal this year. I think one would be pretty hard pressed to argue that this particular set of fires is a result of global warming. The damage from it IS a direct result of sprawl, which has led to a widening of the area of active (small) fire suppression, which, in turn, has led to a corresponding thickening of the green canopy in those areas, which, in turn again, has led to a situation where a large mega-fire was basically inevitable.
the carrying capacity of southern california was achieved in 1870-1880. _ Los Angeles can support about 200k and san diego about the same if you have to rely on the local watershed.
California droughts over the past 150 years include: 1863-64, 1887-88, 1912-13, 1922-24, 1928-34, 1947-50, 1959-61, 1976-77, and 1987-92. 1977 was the driest year on record with only 20% of average precipitation. So what will happen next?
If you are looking at food production, the state can feed about 100 peeps (maybe more) with the current water infrastructure and precipitation. most food in LA comes from CA - very little is imported for local consumption except for gourmet specialties. More cows, chickens and rice are grown in CA then any other state. Just can't get local maple syrup. with a 70% reduction in sierra snow pack, the first casualty will be rice and cotton crops and the entire coachella valley (irrigated 100% with the colorado river). the cities will be the last to go dry. no more swimming pools or lawns, but you'd still have water to flush your toilet and the steel head trout will still have rivers to swim in.
Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant in El Segundo, sends over 362 million gallons of secondary treated water out into the Santa Monica Bay every day. Reclaiming this discharged water through tertiary treatment and additional filtration could provide for the needs of another 1.6 million people or more. The biggest hurdle to recycling water is the psychological factor of drinking water that once flowed in our toilets. The accepted method of mentally “sanitizing” this connection is to recharge groundwater with the treated effluent, then pump it out at a later date for use. [infrastructural City] The plumbing is already installed to reclaim water in the san gabriel and san fernando valleys- only long ago political opposition has kept the systems from being turned on.
yep Treekiller.. I'd say about 1945 for San Diego (look at my diagram above).. the footprint was basically organic and the same until after WW2 (200,000!), then it went crazy.
doesn't this happen every year? why is everyone getting so worked up? they knew what they were getting themselves into when they moved into the hills...
Does everyone realize that with over 500 thousand people evacuated or under evacuation orders....
At least for the short-term
that these wildfires have now affected the lives of as many or more than the amount of people evacuated-migrated out of New Orleans and surroundifn area from Katrina.....
I am just callous? I mean I really feel for you folks who are down there right now but you have to understand eventually nature is going to want to self-balance and when you fuck with the balance it will fuck with you. To me the crux of the sustainability argument lies in finding that balance. You know, if people would actually employ architects, or hell even regional design practices, you wouldn't have to worry about your McMansion burning down because it would be made of non-flammable materials and have a sprinkled roof, but no you had to have a faux Spanish villa with vinyl siding, you could've spec'd concrete and stucco and you'd be better off, but no, you wanted to save a buck by putting flammable materials on the sides of your house that don't face the street.
While it might help (and make insurers happy) I can't imagine that sprinklers and non-combustible construction are going to stop wildfires, prevent evacuations, or even reduce the burden on Fire Fighters trying to extinguish the fires. I was in the Sawtooth fires in 2004, and being in a non-combustible house was no guarantee that you weren't going to get burned up when a 40' wall of flame sucked all the oxygen out of the atmosphere and blew out your windows. No matter what the exterior construction, furnishings are not after all made of concrete and windows are second only to roofs in how fire enters a building.
Point being - there is no elegant solution to this problem. The landscape here is still going to burn and threaten lives no matter what the homes are made out of. Many new homes in Malibu and the Hollywood hills to have mandated sprinkler systems and, Class A roofs, and rated exterior walls, but most of the housing stock that lies in fire zones predates such regulation. Even if a moratorium on new construction on housing in chaparral zones was put in place, we would still face this every year because of the buildings that already exist.
How much risk is too much? I hear this "people get what they deserve" attitude a lot with regard to California whenever there is an earthquake, mudslide, fire or water shortage. It strikes me as smug and only partially informed. 35 million people live in California - anything that goes wrong is going to kill someone.
Statistically floods, hurricanes and tornadoes kill more people in the US than other natural disasters - let's keep it in perspective and have a little compassion for the folks whose stuff is getting burned up.
Without california, the US economy would be 20% smaller. don't forget snow and cold killing people too - with only one dead in CA versus the 1000s from katrina- there will be a higher value to the damaged property because them hills are high rent versus the slums of the 9th ward.
SoCal FIRE thread
Thought I'd try to launch a thred to discuss the crisis, context and implications of the fires in SoCal. As of this evening, hundreds of thousands -- virtually the entire norhern suburban belt of San Diego -- have been evacuated. Hundreds of homes have been burned and thousands are threatened.
Fire plays a dual role in SoCal as both lifegiver and lifetaker -- much of the floral ecology is fire-based, meaning the plant life life requires fire to reproduce. But urbanization (namely SPRAWL!) puts the fire ecology in close proximity to city. Moreover, the successful efforts are to contain or prevent fire, simply begets more powerful fires in the future... the forests and shrub cultures become denser each year that they aren't allowed to burn, laying the groundwork for even worse fires. Years of policy neglect have caused much of the hinterland to become a veritable jungle of dry shrub, chaparral, trees and vegetation... all kinder and fuel for what looks like the worst firestorm of an era.
What does this mean? How should urban designers and architects respond?
By um, not building cities in the paths of firestorms I guess? Look man, fires in SoCal are as inevitable and hurricanes in Louisiana. I hope those folks have good homeowners insurance, but don't say I didn't warn you when you decided to settle in a place known for firestorms and earthquakes.
Some of those fires were deliberately set.
...and that's often the case. So this may not be an ecological problem so much as a sociological.
just published an apropos article on the fires in griffith park last year.
Statistically, there is no correlation between the length between fires and the number of fires- the link is between human population. as a region becomes more populated and developed the number of wildfires is directly proportionate. So whether arson or accidental (think sparks from a lawnmower or blown down electric lines) human activity, not fire suppression is the cause of the fires.
I just heard on TV some discussion that the arson might be a product of the mortgage crisis.
God knows real estate in Cali is way out of whack. People falling behind on their sub-prime, zero down, reverse, 40 year, 50 year, interest only mortages might be thinking about convenience fires as the easy way out.
Back to the original question of the post. My suggestion would be to stop all development in southern california. At very least don't rebuild anything that burns this go around. You know it'll happen again in 3-5 years.
The LA to SD metro-plex is something around 20 million people large. That is vastly over the carrying capacity of that area. As I said after Katrina, Detroit has room for you. They don't have a lack of water, or annual forest fires, or threat of earthquakes in Michigan. The infastructure is already there.
Population shifts and rapid growth in the USA over the past 30 years borders on lunacy. People have left stable areas to live in places like LA, Las Vegas, Phoenix. I'll even throw drougt crippled Atlanta in there. I still say the old "rust belt" cities will have the last laugh.
but its detroit
A-town is in some shit now, I'm serious those assholes building McMansions in my old neighborhood need to move back to those godless lands known as California and the North-east.
Stop wastin' my wata' yu Yankee assholes!
I disagree. I think any area is capable of sustaining human activity if we build on it properly and take into account environmental conditions.
That said, you can't build a house on a dry, sun-soaked hill in the canyons north of LA that is just like a house in Detroit and expect everything to be OK.
Tried posting this in the news but no love...
The fires that has ravaged through Southern California has been quite unpredictable and devastating in their reach and scope. Rebuild San Diego, a chapter of Architecture for Humanity, has already been working on the ground responding to volunteer needs at Qualcomn Stadium (go to Gate A for volunteer opportunities).
Currently 400 senior citizens have been evacuated and sent to San Diego High, 1402 Park Blvd, downtown SD. members of the chapter are their at the moment helping set up bedding and food services. If any of you are interested in volunteering with Rebuild San Diego, you can get in contact rebuildsandiego@gmail.com
I agree with DubK. Dont build shit out of dry wood in the middle of a bunch of dry wood. Build out of concrete. They build out of concrete in the Bahamas; you know why? HURRICANES
2 layers of type-x drywall aint gonna protect your McMansion from one of these....
as long as housing is driven by greedy, free market capitalists, we are going to have shit like this happening.
The city should require that all new building, regardless of type, include sprinkling for the roof area of all structures as well as for 100% of the site. Only native vegitation should be allowed to be planted.
When the city requires brush clearing of lots (which they do) those who dont clear their lots should be fined $50,000 and get 6 months in jail.
If you are told to evacuate your residence by the fire department and you dont, and then they have to come save your sorry ass, you should be fined $100,000 and get a year in jail. YOUR STUPIDITY AND / OR LAZINESS SHOULD NOT JEAPORDIZE THE LIVES OF THE FIREFIGHTERS
Well put, mdler.
nice post mdler
via
While I agree that good building practices and technology can increase the carrying capacity of a given region, I don't believe this is limitless.
For example, in addition to shelter, humans need water and food to survive. The aqueducts going into LA can provide the water, but there is hardly enough airable land locally to provide a local source of nutrition for 20 million people. The same could be said of most large urban areas around the globe. Thus we rely on a huge fossil fuel powered supply lines hauling agri-products that have pumped up yields thanks to fossil fuel produced fertilizers and herbicides.
My argument would be, no matter how energy saving your built environment is, the carrying capacity of an area is more multi-fold than architecture alone. Thus, I was hardly referring to the built environment singularly.
Back onto topic...the population is the problem in SoCal...not the annual fires.
well, if the infrastructure supporting cities itself could be made more sustainable, then that would also up the carrying capacity of a given area.
why are they burning house in california now? devil's night isn't until next week?
the s.o.'s parents house just went up, they barely got out, trying to find the cats and family heirlooms. feck, the last thing i need this week.
at least we aint philly...
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=66490_0_42_0_C
welcome to detroit...... save a few bucks before u mover though....not much work in michigan
i'm sure the govern-ment will step in or something.......
if you have insurance then get your cash and move
b
Environmental Journalist Bill McKibben on the Links Between Global Warming & the California Wild Fires
we should log all the forests so the fires wont have anything to burn
what about their carbon sink effect?
...Wait mdler is a communist?
detroit has a worse arson problem (puddle nailed it), gun problem, car problem and snow problem then socal, and I'd rather swim in santa monica bay then lake michigan. just cause the white stripes and eminem are from motown, that doesn't qualify the state as having culture- I don't want to live in a state where a bank gives you a gun for opening an account.
brush fires are a renewable energy source - and the soot helps cool the planet.
I think it is still worthwhile having a discussion about carrying capacity though. Cities in California are fine. I doubt either downtown San Diego or downtown LA are vulnerable to these massive brush fires.. but the thin fingers of sprawl organized along highways, penetrating into fire-brush country may be just asking for trouble. Somehow, I think we need to come up with new urban forms that mediate between dense center cities and the surrounding hinterland in a way that doesn't put people and buildings in the path of sensitive habitats whose very nature and survivability (not to mention the source of its natural beauty) requires periodic firestorms.
For a project, I put together the following graphic showing San Diego's growth (sprawl) over the years.
Notice what happened from 1945 to 1985. If you subtract the 1945 footprint from the 1985 footprint, those are pretty much the areas burning down now.. or at least at risk of burning down.
hey... i'm not defending detroit......
it'll be farm land in 50 years anyways.......
downtown and mid-center will only have buildings.........
b
hehe treekiller.. good point. The process we're seeing now as actually a self-regulating one... small fires are supposed to clear away underbrush every few years. If that doesn't happen across a large area, that brush just gets thicker and thicker (junglelike), providing all the more kinder and fuel for a much larger fire, that'll accomplish the same ecological objective. Sooner or later, equilibrium will occur and a fire will clear out the lower reaches of the city's green canopy.. it's just a question of how long human intervention manages to forestall the fire and, therefore, how humanly devastating the fire will be when it finally. Ecosystems will find balance, even if it means burning down a city.
mdler,
I'm pretty sure somebody in the Bush administration actually tried to make that argument.. that we should allow timber companies to thin out forest preserves all over the country, as a means of protecting us from the risk of fire. There's simply no end to their greed.
"There is no such thing as a natural disaster. It is man getting in the way of Nature." Ian McCarg
Antisthenes,
I have no doubt that global warming might cause more forest fires in the future, especially if it results in drier conditions, but it's still scientifically speaking rather uncertainty whether San Diego will get wetter or drier in the fire season as a result of climate change, there's no unusual El Nino effect in the area at all at this exact moment in time, and the Santa Ana was normal this year. I think one would be pretty hard pressed to argue that this particular set of fires is a result of global warming. The damage from it IS a direct result of sprawl, which has led to a widening of the area of active (small) fire suppression, which, in turn, has led to a corresponding thickening of the green canopy in those areas, which, in turn again, has led to a situation where a large mega-fire was basically inevitable.
the carrying capacity of southern california was achieved in 1870-1880. _ Los Angeles can support about 200k and san diego about the same if you have to rely on the local watershed.
California droughts over the past 150 years include: 1863-64, 1887-88, 1912-13, 1922-24, 1928-34, 1947-50, 1959-61, 1976-77, and 1987-92. 1977 was the driest year on record with only 20% of average precipitation. So what will happen next?
Climate change in CA lays out the most probable scenarios.
If you are looking at food production, the state can feed about 100 peeps (maybe more) with the current water infrastructure and precipitation. most food in LA comes from CA - very little is imported for local consumption except for gourmet specialties. More cows, chickens and rice are grown in CA then any other state. Just can't get local maple syrup. with a 70% reduction in sierra snow pack, the first casualty will be rice and cotton crops and the entire coachella valley (irrigated 100% with the colorado river). the cities will be the last to go dry. no more swimming pools or lawns, but you'd still have water to flush your toilet and the steel head trout will still have rivers to swim in.
Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant in El Segundo, sends over 362 million gallons of secondary treated water out into the Santa Monica Bay every day. Reclaiming this discharged water through tertiary treatment and additional filtration could provide for the needs of another 1.6 million people or more. The biggest hurdle to recycling water is the psychological factor of drinking water that once flowed in our toilets. The accepted method of mentally “sanitizing” this connection is to recharge groundwater with the treated effluent, then pump it out at a later date for use. [infrastructural City] The plumbing is already installed to reclaim water in the san gabriel and san fernando valleys- only long ago political opposition has kept the systems from being turned on.
yep Treekiller.. I'd say about 1945 for San Diego (look at my diagram above).. the footprint was basically organic and the same until after WW2 (200,000!), then it went crazy.
Urbanist if you watch that interview you will see he pretty much talks about the accumulation of heavier rains in some areas as others dry.
overall once we have sea level rise we can call more than 1/2 of it a loss
Website describing Fire Ecology and Californian ecosystems
http://www.pacificbio.org/Projects/Fire2001/fire_ecology.htm
an old article from Mike Davis/Radical Urban Theory on suburban sprawl in a fire zone
Sorry.. there's the article link
doesn't this happen every year? why is everyone getting so worked up? they knew what they were getting themselves into when they moved into the hills...
Does everyone realize that with over 500 thousand people evacuated or under evacuation orders....
At least for the short-term
that these wildfires have now affected the lives of as many or more than the amount of people evacuated-migrated out of New Orleans and surroundifn area from Katrina.....
Maybe we should send them all down there.....
Re-purpose the Superdome.....
Chase, shut up
I knew it was only a matter of time before the NY Times had a nice graphic up for us to look at.
Does anyone else find the following potential correlation interesting:
Both from the news:
"Ethnically, the area was two-thirds white and around a quarter Hispanic."
and
"With Katrina Fresh, Bush Moves Briskly"
all I can say is, I'm going to throw up if he appears in a fireman's jacket
I am just callous? I mean I really feel for you folks who are down there right now but you have to understand eventually nature is going to want to self-balance and when you fuck with the balance it will fuck with you. To me the crux of the sustainability argument lies in finding that balance. You know, if people would actually employ architects, or hell even regional design practices, you wouldn't have to worry about your McMansion burning down because it would be made of non-flammable materials and have a sprinkled roof, but no you had to have a faux Spanish villa with vinyl siding, you could've spec'd concrete and stucco and you'd be better off, but no, you wanted to save a buck by putting flammable materials on the sides of your house that don't face the street.
Disclaimer: I've been drinking.
I'll pass out barf bags.
While it might help (and make insurers happy) I can't imagine that sprinklers and non-combustible construction are going to stop wildfires, prevent evacuations, or even reduce the burden on Fire Fighters trying to extinguish the fires. I was in the Sawtooth fires in 2004, and being in a non-combustible house was no guarantee that you weren't going to get burned up when a 40' wall of flame sucked all the oxygen out of the atmosphere and blew out your windows. No matter what the exterior construction, furnishings are not after all made of concrete and windows are second only to roofs in how fire enters a building.
Point being - there is no elegant solution to this problem. The landscape here is still going to burn and threaten lives no matter what the homes are made out of. Many new homes in Malibu and the Hollywood hills to have mandated sprinkler systems and, Class A roofs, and rated exterior walls, but most of the housing stock that lies in fire zones predates such regulation. Even if a moratorium on new construction on housing in chaparral zones was put in place, we would still face this every year because of the buildings that already exist.
How much risk is too much? I hear this "people get what they deserve" attitude a lot with regard to California whenever there is an earthquake, mudslide, fire or water shortage. It strikes me as smug and only partially informed. 35 million people live in California - anything that goes wrong is going to kill someone.
Statistically floods, hurricanes and tornadoes kill more people in the US than other natural disasters - let's keep it in perspective and have a little compassion for the folks whose stuff is getting burned up.
latimes
Without california, the US economy would be 20% smaller. don't forget snow and cold killing people too - with only one dead in CA versus the 1000s from katrina- there will be a higher value to the damaged property because them hills are high rent versus the slums of the 9th ward.
420,424 acres burned
1,155 homes destroyed
881,500 people evacuated
and counting
to live in them hills you must have a car - so no stranded poor folks left behind.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.