Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
woody_hawkeye

Future will bring us New Woodlands?

Recommended Posts

I was sort of thinking the area you were talking about was just northwest of The Woodlands, next to where Woodlands Parkway ends, but really you're talking about a place pretty far away from The Woodlands.

The Woodlands development is coming up on reaching capacity for development, right? What will the same company do next, anything? Are they looking to expand their territory at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sort of thinking the area you were talking about was just northwest of The Woodlands, next to where Woodlands Parkway ends, but really you're talking about a place pretty far away from The Woodlands.

The Woodlands development is coming up on reaching capacity for development, right? What will the same company do next, anything? Are they looking to expand their territory at all?

The Woodlands Development Company had been purchasing adjacent tracts up until several years ago in order to continue expanding the community. That was during good times and prior to its acuqisition by the Rouse Cos., however, and the brief period under Rouse was prior to the acquisition by General Growth Partners which is now going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

A western Woodlands does not work without at least a tollway directly to it and a significant amalgamation of land. The former is plausable but improbable. The latter is a pipe dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 2014, The Woodlands should be pretty well built out. High end homes have slowed down temporarily but lower end homes have started as a response to the economic downturn. That is considered a temporary situation. Homes still sell here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Woodlands Development Company had been purchasing adjacent tracts up until several years ago in order to continue expanding the community. That was during good times and prior to its acuqisition by the Rouse Cos., however, and the brief period under Rouse was prior to the acquisition by General Growth Partners which is now going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

A western Woodlands does not work without at least a tollway directly to it and a significant amalgamation of land. The former is plausable but improbable. The latter is a pipe dream.

This. The Woodlands was created because of George Mitchell and because he bought land next to a freeway 25 miles from downtown Houston. Neither exists on the Montgomery-Grimes County line. To believe that a subdivision in the woods is possible is one thing. To believe a 90,000 population subdivision in the woods 25 miles from a freeway and 70 miles from Houston is quite another.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 2014, The Woodlands should be pretty well built out. High end homes have slowed down temporarily but lower end homes have started as a response to the economic downturn. That is considered a temporary situation. Homes still sell here.

Lower-end homes in The Woodlands only came into vogue as a result of too-easy mortgages, and were hit early and hit hard as the financial crisis unfolded. They still sell...only much more slowly, buoyed by the rate of foreclosure sales and temporary "first-time homebuyer" stimulus that disproportionately affects low-priced homes. Buyers of such homes were traditionally better off in the used-home and rental markets, and that's probably what'll happen again as things shake out.

And that should be good news for Woodlanders. They got (slightly) screwed when the Woodlands Development Company abandoned its tried and true business plan to cash in on denser and more affordable housing for the brief period of time that the markets supported it. The existing residents got screwed firstly because it is nearly impossible for subdivisions with small lots to preserve the forest that comprises The Woodlands' identity, and secondly because the rapid physical and demographic decay of new affordable housing is what is responsible for the decay of FM 1960...not the lack of planning (unless "planning" is being used as a surrogate term for affordable housing NIMBYism).

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. The Woodlands was created because of George Mitchell and because he bought land next to a freeway 25 miles from downtown Houston. Neither exists on the Montgomery-Grimes County line. To believe that a subdivision in the woods is possible is one thing. To believe a 90,000 population subdivision in the woods 25 miles from a freeway and 70 miles from Houston is quite another.

The 249 freeway extension up into the Tomball and Magnolia areas will bring a freeway close to the Montgomery-Grimes County line, but I don't know many folks who want an indirect (indirect in the sense that one must take the Sam Houston Tollway and I-45 from 249 for a straight freeway route into downtown) 70 mile one way commute into downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 249 freeway extension up into the Tomball and Magnolia areas will bring a freeway close to the Montgomery-Grimes County line, but I don't know many folks who want an indirect (indirect in the sense that one must take the Sam Houston Tollway and I-45 from 249 for a straight freeway route into downtown) 70 mile one way commute into downtown.

Not everyone works downtown. In fact, the vast majority do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone works downtown. In fact, the vast majority do not.

Do you have any figures to show that? I know that many people in The Woodlands work for companies based there such as Anadarko, but is it really a vast majority?

Plus, when these master planned communities sprout up, it takes a few years for companies to start building offices there. So in the meanwhile, those people would have to commute to either Houston or closer alternatives such as The Woodlands, or maybe even Conroe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any figures to show that? I know that many people in The Woodlands work for companies based there such as Anadarko, but is it really a vast majority?

Plus, when these master planned communities sprout up, it takes a few years for companies to start building offices there. So in the meanwhile, those people would have to commute to either Houston or closer alternatives such as The Woodlands, or maybe even Conroe?

Approximately 140,000 people work downtown per the Downtown Management District. The latest BLS estimates for the Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land MSA indicate that there are approximately 2,603,300 employed persons in the Houston region. Ergo, approximately 5.4% of employment is located downtown. Personally, I believe this estimate to be overstated given that the level of downtown employment has not been estimated recently and has probably been decimated with layoffs, but I'm willing to go with it for the sake of argument and because there's no better sourceable data.

We can rely on commuting pattern data from the U.S. Census Bureau's LEHD program for a better idea of area-specific commuter patterns. I sampled zip codes 77355, 77316, 77354, and 77362, which comprise a section of southwest Montgomery County that includes the most westerly extent of The Woodlands as well as the general Magnolia area north to SH 105, as the commuter origin area. I sampled downtown as the commuting destination area using the five appropriate Census Block Groups (482012101001, 42011000001, 42011000002, 42011000003, 42011000004) such that the freeway loop around it comprises its boundaries. The data (from 2006) indicates that out of 26,802 workers living in the origin area, 906 commute to downtown. That comprises only 3.4% of all workers in the source area.

Household-level indicators are more germane to the selling of exurban houses than are individual workers. As of the 2000 Census, 42,650 households lived in the source area. I'm sure that that figure is significantly higher today, probably by 15% to 20%, but lets keep it conservative. At a maximum (going on the assumption that none of the 906 downtown commuters from this area live in a household with another downtown commuter) only 2.1% of households have a downtown commuter.

But taking into account the likely household growth since 2000 and the likelihood that some downtown commuters are members of the same household, my own estimate is that downtown commutes are only a factor for approximately 1.5% of households in the origin area.

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Niche - impressive work! Thanks for such a concise look at it.

It's scary, though, on my end that I'm garnering intrinsic personal satisfaction from analysis of demographic and economic data. Yeesh! I need a regular job again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of things...

While the percentage of people CURRENTLY living in the source area who commute to Houston may be small, the CURRENT residents are not the target market of a new supersized subdivision. Suburban residents who wish to replicate The Woodlands, but only 35 miles farther out are the target demographic.

The percentage of people working in downtown may indeed be 5% or less of the 2.6 million MSA workers. However, the point was that few people would commute 70 miles. In fact, few would even commute 50 miles. From Dacus to Shenandoah, home to the Woodlands medical complex, is 35 miles. From Dacus to HP on 249 is also 35 miles. The location of woody's super subdivision is north and west of Dacus, meaning the majority of Woodlands2 residents would live 40 to 50 miles from these two work centers. 75% or more of all Houston MSA jobs would be located even farther than 50 miles, INCLUDING downtown Houston, Clear Lake, Katy, Sugarland, TMC, Galleria, Energy Corridor, Greenspoint, the Port, and IAH.

Would a substantial number of people even find a duplicate Woodlands attractive? The positives of the Woodlands were the forest, the trails and parks. With the massive increase in population, employment centers and retail were added. However, the added population also brought traffic on main arteries to a standstill. It decreased lot sizes to 55 feet. It brought an increase in petty crime. And, taxes have always been much higher than Houston taxes. My brother's Woodlands effective tax rate is 23% higher than my Houston effective tax rate. Building a supersized subdivision from scratch will create even higher tax rates for MUD infrastructure and schools.

Historically, large subdivisions locate near freeways, and for good reason. Access. This large piece of land may be attractive from the satellite photos, but once you get on the ground, it is a different story.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Redscare to a large extent, but this would likely be the beginning of an urban area, non-existent and non-competitive with other metropolitan areas, I am assuming. To do that, the area would need to appeal to the outside. It is also further from a major airport, although Conroe will be providing commercial transportation in the future much like Hobby. I see three major highways servicing the place, and it perhaps being a gateway to central and east Texas. For myself, I would think it could compete with The Woodlands for commercial content and amenities, thereby bringing it into a more detached and independent governing locale that what has emerged in The Woodlands. The Woodlands standard is hard to beat but any developer in that area would have an ace of spades if they put strong modern livability thinking into the master plan. Whether surface water or groundwater would be an issue, there is also a question mark. The cost of living should be substantially less there. Putting the thinking cap on, it might be feasible from a totally different angle yet perhaps be able in the long term to "save" the forest there. One way to not encourage such a mega development would be legislation for county controls. That is highly unlikely and so I am speculating on a more likely scenario. I say this but am in the midst of a possible apposing article that sees the growth context going to legislated controls. The reality of small independent developments which keep part of the forest there is the most likely scenario from the financial perspective. I can certainly see the large acreage timberland being a second Woodlands without all the original work assumptions that George had relative to the city of Houston, yet the distance to anything still haunts me, even with the transportation arteries being expanded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Redscare to a large extent, but this would likely be the beginning of an urban area, non-existent and non-competitive with other metropolitan areas, I am assuming. To do that, the area would need to appeal to the outside. It is also further from a major airport, although Conroe will be providing commercial transportation in the future much like Hobby. I see three major highways servicing the place, and it perhaps being a gateway to central and east Texas.

The problem is that Navasota--which is what you just described to the tee--is not a profitable (or, I'd argue, successful) urban paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Redscare to a large extent, but this would likely be the beginning of an urban area, non-existent and non-competitive with other metropolitan areas, I am assuming. To do that, the area would need to appeal to the outside. It is also further from a major airport, although Conroe will be providing commercial transportation in the future much like Hobby. I see three major highways servicing the place, and it perhaps being a gateway to central and east Texas. For myself, I would think it could compete with The Woodlands for commercial content and amenities, thereby bringing it into a more detached and independent governing locale that what has emerged in The Woodlands. The Woodlands standard is hard to beat but any developer in that area would have an ace of spades if they put strong modern livability thinking into the master plan. Whether surface water or groundwater would be an issue, there is also a question mark. The cost of living should be substantially less there. Putting the thinking cap on, it might be feasible from a totally different angle yet perhaps be able in the long term to "save" the forest there. One way to not encourage such a mega development would be legislation for county controls. That is highly unlikely and so I am speculating on a more likely scenario. I say this but am in the midst of a possible apposing article that sees the growth context going to legislated controls. The reality of small independent developments which keep part of the forest there is the most likely scenario from the financial perspective. I can certainly see the large acreage timberland being a second Woodlands without all the original work assumptions that George had relative to the city of Houston, yet the distance to anything still haunts me, even with the transportation arteries being expanded.

I don't get it. How can a developer attempting to convince tens of thousands of homebuyers to purchase his land and homes not be in competition with every other developer attempting to convince homebuyers to purchase their land and homes? And, if it is non-competitive, how does it then compete with the Woodlands? As for the beginnings of an urban area, the Woodlands went 15 years before it got a mall, and 30 years before it started becoming an employment center. And, that's with the Woodlands being located next to a large population base. It takes decades to build infrastructure and attract the critical mass of residents to support regional shopping and employment centers. And, that's if you have access. I still do not see the 3 major highways you speak of. I don't even see ONE. And, I don't see a grove of pine trees as the ace in the hole, considering that one can find forests all across Montgomery County. And, you are very much overstating the attraction of an oversized subdivision with an oversized HOA. The grumblings I hear from Woodlands residents regarding the growing regret for voting to incorporate is not isolated.

Could it happen? Sure, anything can happen. Will it? I see Montgomery as far better positioned to become the center of western Montgomery County commerce than a forest on the county line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Navasota--which is what you just described to the tee--is not a profitable (or, I'd argue, successful) urban paradigm.

Seems like the argument used against The Woodlands a couple of decades ago, but clearly well-thought master planning conquers the profitability issue according to those at the H-GAC. Comments I have heard in the past on The Woodlands were like "Too far away from the city, no commercial attractions, a boring place." It could be argued that master planning is a regional issue, not a developers issue. The Woodlands did first attract people who wanted to live in a family environment and secondly or even primarily for many, to live in a natural setting. Commuting was the only means for work at first, but later, commercial interests brought many opportunities for resident employment. Seems there are two alternatives to growth - master planned urban areas or country estates. Much of the development now is in country estates, but that will not last. It eats up taxable space and has a limited appeal and expansion capability. The large ranches and timberlands are the most likely candidates for a large development. It looks to me we are on the cusp of something new that broadens the definition of master planning. There are also some discussion of an eastern county development, but I have not looked at that yet. The dinosaur park etc might bring that into focus. A rainy day project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the argument used against The Woodlands a couple of decades ago, but clearly well-thought master planning conquers the profitability issue according to those at the H-GAC. Comments I have heard in the past on The Woodlands were like "Too far away from the city, no commercial attractions, a boring place." It could be argued that master planning is a regional issue, not a developers issue. The Woodlands did first attract people who wanted to live in a family environment and secondly or even primarily for many, to live in a natural setting. Commuting was the only means for work at first, but later, commercial interests brought many opportunities for resident employment. Seems there are two alternatives to growth - master planned urban areas or country estates. Much of the development now is in country estates, but that will not last. It eats up taxable space and has a limited appeal and expansion capability. The large ranches and timberlands are the most likely candidates for a large development. It looks to me we are on the cusp of something new that broadens the definition of master planning. There are also some discussion of an eastern county development, but I have not looked at that yet. The dinosaur park etc might bring that into focus. A rainy day project.

That is likely because, a couple of decades ago, the Woodlands WAS a boring place with no commercial attractions. Even with its location only 5 miles from the burgeoning FM 1960 corridor, the Woodlands Mall was empty for years. To suggest that building a mall 25 miles from any population centers will work better defies logic. As for being on the cusp of something new in master planning, it would seem to me that going farther into exurbia to build large MPCs is not the least bit new, not even in Montgomery County (see The Woodlands). New for suburban counties would be encouraging clustered dense communities, linked by mass transit. I fail to see how carving up another 30,000 acres of forest is "new". And while large ranches may be the most likely candidates for large developments, you have failed miserably at proving that large developments are a solution for anything. Why wouldn't a series of smaller developments be a better prospect for whatever "problem" you envision, except for bragging rights, which I suspect is the real issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Approximately 140,000 people work downtown per the Downtown Management District. The latest BLS estimates for the Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land MSA indicate that there are approximately 2,603,300 employed persons in the Houston region. Ergo, approximately 5.4% of employment is located downtown. Personally, I believe this estimate to be overstated given that the level of downtown employment has not been estimated recently and has probably been decimated with layoffs, but I'm willing to go with it for the sake of argument and because there's no better sourceable data.

A bit of a tangent, but Niche mentioned the Downtown Management District's estimate of 140,000 workers downtown. I would love to see a real, well-sourced estimate of downtown employment. I recall reading estimates of 150,000 twenty years ago. If that was anywhere near accurate, the number would surely be substantially higher now... (at least 4 significant/major buildings have been added, and most companies house more people per square foot now than they did 20 years ago; e.g. when Chevron took over the former Enron tower, they installed cubicles for all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the argument used against The Woodlands a couple of decades ago, but clearly well-thought master planning conquers the profitability issue according to those at the H-GAC.

Without a realistic chance at profitability, development will not occur. This rule has indeed not been evidenced in any of H-GAC's forecasts, which are mostly based upon the wishful thinking of county leaders and do not reflect market forces.

If you don't mind my asking, who was it at H-GAC that told you this load of equine feces? Was it Jeff?

Comments I have heard in the past on The Woodlands were like "Too far away from the city, no commercial attractions, a boring place." It could be argued that master planning is a regional issue, not a developers issue. The Woodlands did first attract people who wanted to live in a family environment and secondly or even primarily for many, to live in a natural setting. Commuting was the only means for work at first, but later, commercial interests brought many opportunities for resident employment.

Distance from the city, lack of retail, and boringness didn't keep Cinco Ranch, Kingwood, or Fairfield from being developed. That's how many master planned communities start out. What does matter is the number of jobs situated within a reasonable commute time and the capture rate of those employees' households that can be expected, segmented by price according to what they can afford. The Woodlands was pretty far out there, but there was already an decent base of easily-accessible suburban jobs to draw from, and moreover the empirical evidence seemed to indicate that numerous buyers were willing to commute into the urban core from The Woodlands. This indicates a vastly different situation than the one that you outlined for your 'western Woodlands' concept, which you described as existing independently of any metropolitan area.

Seems there are two alternatives to growth - master planned urban areas or country estates. Much of the development now is in country estates, but that will not last. It eats up taxable space and has a limited appeal and expansion capability. The large ranches and timberlands are the most likely candidates for a large development.

I would point out that country estates provide a higher per capita tax base. Unless your intention is merely to encourage population growth in Montgomery County for some reason, then country estates make for the ideal kind of neighbor. They're wealthy, they preserve the trees, they don't put nearly as many cars on the road per acre of new developed land, and there's little risk of their homes ever turning into slums.

What is it with your concerns for quantity over quality?

It looks to me we are on the cusp of something new that broadens the definition of master planning.

Strategic land resource planning by county decree? Probably not. In the end, profitability is still the name of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lived part of my childhood there, in the early 90's. I can't imagine much beyond the mall being there, the growth is crazy.

Honestly though while The Woodlands is very nice, aside from the trees I don't think it is any special or to be emulated. It's like any other suburb of its era, bearing a resemblance to the Memorial area, IMO.

Edited by zaphod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for more clarity on the subject, the vision is small incremental developments, following a regulated master plan. The great developer no longer exists but the available land does. Growth over the next few decades needs to be managed and the idea of a "woodlands" for lack of a better term, is feasible and likely if it can be managed. It is true that small estates do tend to keep a few trees but those I have visited had few trees and kept the majority of the land for swimming pools, horse areas, barns, etc etc. The main point of the idea is that it will be attractive, just like The Woodlands in that it would be another forested area with a large percentage of green space. One can;t really compare The Woodlands with a modern development except for its values and amenities. Conroe's new initiative will hopefully achieve a similar but smaller goal and within the city for a shorter term vision. Contrasted with the Conroe project, this one is for a much longer period of time. The issue is more in long term investments than if the people and businesses would come to it. There are some interesting ideas that would require legislation to enable such new thinking for forest preservation effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for more clarity on the subject, the vision is small incremental developments, following a regulated master plan. The great developer no longer exists but the available land does. Growth over the next few decades needs to be managed and the idea of a "woodlands" for lack of a better term, is feasible and likely if it can be managed. It is true that small estates do tend to keep a few trees but those I have visited had few trees and kept the majority of the land for swimming pools, horse areas, barns, etc etc. The main point of the idea is that it will be attractive, just like The Woodlands in that it would be another forested area with a large percentage of green space. One can;t really compare The Woodlands with a modern development except for its values and amenities. Conroe's new initiative will hopefully achieve a similar but smaller goal and within the city for a shorter term vision. Contrasted with the Conroe project, this one is for a much longer period of time. The issue is more in long term investments than if the people and businesses would come to it. There are some interesting ideas that would require legislation to enable such new thinking for forest preservation effort.

If you want to promote rapid growth in southwest Montgomery County with forested regular lots, then you'd need to change flood control regulations to require fewer detention ponds. Otherwise, the costs of removing the fill will be prohibitive, developers will spread it around on the ground, increasing the elevation enough that it would kill the trees (if the trees were kept) and you'll witness the same kind of sparsely-forested development as is typical of newer sections of The Woodlands. Never mind the additional burdens on infrastructure and the extra footprint on the forest that that entails.

If your interests are forest preservation, then simply charge a fee for every tree removed, with the fee schedule varying based on the kind of tree, its level of maturity, and its visibility from the road. Then you guys can realize the benefits to the County of estate-sized lots, keep trees, and generate revenue through impact fees. Counties already have the power to do this. Try suggesting it to Judge Sadler the next time you meet him. He's a reasonable man. Give him a reasonable suggestion and see how it goes over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of the Woodlands to me is that most people who choose to live there go because they're trying to get away from what they perceive as crime-ridden, congested areas. As the area has built out, new residents have brought the problems with them so to speak. I went to a Christmas party there this past weekend, first off I45 was almost completely closed by an accident for 3 hours, once past that, the traffic on major arteries through the Woodlands was just as bad. I too like the more forested look over say Katy, but other than that, it's just like every other burb to me, for better or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to promote rapid growth in southwest Montgomery County with forested regular lots, then you'd need to change flood control regulations to require fewer detention ponds. Otherwise, the costs of removing the fill will be prohibitive, developers will spread it around on the ground, increasing the elevation enough that it would kill the trees (if the trees were kept) and you'll witness the same kind of sparsely-forested development as is typical of newer sections of The Woodlands. Never mind the additional burdens on infrastructure and the extra footprint on the forest that that entails.

If your interests are forest preservation, then simply charge a fee for every tree removed, with the fee schedule varying based on the kind of tree, its level of maturity, and its visibility from the road. Then you guys can realize the benefits to the County of estate-sized lots, keep trees, and generate revenue through impact fees. Counties already have the power to do this. Try suggesting it to Judge Sadler the next time you meet him. He's a reasonable man. Give him a reasonable suggestion and see how it goes over.

I will certainly keep that in mind. Sounds like a good idea. That is but one objective but it is my primary concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of the Woodlands to me is that most people who choose to live there go because they're trying to get away from what they perceive as crime-ridden, congested areas. As the area has built out, new residents have brought the problems with them so to speak. I went to a Christmas party there this past weekend, first off I45 was almost completely closed by an accident for 3 hours, once past that, the traffic on major arteries through the Woodlands was just as bad. I too like the more forested look over say Katy, but other than that, it's just like every other burb to me, for better or worse.

You may be right on the congestion. It's getting worse, but they're also expanding Woodlands parkway and other streets. I don't think it's technically the Woodlands but 242 is in serious need of a flyover.

However, there is almost no crime in there. I spoke with a hotel the other day and they told me the statistic, which I forgot, but it was very very low.

Also, I would say the ameneties and proximity to them is probably second to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, there is almost no crime in there. I spoke with a hotel the other day and they told me the statistic, which I forgot, but it was very very low.

What's your point of comparison to claim that it was low?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Woodlands Development Company had been purchasing adjacent tracts up until several years ago in order to continue expanding the community. That was during good times and prior to its acuqisition by the Rouse Cos., however, and the brief period under Rouse was prior to the acquisition by General Growth Partners which is now going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

A western Woodlands does not work without at least a tollway directly to it and a significant amalgamation of land. The former is plausable but improbable. The latter is a pipe dream.

This is why, in hindsight, The Woodlands Parkway should have been made into a freeway. Much like the Grand Parkway through Cinco Ranch. Mobility would be much better.

Edited by Trae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the future will bring us New Woodlands? I hope not.

why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...