Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kw_uh97

East Downtown, Warehouse, Dynamo District Development…

Recommended Posts

I don't, but would be interested to see such an analysis.

My impression is that Houston has had a greater movement towards repopulating its traditional center than most cities; I have no basis for this opinion.

Of course, there are many criteria by which such a trend could be measured, or interpreted.

As Twain (or was it Disraeli?) said, "(there are) Lies, damned Lies, and Statistics."

I agree - I have a sense that the repopulation of the center is just a result of overall population growth though and not as a result of a "trend", but I don't have the data. It would be an interesting thread if someone has the information.

I like the East Downtown area. I'm just not convinced that it's going to grow at the rate that many people appear to expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh! I like this conversation.

I hope that my love for architecture (or buildings - there's a fine distinction) doesn't make me a misanthrope. I've noticed that there are those who can appreciate a building as one might a piece of music, or a work of art. Others see buildings as a formula, where the only criteria for value are square footage, an arbitrary measure of desirability, and land value.

For those who take the latter point of view - I get it. There are certain practical and economic considerations which cannot be ignored. Please consider that those who take the former point of view are responsible for some of the great (and profitable) neighborhoods. Greenwich Village, the French Quarter, Nob Hill, et. al. would not exist if the typical Houston style of development had been allowed.

So far as someone calling me a tree or building 'hugger', fine. Yes, I like them. And I'll ask, do you like your mom? Because that would make you a motherhugger - right?

Okay, I'll bite.

If we're going to anthropomorphize buildings, then let us do so properly. We should acknowledge that just as the mathematically efficient physicality of human design (and the design of other life forms) has been derived from trial and error through the ages, so to has architecture. Forms of architecture that were unsuccessful have not been replicated. That is to say, form follows function. The more functional buildings (like the drive-thru) will thrive; the most whimsical and least efficient (like the creations of Ghery) are retarded children that should've been aborted.

Frequently, through the course of evolutionary history, there have been environmental shocks to the ecosystem, causing all but a few of a species to whither or die. The human advent of the automobile, corresponding demographic shifts, and simultaneous changes to building materials (the food supply) were one such shock, by and large relegating the form of older neighborhoods to starvation and impotentency even as ticky tacky flourished and replicated across a vast landscape.

More recently, it seems that the old forms have experienced a resurgence. In a limited number of places, I attribute a profitable justification to the practical limitations of travel by car and the relative mobility of relevant demographic niches; even then, these places must be accommodative of the automobile in a way that their forebears were not. However...the ubiquitousness of this movement (i.e. Sugar Land Town Square) has transcended profitability and indicates that the disease characterized in the film Idiocracy is transmitable between humans and architecture. The future is bleak. Just as is the case with humans, profitability is no longer the guiding force dictating reproductive success. We shall share in one another's lengthy and internally imperceptible destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll bite.

If we're going to anthropomorphize buildings, then let us do so properly. We should acknowledge that just as the mathematically efficient physicality of human design (and the design of other life forms) has been derived from trial and error through the ages, so to has architecture. Forms of architecture that were unsuccessful have not been replicated. That is to say, form follows function. The more functional buildings (like the drive-thru) will thrive; the most whimsical and least efficient (like the creations of Ghery) are retarded children that should've been aborted.

Frequently, through the course of evolutionary history, there have been environmental shocks to the ecosystem, causing all but a few of a species to whither or die. The human advent of the automobile, corresponding demographic shifts, and simultaneous changes to building materials (the food supply) were one such shock, by and large relegating the form of older neighborhoods to starvation and impotentency even as ticky tacky flourished and replicated across a vast landscape.

More recently, it seems that the old forms have experienced a resurgence. In a limited number of places, I attribute a profitable justification to the practical limitations of travel by car and the relative mobility of relevant demographic niches; even then, these places must be accommodative of the automobile in a way that their forebears were not. However...the ubiquitousness of this movement (i.e. Sugar Land Town Square) has transcended profitability and indicates that the disease characterized in the film Idiocracy is transmitable between humans and architecture. The future is bleak. Just as is the case with humans, profitability is no longer the guiding force dictating reproductive success. We shall share in one another's lengthy and internally imperceptible destruction.

I'm curious as to how one can "properly" anthropomorphize anything. While I didn't use that word, I'll cheerfully admit that, yes, I feel an emotional pang when a noble structure is neglected or demolished. Many people put money and sweat equity into interesting buildings (or 'retarded' children) because their affection for these things is greater than a desire to create attractive spread sheets. I believe that their faith is often rewarded.

Apparently, I anthropomorphize people, too; they seem so much like human beings.

The future is bleak. Just as is the case with humans, profitability is no longer the guiding force dictating reproductive success. We shall share in one another's lengthy and internally imperceptible destruction.
I've searched in vain for a Hallmark Card that conveys that sentiment.

"[they] regarded each other with mutual distrust, tempered by a scientific interest"

- Saki, Reginald At The Theatre

(It should be noted that TheNiche and I have met, and were civil, and we both enjoyed a lively conversation.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to how one can "properly" anthropomorphize anything. While I didn't use that word, I'll cheerfully admit that, yes, I feel an emotional pang when a noble structure is neglected or demolished. Many people put money and sweat equity into interesting buildings (or 'retarded' children) because their affection for these things is greater than a desire to create attractive spread sheets. I believe that their faith is often rewarded.

Apparently, I anthropomorphize people, too; they seem so much like human beings.

You know, I bought an old building that was literally girating with the movement of so many carpenter ants, spiders, termites, birds and their chicks, and the occasional alley cat interloper; it was as close to alive as any building might be.

I sterilized it.

I rendered it fit for profitable human occupancy.

How does that make you feel?

I've searched in vain for a Hallmark Card that conveys that sentiment.

"[they] regarded each other with mutual distrust, tempered by a scientific interest"

- Saki, Reginald At The Theatre

(It should be noted that TheNiche and I have met, and were civil, and we both enjoyed a lively conversation.)

"That is the worst of a tragedy. One can't always hear oneself talk." ;)

We are each willing to dabble in the absurd and we do provide a good foil for the other. The conversation is worthwhile and enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I bought an old building that was literally girating with the movement of so many carpenter ants, spiders, termites, birds and their chicks, and the occasional alley cat interloper; it was as close to alive as any building might be.

I sterilized it.

I rendered it fit for profitable human occupancy.

How does that make you feel?

Pretty damn proud of you! I applaud your initiative and commitment.

(And, while you may not hear it, while you sleep the building is murmuring, "thank you ... thank you.")

"That is the worst of a tragedy. One can't always hear oneself talk." ;)

Glad you got the Saki reference. I'll return the volley with "Oh, you're simply exasperating. You've been reading Nietzsche till you haven't got any sense of moral proportion left." :D

We are each willing to dabble in the absurd and we do provide a good foil for the other. The conversation is worthwhile and enjoyable.

I agree. Now, if we can only convince the other HAIFers that it is ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty damn proud of you! I applaud your initiative and commitment.

(And, while you may not hear it, while you sleep the building is murmuring, "thank you ... thank you.")

As it is rodeo season, a little Jimmy Webb seems in order.

If these old walls could speak of things that they remembered well

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - I have a sense that the repopulation of the center is just a result of overall population growth though and not as a result of a "trend", but I don't have the data. It would be an interesting thread if someone has the information.

I like the East Downtown area. I'm just not convinced that it's going to grow at the rate that many people appear to expect.

Well, both in the warehouse district, as well as the rest of east end, as Niche pointed out, it isn't repopulation.

for the warehouse district prior to the condos and townhomes most of the land was commercial and industrial, so that isn't so much a repopulation as it is populating an area that historically wasn't used for residential. Granted there were residential structures that people used (and still do), it wasn't the norm.

as for the rest of the east end, the area is still/already populated. I'd say if anything is happening, it is a changing of the residents. be it renters, owners or whoever.

Anyway, as to the point, I think there are probably less people from out of town that are willing to come to the East End, than there are people who know Houston who choose the East End. I have no basis of fact on that, just a gut feeling from myself visiting other cities and judging the area based on the condition of the buildings that are in the area (and I'm sure, as Niche pointed out, some are so ignorant as to base their judgment on the skin tone of people they see).

How many people park in their yard in the Heights, or in Montrose? You can either see ruts in the yard, gravel instead of a yard, or cars in the yard in half of the houses in most neighborhoods in the East End, that alone is probably going to scare someone who doesn't know Houston into looking somewhere else.

How much gang graffiti is there in the Heights, or Montrose? Sadly, I see this one place under i45 (going south on the feeder, take the u-turn by the railroad tracks by Schlumberger) that has gang graffiti on it all the time, (even though some group comes by and paints over it, it's right back the next day) you just don't see that over there. That doesn't mean that there aren't issues with violence in those areas, it just means that at first appearance people will be frightened of the area.

I'm not saying that everyone that transplants to Houston just ignores the East End, but I am saying that it is less likely.

Most of the people I have met that have moved here, they do so because they are from Houston and heard good things about the neighborhood, usually through friends that live here. Some of them went to school at UH and decided to rent in the area, and decided to them live in the area.

Anyway, lunch is over, back to the work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would really like for the east end to acquire more respect and exposure for the diverse community that it is, I truly hope that the promenade does not win.

Not because of the promenade itself but because of the horrible name they've given it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that the name EaDo isn't the greatest name, it also isn't that bad. I think we should try to just accept this as the name and move on as I don't see it changing again anytime soon. Not to ruffle any feathers, but it's really frustrating to enter newly commented EaDo/East End topics, only to see someone simply complaining about the name. The "EaDo Promenade" moniker is probably just a work in progress name since this project is still in the earliest of stages of pre-development and well if it isn't, then so what. I'm sure the promenade will be great whatever the name will be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that the name EaDo isn't the greatest name, it also isn't that bad.

However bad it is, it is precisely that bad.

I think we should try to just accept this as the name and move on as I don't see it changing again anytime soon. Not to ruffle any feathers, but it's really frustrating to enter newly commented EaDo/East End topics, only to see someone simply complaining about the name. The "EaDo Promenade" moniker is probably just a work in progress name since this project is still in the earliest of stages of pre-development and well if it isn't, then so what. I'm sure the promenade will be great whatever the name will be!

I'm hoping that the naming rights get sold to a corporation. Or to Charlie Sheen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it ee-dew or ee-doh? Either way it's dumb. Should have gone with "Dis-orient" instead, short for district orient. It pays homage to both cardinal direction (east) and the asian history of the area. And also hints that there are bars where people get wasted.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 'SoDo' and 'EaDo' names seem to be a feeble attempt to imitate the names of NYC neighborhoods.

IMO, these names started organically - realtors who were charged by the letter for newspaper advertisements used abbreviations 'wd brng frplc' for wood burning fireplace, or 'rvr vw' for river view. Therefore, Soho (South of Houston) or TriBeCa (Triangle Below Canal).

Houston has historically had the opposite approach. Subdivisions have absurd references to hills or glens or non-exisistant trees. "The Hills of Shadow Glen Pines" is a good name for a subdivision on a flat, treeless, sun-baked prairie.

Therefore, I think "Windsor Castle on the Whispering Sea" would be an appropriate name for the area east of downtown.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 'SoDo' and 'EaDo' names seem to be a feeble attempt to imitate the names of NYC neighborhoods.

IMO, these names started organically - realtors who were charged by the letter for newspaper advertisements used abbreviations 'wd brng frplc' for wood burning fireplace, or 'rvr vw' for river view. Therefore, Soho (South of Houston) or TriBeCa (Triangle Below Canal).

Houston has historically had the opposite approach. Subdivisions have absurd references to hills or glens or non-exisistant trees. "The Hills of Shadow Glen Pines" is a good name for a subdivision on a flat, treeless, sun-baked prairie.

Therefore, I think "Windsor Castle on the Whispering Sea" would be an appropriate name for the area east of downtown.

lol.

Speaking of absurd references... how about we call it something with "woodlands" in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol.

Speaking of absurd references... how about we call it something with "woodlands" in it?

seeing as the heights now is bounded by 610, 45 and washington, they should capitalize on the spread of the heights, and this area is directly between the Heights and Eastwood...

Manhattan Eastwood Heights

Manhattan indicates that it is still part of downtown, just like they want!

as a bonus feature to that name, it has a catchy acronym too!! M.E.H.!!!

There's a push in my neighborhood to change the name from Broadmoor to Broadmoor Heights, and if there isn't a push, there should be.

Edited by samagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a push in my neighborhood to change the name from Broadmoor to Broadmoor Heights, and if there isn't a push, there should be.

Speaking of Broadmoor, does anyone know what happened to the old wooden "Broadmoor" neighborhood sign that used to be on the little triangular esplanade on Dumble Street? It's been gone for several weeks now.

Yes, it was faded and didn't stand up straight, but the Eastwood Civic Association board has been discussing restoring (or if necessary, replacing it) and it should not have been removed without contacting the ECA or Councilman Rodriguez's office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 'SoDo' and 'EaDo' names seem to be a feeble attempt to imitate the names of NYC neighborhoods.

IMO, these names started organically - realtors who were charged by the letter for newspaper advertisements used abbreviations 'wd brng frplc' for wood burning fireplace, or 'rvr vw' for river view. Therefore, Soho (South of Houston) or TriBeCa (Triangle Below Canal).

Actually, neither SoHo nor TriBeCa were any more "organic" other than that they referenced something on a map. They were catchy names thought up by people wanting to promote the particular neighborhood. In that sense, The Woodlands, River Oaks, the Heights, Montrose, and even EaDo are every bit as organic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 'SoDo' and 'EaDo' names seem to be a feeble attempt to imitate the names of NYC neighborhoods.

More than that, the 'SoDo' constructions are the universally understood shorthand to indicate 'this is a neighborhood with young urban hipsters and some artistes.' This is why cities eager to promote themselves among 'the creative class', and insecure people as well, are so keen to latch on to names like that. They think it confers hipness without having to work for it.

Me, I'd prefer something more authentic, like Olde Houston Towne Centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, I'd prefer something more authentic, like Olde Houston Towne Centre.

Most hilarious post ever. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing as the heights now is bounded by 610, 45 and washington, they should capitalize on the spread of the heights, and this area is directly between the Heights and Eastwood...

Manhattan Eastwood Heights

Manhattan indicates that it is still part of downtown, just like they want!

as a bonus feature to that name, it has a catchy acronym too!! M.E.H.!!!

There's a push in my neighborhood to change the name from Broadmoor to Broadmoor Heights, and if there isn't a push, there should be.

Just wait...sooner or later there'll be Katy Heights and Sugar Land Heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than that, the 'SoDo' constructions are the universally understood shorthand to indicate 'this is a neighborhood with young urban hipsters and some artistes.' This is why cities eager to promote themselves among 'the creative class', and insecure people as well, are so keen to latch on to names like that. They think it confers hipness without having to work for it.

Me, I'd prefer something more authentic, like Olde Houston Towne Centre.

I vote that we move directly to corporate sponsorship and use it to close the cities' budget deficit. Halliburton Heights sounds appropriately profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote that we move directly to corporate sponsorship and use it to close the cities' budget deficit. Halliburton Heights sounds appropriately profitable.

while it sounds like a great idea on the surface, you would imagine the corporate sponsor would want to name the neighborhood they are tied to, rather than Halliburton Heights, that would be the new name for Alief though, I bet.

I think the only really big corporation that has a presence around the heights is Walmart. Walmart Heights sounds like a really fun name.

Thinking about the East End, I presume EastWood would change names to "Leeland Baking Co Wood" and EaDo would change their name to "Oak Farms Do"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a presence around the heights is Walmart. Walmart Heights sounds like a really fun name.

Thinking about the East End, I presume EastWood would change names to "Leeland Baking Co Wood" and EaDo would change their name to "Oak Farms Do"

You have a point about the the dairy. Why not name a neighborhood for the industry that anchors it? I routinely tell people that if they can see the coffee plant in the skyline, imagine walking 8 blocks east, and there's my house.

What do we make right here in the near east end? Coffee, milk and bread. Hmmmm. Plus lots of chickens in the hood... Breakfast Heights? Morning something.....I've got it: Sunrise Heights !

Edited by crunchtastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish editor would add a smiley face (or a laugh out loud face) to the plus and minus rep icons.

I've had some good laughs with this thread, clever folks here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, neither SoHo nor TriBeCa were any more "organic" other than that they referenced something on a map. They were catchy names thought up by people wanting to promote the particular neighborhood. In that sense, The Woodlands, River Oaks, the Heights, Montrose, and even EaDo are every bit as organic.

Not sure I understand what you're saying. There was a Canal Street in Manhattan, prior to the area (the triangle) to the south of it was called TriBeCa. Houston (pronounced HOW-stun) Street preexisted the SoHo designation (although... the reference to the London neighborhood was surely a factor.) The Woodlands admittedly had woods, but had no prior designation that I know of. "The Piney Woods", yes; but that covers much of East Texas.

The Heights has some 'organic' basis; my understanding is that some of the land there was swampy, was filled in by dirt dredged from the Houston Ship Channel, and subsequently developed; therefore Houston Heights, as a more marketable name than "The Sometimes Flood-Prone New Subdivision".

But Montrose? That was pure developer fantasy, culled from a book by Sir Walter Scott. Be glad it wasn't named "The Legendary Oaks of Montrose".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand what you're saying. There was a Canal Street in Manhattan, prior to the area (the triangle) to the south of it was called TriBeCa. Houston (pronounced HOW-stun) Street preexisted the SoHo designation (although... the reference to the London neighborhood was surely a factor.) The Woodlands admittedly had woods, but had no prior designation that I know of. "The Piney Woods", yes; but that covers much of East Texas.

The Heights has some 'organic' basis; my understanding is that some of the land there was swampy, was filled in by dirt dredged from the Houston Ship Channel, and subsequently developed; therefore Houston Heights, as a more marketable name than "The Sometimes Flood-Prone New Subdivision".

But Montrose? That was pure developer fantasy, culled from a book by Sir Walter Scott. Be glad it wasn't named "The Legendary Oaks of Montrose".

Really?

I was under the impression that "The Heights" was named so because it was the highest point in the area. In fact, if I remember correctly, many people took refuge there during an epidemic on the belief that the elevation would prevent it. I want to say that the disease was Cholera, but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand what you're saying. There was a Canal Street in Manhattan, prior to the area (the triangle) to the south of it was called TriBeCa. Houston (pronounced HOW-stun) Street preexisted the SoHo designation (although... the reference to the London neighborhood was surely a factor.) The Woodlands admittedly had woods, but had no prior designation that I know of. "The Piney Woods", yes; but that covers much of East Texas.

The Heights has some 'organic' basis; my understanding is that some of the land there was swampy, was filled in by dirt dredged from the Houston Ship Channel, and subsequently developed; therefore Houston Heights, as a more marketable name than "The Sometimes Flood-Prone New Subdivision".

But Montrose? That was pure developer fantasy, culled from a book by Sir Walter Scott. Be glad it wasn't named "The Legendary Oaks of Montrose".

Yes, there was a Canal Street, then a group looking to promote the area thought up the catchy name "Tribeca", copying the idea from the prior success of the catchy name thought up by a group wanting to promote the area south of the pre-existing Houston Street ("SoHO"). In exactly the same way that the developers of The Woodlands based the name on the pre-existing woodlands, the developers of the Heights based the name on the pre-existing elevation of the area, the developers of River Oaks based the name on the pre-existing river and oak trees. Regarding the source of the name for Montrose, so what? Do you really think Canal Street and Houston Street in Manhattan had those names when the Mayflower landed? Were those streets named in the Book of Genesis?

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

I was under the impression that "The Heights" was named so because it was the highest point in the area. In fact, if I remember correctly, many people took refuge there during an epidemic on the belief that the elevation would prevent it. I want to say that the disease was Cholera, but I'm not sure.

Not sure where dbig came up with that about the Heights, but I'm pretty sure it's not true. The Heights was 75 feet above sea level and 23 feet above the level of downtown Houston. The name Houston Heights then was a natural title and gave confidence to people hunting a healthful location. It is a matter of history that during the terrible yellow fever epidemics that periodically struck Houston, many people fled to the Heights and camped out until the siege subsided.

I believe the Heights was developed well before the dredging of the ship channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that George Mitchell (who developed the Woodlands) named it after his wife or daughter, Cynthia Mitchell Woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that George Mitchell (who developed the Woodlands) named it after his wife or daughter, Cynthia Mitchell Woods.

If that was the case, wouldn't it be Woodsland? The Pavilion of course was indeed named for Mrs. Mitchell (and the name is Cynthia Woods Mitchell). I'm not buying the idea that The Woodlands was named for the Woods family. Pretty sure it was named for the woodlands in which it was built and to reflect the importance the design put on the preservation of the woodlands.

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Broadmoor, does anyone know what happened to the old wooden "Broadmoor" neighborhood sign that used to be on the little triangular esplanade on Dumble Street? It's been gone for several weeks now.

Yes, it was faded and didn't stand up straight, but the Eastwood Civic Association board has been discussing restoring (or if necessary, replacing it) and it should not have been removed without contacting the ECA or Councilman Rodriguez's office.

A fellow HAIFer and I plan to contact the ECA about replacing the sign. Any more volunteers? There's strength in numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fellow HAIFer and I plan to contact the ECA about replacing the sign. Any more volunteers? There's strength in numbers.

Thanks to both of you! I'm on the ECA board -- you can PM me if you like. Please come to the next general ECA meeting at 6:30 pm, April 4th, at the Cape Center on Leeland@Lockwood.

I'm still wondering what happened to the old sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where dbig came up with that about the Heights, but I'm pretty sure it's not true. The Heights was 75 feet above sea level and 23 feet above the level of downtown Houston. The name Houston Heights then was a natural title and gave confidence to people hunting a healthful location. It is a matter of history that during the terrible yellow fever epidemics that periodically struck Houston, many people fled to the Heights and camped out until the siege subsided.

I believe the Heights was developed well before the dredging of the ship channel.

Not even close. The Port of Houston was established in 1842, and the Republic of Texas gave the City the right to remove obstructions and improve the channel in 1843. In the mid-1870s, full on dredging of the channel was undertaken, and its first ocean-going vessel arrived in 1876. The US government assumed responsibility for the channel in 1890.

The land for the Heights was purchased in 1891. The first lots were sold in 1893, and building took place shortly afterward.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rhh11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where dbig came up with that about the Heights, but I'm pretty sure it's not true.

Not sure where I came up with it, either (which is why I prefaced my remarks with "It's my understanding...")

I was told this tale several years ago (the "pre-HAIF Era") by a native Houstonian, and had never verified it. Now that I think about it, seems like an awfully long distance to truck dredged dirt, especially in the 19th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where I came up with it, either (which is why I prefaced my remarks with "It's my understanding...")

I was told this tale several years ago (the "pre-HAIF Era") by a native Houstonian, and had never verified it. Now that I think about it, seems like an awfully long distance to truck dredged dirt, especially in the 19th century.

Well they didn't have anything else to do. Why not move dirt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they didn't have anything else to do. Why not move dirt?

Of course they didn't. There was no HAIF in those days.

  • Like 1

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...