Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sohomod

What's With All The New Townhouses?

Recommended Posts

I've been browsing around the Third Ward (Washington Terrace/Riverside Terrace) area but have also noticed this in parts of the Heights and elsewhere, these awful listings that show a cute little house in need of work and then -- apparently as a selling point????!!! -- photos of hideous new townhouse developments in the area. I'm glad the realtors put them up b/c they function as an unintentional warning to me. Would hate to be across the street or god forbid next door to one of those. Often the listing description will actually come right out and promote the property as a tear-down, even when it looks to be in mostly good condition.

Could someone please explain this to me? Why would people pay more money to live in an ugly box in a row of boxes than in a real house with a yard and character? This is not a rhetorical question. I am honestly curious and really want to know. If it is just the newer fixtures/kitchens/bathrooms, why not "update" (a word I am starting to dread seeing in the listings) the older house rather than tearing it down? We don't have townhouses here in New York, so I just don't get it. No one here, in their right mind or not, would tear down an old brownstone or prewar apartment building to build something new. Ever. As for landmarked or historically significant buildings, the zoning codes and community boards are such that you would have to mount a real campaign just to change the paint color. A little exaggeration but I really wish more Houstonians valued their architectural heritage because it looks as though you have some great neighborhoods there that are being blighted by careless development. Okay, didn't mean to rant. It's very late (1:44AM), baby didn't nap today, I am exhausted and hope I haven't offended. Off to bed.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

soho, this seems to be a function of the Houston mentality of new being better than old, and bigger being better than smaller. That is not to say that everyone here believes this, but it does appear to be a strong belief throughout a wide segment of the population. I suspect this phenomenon is not unique to Houston. However, I constantly talk to people who tell me they HAVE to have a bigger SUV, since their family is si big...2 kids! My parents had 7 kids, and we got around fine in a station wagon. Go figure. The same rationale applies to their homes.

The proliferation of TV shows with fancy big new houses on display probably don't help.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest danax

The Houston City Government is very hands-off as far as regulating development. I'm assuming you realize that there is no zoning here, so it's really very Libertarian in that stopping insensitive development depends on grass-roots efforts and deed restrictions, and deed restrictions only work if neighborhood Civic Associations are constantly vigilant, as developers and residents will sometimes try to get one over on neighborhoods who might be napping.

The result of this is, depending on your state of mind, either a mish-mash or a colorful mosaic, as one New York writer (HAIF topic from 12-04) recently discovered and described as such, or maybe a little of both. From a development standpoint, little regulation allows for rapid reinvention of neighborhoods, often to the dismay of preservation types. One area known loosely as Rice Military has gone from humble bungalows to wall-to-wall townhomes in about 5 years.

Why are townhomes so popular as opposed to older homes? I'm with you but obviously lots of people aren't interested in old house restoration and many seem uninterested in yard and garden chores. Plus, the allure of granite countertops, laminate flooring and master baths must seem more appealing to the "modern" buyer than what is found in old homes.

Plus, alas, our old home housing stock has been reduced to precious little so what's available is often either in "the ghetto", falling down, or just plain ugly. Washington Terrace is one area with East Coast style 1920s-30s architecture (originally a Jewish upscale neighborhood, another interesting story) that has been neglected and ignored until......there's probably nothing to stop those homes from getting knocked down once development gets there, and it's just recently got there.

Bottom line; if you love old architecture, Houston will break your heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent question, sohomod. Browse through the posts in HAIF and you'll find that (some) Houstonians are asking the same thing.

I've been here for 25 years, and still marvel that words like 'ambience' and 'quaint' are met with blank looks or giggles. The concept simply doesn't exist to many Houstonians. Part of the local charactor is a fierce opposition to regulation and even fiercer defense of property rights. Having moved from a neighborhood (in Rochester NY) where repainting ones front door involved going before a committee and several weeks of discussion, I was initially appalled by the slap-dash approach to urban development one sees in Houston. I still am, sometimes. A little thought and cooperation could do wonders. The local market supports the idea that bigger and newer is better; architectural or historical significance decidedly takes a back seat.

Yet, this is part and parcel of the messy vitality which is one of the city's chief charms - a boomtown mentality which places more importance on the present than the future or past, and on the individual than the common good. People tend to be more pragmatic than idealistic: imagine, that one can own a huge new townhome in Houston for half of what a cramped apartment would cost in Manhattan! And if you have to tear down something small and old, who cares? Many people prefer to have a new townhome because (presumably) they're trouble-free and require little maintenance. By the time major repairs are needed, they will have moved on to greener pastures anyway. People are more attracted to the opportunities in Houston than its physical qualities. They come here to live well, make a buck or two, and spend them as they damn well please.

(disclaimer: these are broad, general observations and exceptions abound.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which places more importance on the present than the future or past, and on the individual than the common good.

While all this is true, these houses are just too small for most families today.

Most people's PC equipment takes up an entire room today. Sure, you can downsize everything, but that is getting increasingly hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about maximizing your initial investment. Tear down one house that including land value is probably about 100-200,000 dollars and squeeze 4 "condos" on that one lot and sell them for 500,000 each.... it's all about the money. Oh and the maintenance fees... you gotta pay those for the rest of your existance on that property too!

Edited by groovehouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An excellent question, sohomod. Browse through the posts in HAIF and you'll find that (some) Houstonians are asking the same thing.

I've been here for 25 years, and still marvel that words like 'ambience' and 'quaint' are met with blank looks or giggles. The concept simply doesn't exist to many Houstonians. Part of the local charactor is a fierce opposition to regulation and even fiercer defense of property rights. Having moved from a neighborhood (in Rochester NY) where repainting ones front door involved going before a committee and several weeks of discussion, I was initially appalled by the slap-dash approach to urban development one sees in Houston. I still am, sometimes. A little thought and cooperation could do wonders. The local market supports the idea that bigger and newer is better; architectural or historical significance decidedly takes a back seat.

Yet, this is part and parcel of the messy vitality which is one of the city's chief charms - a boomtown mentality which places more importance on the present than the future or past, and on the individual than the common good. People tend to be more pragmatic than idealistic: imagine, that one can own a huge new townhome in Houston for half of what a cramped apartment would cost in Manhattan! And if you have to tear down something small and old, who cares? Many people prefer to have a new townhome because (presumably) they're trouble-free and require little maintenance. By the time major repairs are needed, they will have moved on to greener pastures anyway. People are more attracted to the opportunities in Houston than its physical qualities. They come here to live well, make a buck or two, and spend them as they damn well please.

(disclaimer: these are broad, general observations and exceptions abound.)

Hey dbigtx, I'm from Rochester too!! I actually grew up in Fairport. What part of town are you from?

In line with what you are saying, Rochester now has (or at least used to have) some of the strongest preservation ordinances in the country. It came about in the '50's and '60s when the city destroyed an entire section of downtown that connected to Corn Hill in order to build the Inner Loop/490 interchange, the Civic Center, and the War Memorial. I wish Houston would take some of the same lessons from its own teardowns.

One thing I miss about that area is the tight-knit sense of community that developed in city neighborhoods such as around Park Ave., and around the surrounding historic towns and village centers. Houston, on the other hand, can sometimes seem like one massive suburb with little character or distinction between the various communities. I mean Katy pretty much looks like Kingwood, which looks like Pearland etc... Houston needs to work harder at developing a sense of place and community, and cookie-cutter town homes and fakey "town center" developments just don't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Houston's high property tax rates are directly responsible for the townhome phenomenon. Many historical homes that ultimately become teardowns are under 1200 sq ft, with a significant amount closer to 1000 sq ft. When the value of land in a given area rises several intervals beyond the value of the 1200 sq ft structure/house sitting on that land something has to give.

Consider what happens with a typical Montrose/Midtown 1200sq ft bungalow on a 5000sq ft lot. First, you'll be paying to $250 per sq ft for living space, compared to $100-$150 for a townhome. The bigger problem is your tax bill. Assuming the Homestead deduction is available, you'll be taxed at approximately 2.5%, or $500 per month. This works out to a little over .40 cents per sq ft of living space, per month in property tax alone, most of which is a result of your backyard. Needless to say, this is not a good deal for homeowners.

Homeowners are left with two possible solutions. First, build a bigger house (i.e. West U), either by tearing down or adding on. The problem with this approach is that many buyers are priced out of the market altogether. The second approach is to subdivide the property into narrow lots and build vertically (i.e. townhomes). Given Houston's lack of zoning, and the upper limit on potential buyers for $500,000 homes, it's not surprising that townhomes are the favored approach in neighborhoods lacking restrictive covenants.

Edited by jdbaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't have townhouses here in New York, so I just don't get it. No one here, in their right mind or not, would tear down an old brownstone or prewar apartment building to build something new. Ever. As for landmarked or historically significant buildings, the zoning codes and community boards are such that you would have to mount a real campaign just to change the paint color.

I personally like the notion of adaptive reuse, but I'd hate to live in a place as restrictive as New York.

What do people want in a home? A nice place to live and plenty of time to enjoy it, right? Houston's free markets are a vast experiment in which individuals are allowed to reveal their preferences. And if individuals desire to be located near their place of employment, that's reasonable. And if individuals would prefer to spend less money by buying a 3,000sf corrugated steel box than they would have had to spend to restore a 1,200sf bungalow, well that's reasonable too. And if individuals would prefer to have homes that aren't in constant need of repair and landscaping, that's reasonable. And if individuals would like to express themselves artistically by, say, repainting an older home or designing and building something entirely unique, isn't that reasonable as well?

Non-Houstonians seem to have all these romantic notions of how cities can 'live'. I submit to everyone here that a city's capacity to live is determined by its citizenry's freedom to live as the citizenry sees fit. Cities don't have a beating heart, people do. In Houston, if you want a steel cube, you can live in a steel cube. If you want an old bungalow, you can have it. If you want a highrise condo unit, you can have that too. And you can have all of those things everywhere at once, all mixed together, precisely as the populous determines. And if you don't like it, well then move to The Woodlands or don't even bother coming here--we don't need another outsider voting for the subjugation of Houston's local culture into an era of zoned predictability.

We need bumper stickers that read "Keep Houston Weird". Austin lost its battle--look at it--its just a cheap yuppified corporatized knockoff of San Francisco...boring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need bumper stickers that read "Keep Houston Weird". Austin lost its battle--look at it--its just a cheap yuppified corporatized knockoff of San Francisco...boring.

Not even close. If it were that I would have moved a long time ago, even if it were a cheap knock off of SF.

I like Keep Houston Ugly :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally like the notion of adaptive reuse, but I'd hate to live in a place as restrictive as New York.

What do people want in a home? A nice place to live and plenty of time to enjoy it, right? Houston's free markets are a vast experiment in which individuals are allowed to reveal their preferences. And if individuals desire to be located near their place of employment, that's reasonable. And if individuals would prefer to spend less money by buying a 3,000sf corrugated steel box than they would have had to spend to restore a 1,200sf bungalow, well that's reasonable too. And if individuals would prefer to have homes that aren't in constant need of repair and landscaping, that's reasonable. And if individuals would like to express themselves artistically by, say, repainting an older home or designing and building something entirely unique, isn't that reasonable as well?

Non-Houstonians seem to have all these romantic notions of how cities can 'live'. I submit to everyone here that a city's capacity to live is determined by its citizenry's freedom to live as the citizenry sees fit. Cities don't have a beating heart, people do. In Houston, if you want a steel cube, you can live in a steel cube. If you want an old bungalow, you can have it. If you want a highrise condo unit, you can have that too. And you can have all of those things everywhere at once, all mixed together, precisely as the populous determines. And if you don't like it, well then move to The Woodlands or don't even bother coming here--we don't need another outsider voting for the subjugation of Houston's local culture into an era of zoned predictability.

We need bumper stickers that read "Keep Houston Weird". Austin lost its battle--look at it--its just a cheap yuppified corporatized knockoff of San Francisco...boring.

On the one hand, I wouldn't want to go through zoning boards to have to pick my paint color, but on the other hand it would be nice to have assurances that a Walmart SuperCenter isn't about to locate next to my house or that I'm not going to have some tacky billboard built across the street from me. Also, it would be nice to have reasonable assurances that 100 year-old landmarks won't be destroyed with little or no public warning.

I don't think most other cities lack for choices in living arrangements and a modicum of control wouldn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While all this is true, these houses are just too small for most families today.

Most people's PC equipment takes up an entire room today. Sure, you can downsize everything, but that is getting increasingly hard to do.

I looked up my bungalow on the 1930's census records to discover that a husband and wife were raising their four sons in our two bedroom, one bath bungalow...

i think people these days are (a) obsessed with square footage, (B) have too much crap and c) don't get out enough - too much tv, computer, playstations, etc..back in the old days the whole neighborhood suplemented your lack of square footage..

i sometimes think people must not like their family members as they insist on getting these huge houses out in the 'burbs where you can possibly not see/hear another human for hours if not days..

heck, i probably know more about my neighbor's habits than those *blessed* with crap loads of square footage do about their own family members...

i hate to harp on about the trend to go bigger but we had a hard time finding living room furniture that wasn't abnormally gigantic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the one hand, I wouldn't want to go through zoning boards to have to pick my paint color, but on the other hand it would be nice to have assurances that a Walmart SuperCenter isn't about to locate next to my house or that I'm not going to have some tacky billboard built across the street from me. Also, it would be nice to have reasonable assurances that 100 year-old landmarks won't be destroyed with little or no public warning.

I don't think most other cities lack for choices in living arrangements and a modicum of control wouldn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest danax
Why would people pay more money to live in an ugly box in a row of boxes than in a real house with a yard and character?

Another way to look at it would be to compare NYC 150 years ago with Houston today. When the brownstone rowhouses were built en masse, I'm guessing many citizens complained that they all looked the same, too many people were getting crammed into the neighborhoods and probably many homes with land were sold by profiteers to developers. Apparently there was a demand for affordable homes close to town and the solution was density.

Houston is now entering the same era.

Without being an island like Manhattan, or just plain crowded like the Boroughs, Houston never had to get dense, and just kept spreading unhindered since its birth, until just recently.

There are actually quite a few affordable old homes still around but, as previously mentioned, the nabes scare most off or the homes are too small or have been so neglected there's little demand. The brownstones are often small too, but somehow New Yorkers make do. But would they live in them as avidly as they do if there were new townhomes going up everywhere?

Some old affordable neighborhoods not usually mentioned by boutique realtors; North Main, for example, might be Houston's Spanish Harlem. Victorians everywhere, some larger 2-story, most humble Queen Anne cottages, and only a mile or two from DT. Magnolia Park on the East End has 100 year old homes on tree lined streets you can get for under 100K. Where are the buyers? Where were the buyers for Harlem, Lefferts and Bed Stuy 20-30 years ago? People have to be either economically forced or just plain adventuous to move into areas that others shun, and the first wave has been doing that here for a few years now. The fastest way though to get people to move into decayed areas around here is to build townhouses.

Whether these townhomes are still standing 100 years from now remains to be seen, but I think we are seeing more of a trend towards preservation so if they last another 50 or so, there might be an ordinance that would prevent them from ever being destroyed, and then they might be the equilvalent of a NY brownstone today, with a few remaining 20th century homes spaced in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't want a Wal-Mart next door, then stay inside the loop. High land prices scare them off. Target is another story. If you don't want a Target next door, then choose not to live next to freeways or large tracts of old warehouses. Is due diligence too much to ask of home buyers?

Personal due diligence story: I was looking at a lot in a really "rustic" nook of 3rd Ward. I came very close to buying it. I envisioned a tall narrow structure built of unpainted windowless concrete cinder blocks and a rooftop terrace. The character of the neighborhood was still completely intact, unaffected by any new development for at least a few decades. The juxtaposition of this structure in this particular neighborhood would have been awe inspiring. I'd probably have had to install bulletproof and tinted glass on my car, but that'd be worth it considering the low cost of construction. Before buying the lot, I looked through as much material about the neighborhood as I possibly could, only to find that a nearby street had become the most likely alignment for the next light rail line. Bad news. That meant that within a few years, I'd have developers disrupting my perfect little nook with faux-style structures, also completely out of context with the neighborhood. And my local landmark would simply become another ugly townhome, only the worst of the mix because it'd no longer be unique and would be judged in the context of its newer neighbors. This is an outcome that I did not desire, so my plans changed. I'm now considering completely different in a completely different location.

Such is Houston. If you are short on ideas, perhaps it does make sense for the government to tell you how to run your life. If you're creative and can come up with plans A through Z, not getting too emotionally attached to any one concept, then you can live life as a king.

As for landmarks, they weren't built for you or I. They were built for the tenants that would pay for them. If the tenants no longer exist, and you or a group of like-minded people aren't willing to pay for them, then they have no one to exist for...except of course the Harris County Tax Collector or the wrecking ball. Only the one or the other.

Would love to live inside to loop but can't yet afford it. I still don't think that in densely-populated areas, there's anything wrong with preventing people from doing things on their property that creates a nuisance or grossly affects property values for others in the immediate area. Also, due diligence is not the same thing as prescience, and at least zoning gives the home buyer some idea of what type of development to expect in a given area over time. In a way, I guess you could say that zoning empowers the buyer's choice because it enables potential buyers to determine exactly what will be the nature of development in a given area over time before deciding to buy there. I also think there are certain properties worth preserving as part of our cultural and historical heritage even if the market response would be to demolish them.

Sorry, I guess I just don't buy into the whole libertarian thing. People who do go in for that sort of thing ought to live out in the mountains somewhere where the effects of their actions won't impact anyone else. In such cases, by all means people should be free to do what they like!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read everyone's ideas on this topic. It seems that no matter what direction Houston goes someone is going to be unhappy. We complain about Houston not being dense enough, now we development that is helping to increase population density in areas that were run down. Now people want us to preserve areas. It's as though we want our cake and eat it too! We need to understand that sometimes you have to give a little to to get alot. We should be happy to see areas of the city that are run down being redeveloped. Developers may not build your ideal House but it is ideal to someone. This city is filled with 2+ Million individuals.

Remember that Houston has the ability to be all things to all people. If you want perservation move to the Heights, if you want urban move to the Med Center, if you want unique suburban move to the Woodlands. if you want quirky move to Montrose, if you want upscale move to River Oaks.

People worry about too many things. Simply enjoy Houston for what it is. If you don't like move some where else. <_<

Also not to bash Dallas, but I lived there for 2 years and after coming back to Houston i realized that in Houston you can live in a different part of the city and feel as though you are in a diiferent city. In Dallas every thing feels the same. I wonder if zoning has anything to do with that. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Galleria area and vicinity stretching to the west side is probably the center of Houston's populaton density. From an urban standpoint, density does not always equal urban. The areas that hug the Strand in Galveston are probably the most urban areas in the whole metropolitan area. No "dense" garden style apartment complexes or stucco/metal live above garage townhomes required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this topic is a perfect example that Houston as a whole is not architecturally unified as to what housing style's ideal for da '36 City. To me, the answer to sohomod's topic question is that it's just another case of the Urban vs. Sprawl debate.

We've alwayz on HAIF (and at our homes) had discussions about why Houston couldn't become a more urbanized city. The reason is obvious: not everyone can live in a house. We LOVE our big houses at affordable prices, backyards, front yards, and no neighbors upstairs, downstairs, or beside us complaining about our loud music or in the bedroom making...um...how can I put it mildly...do things a Texan just shouldn't admit doing at Sunday Confession.

It's a developer's dream to build these townhomes over former houseland because it's less space for the same price to rent out, meaning more tenants. It sucks personally, because more Woodland/Sugarland/Grand Lakes style neighborhood need to be developed within Houston city limits. The whole city isn't that expensive land wise. There's enough rundown neighborhoods within Houston city limits that could be redeveloped into grand megahomes at an affordable price than a townhome park that looks underpar (not all look underpar, but there's enough out there to complain about).

Another thing. Why couldn't these same developers spend that same money from land for a townhome park on a high-scale looking skypark apartment complex with two-story spaces within and a affordable price? In Houston, something like that could be affordable. If it were, say, New York, the land prices would make this type of place unrealistic to invest in. It could be a way for Houston to have yet another style of housing dedicated to this region. Just imagine an apartment/loft that's the same style as Museum Tower, but you'd have two-stories of it, plus it'd be in a 15-story building within a sky community with 19 other buildings just like it.

Think it's impossible? I'm staying at a complex in Korea (luxury style), with 60 20-story buildings (yes, 60 buildings). All one story, of course, but the place is making mad profit and is the hottest trend of living in Korea. MAD space inside, as well (1000 to 4000 sq ft per apartment is available at that complex). NOTHING is impossible. Take it to the limit. These developers need to stop with their mediocre townhomes and start thinking quality and making $4 over normal and making $5. THEN their property will be something to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing. Why couldn't these same developers spend that same money from land for a townhome park on a high-scale looking skypark apartment complex with two-story spaces within and a affordable price? In Houston, something like that could be affordable. If it were, say, New York, the land prices would make this type of place unrealistic to invest in. It could be a way for Houston to have yet another style of housing dedicated to this region. Just imagine an apartment/loft that's the same style as Museum Tower, but you'd have two-stories of it, plus it'd be in a 15-story building within a sky community with 19 other buildings just like it.

Think it's impossible? I'm staying at a complex in Korea (luxury style), with 60 20-story buildings (yes, 60 buildings). All one story, of course, but the place is making mad profit and is the hottest trend of living in Korea. MAD space inside, as well (1000 to 4000 sq ft per apartment is available at that complex). NOTHING is impossible. Take it to the limit. These developers need to stop with their mediocre townhomes and start thinking quality and making $4 over normal and making $5. THEN their property will be something to talk about.

I'm not sure that I'm following you..."high-scale looking skypark apartment complex"? "Two-story spaces"? Got any photos or renderings?

Btw, bear in mind that land acquisition anywhere that's already built out is extremely difficult. Building that many buildings in any concerted pattern is damned near impossible unless you're talking about The Woodlands or on a large tract of green space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure that I'm following you..."high-scale looking skypark apartment complex"? "Two-story spaces"? Got any photos or renderings?

Btw, bear in mind that land acquisition anywhere that's already built out is extremely difficult. Building that many buildings in any concerted pattern is damned near impossible unless you're talking about The Woodlands or on a large tract of green space.

The two-story apartment space was wishful thinking, but the skypark style apartment/loft complex is the real deal Holyfield. 60 20-story buildings in all. I'll send pix soon as I can. Apparantly these style places are possible to build thanx to a large amount of investors with a vision. I only suggested offering two story spaces within high rises to give Houstonians what they want...space. Don't think it'd happen anytime soon in Houston, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I guess I just don't buy into the whole libertarian thing. People who do go in for that sort of thing ought to live out in the mountains somewhere where the effects of their actions won't impact anyone else. In such cases, by all means people should be free to do what they like!

Well, the whole libertarian thing is, indirectly, why most people come to Houston in the first place. If the idea of your neighbors doing what they want on their property terrifies you, I suggest *you* move to the mountains where you won't have any neighbors to worry about and control.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the libertarianess of houstons development makes it more fun anyways. with zoning it would be all nice yet boring, not all mixed up and interesting.

It may be too bad these old homes have to go, but then again these new townhomes are saving hundreds and hundreds of acres of farmland from becoming suburbia at least in the time being(you cant really stop houston sprawl).

And besides, they dont look that bad, in fact i think they are really nice looking. Also, this is houston, people are not going to flock en mass to restore and live in these shitty old houses that are tiny. Houston is surrounded by towns full of little houses like those that arent going anywhere soon.

Edited by zaphod

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...