Jump to content

End Of The McMansion Era?


ricco67

How much room do you do you want?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. How much room do you do you want?

    • Less than 1,200 sf
    • 1,200-2000sf
    • 2,000-2,500sf
    • 2,000-3,000sf
    • 3,000 + (specifiy)
  2. 2. Happy with the size of the home you want? Going bigger or smaller?

    • Perfectly content.
    • Looking for bigger
    • Looking to downsize


Recommended Posts

A fascinating article basically declaring the McMansion era of building is dead.

Now I wonder if this comes back down to people starting to come to their senses as to what they want to own.

I don't begrudge anyone who has a large home, if you have the means, then you have the right to the fruits of your labors. However, there are those that just always seem to want something bigger for the sake of bigger at the expense of stretching their finances(and good taste) to the breaking point.

What happened to the days when you had a family of four in a typical home of two bedrooms, two baths, with living room?

Either way, I sincerely hope that the article is correct and that this thing is dead, but we will only know in about 5 yrs after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fascinating article basically declaring the McMansion era of building is dead.

Now I wonder if this comes back down to people starting to come to their senses as to what they want to own.

I don't begrudge anyone who has a large home, if you have the means, then you have the right to the fruits of your labors. However, there are those that just always seem to want something bigger for the sake of bigger at the expense of stretching their finances(and good taste) to the breaking point.

What happened to the days when you had a family of four in a typical home of two bedrooms, two baths, with living room?

Either way, I sincerely hope that the article is correct and that this thing is dead, but we will only know in about 5 yrs after the fact.

Less money ---> Less house. McMansions are dead until people have access to that level of wealth again.

And frankly, this is propaganda. If someone polls me what my ideal home size is, I will follow up with, "What's my budget constraint?" The pollster will have no answer--by design. Most people, however, will assume that the question is meant to be reasonable and answer as such.

My lease is up and I'm thinking about leasing a small freestanding metallic warehouse to live in. By small, I mean a couple thousand square feet month-to-month. All I really need is a toilet, a hose, and a floor drain. The extra space, a grade-level dock, 20-foot clearances, and three phase electric service merely suit my aesthetic preferences. But if there weren't a budget constraint, I think that I might prefer to live in a hangar large enough for commercial airliners. That'd be cool.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's my opinion but I feel like that article is directed at something slightly different than the McMansions I've seen referred to on this board. Honestly I think people here use it to mean any big, new house that fills up most of a lot - regardless of quality, and differences in taste aside. Size and tackiness may be the overlap. Just because something doesn't fit in with its surroundings doesn't make it a McMansion. If it falls down in 5 years, then we can come back and say maybe it was. I speak from a Heights perspective, I think there are far fewer McMansions here than there are out in the burbs. Take Shadow Creek Ranch - most of those homes are around 3000 sq ft, and I can say by having visited more than 3 of them that they are built like crap. That's some real McMansionism, not the gigantic New Orleans revivals you see east of Heights Blvd.

Anyway, the article is just another symptom of the general consumer trend of getting more conservative and less excessive. I don't think it means anything on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fascinating article basically declaring the McMansion era of building is dead.

Now I wonder if this comes back down to people starting to come to their senses as to what they want to own.

I don't begrudge anyone who has a large home, if you have the means, then you have the right to the fruits of your labors. However, there are those that just always seem to want something bigger for the sake of bigger at the expense of stretching their finances(and good taste) to the breaking point.

What happened to the days when you had a family of four in a typical home of two bedrooms, two baths, with living room?

Either way, I sincerely hope that the article is correct and that this thing is dead, but we will only know in about 5 yrs after the fact.

From the article: "Even in Texas, the land of go big or go home, they’re downsizing."

I sure hope this applies to McTownhomes, too. There seems to be a misapprehension that bigger 'homes' on small lots = higher density.

Not so.

Density is more people occupying the same amount of real estate, not the size of the structure. Where a family of 4 (or 5 or 7) might occupy a 1200 sq ft home, can we regard two 3200 sq ft townhomes on the same lot occupied by four people as increased density? Of course not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fascinating article basically declaring the McMansion era of building is dead.

Now I wonder if this comes back down to people starting to come to their senses as to what they want to own.

I don't begrudge anyone who has a large home, if you have the means, then you have the right to the fruits of your labors. However, there are those that just always seem to want something bigger for the sake of bigger at the expense of stretching their finances(and good taste) to the breaking point.

What happened to the days when you had a family of four in a typical home of two bedrooms, two baths, with living room?

Either way, I sincerely hope that the article is correct and that this thing is dead, but we will only know in about 5 yrs after the fact.

The real estate market in general has collapsed. Given the state of the economy obviously fewer McMansions will be built. I think you are right that it is premature to declare it some sort of societal trend. If the economy gets back to where it was I would expect the McMansions to come roaring back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real estate market in general has collapsed. Given the state of the economy obviously fewer McMansions will be built. I think you are right that it is premature to declare it some sort of societal trend. If the economy gets back to where it was I would expect the McMansions to come roaring back.

Maybe by that time (5 or 10 years?), the last wave of McMansions will be in such a bad state of disrepair that people will opt for quality over quantity when determining where to spend their dollars. It's not likely, and I know most people will chalk it up to the it-can't-happen-to-me principle, but it's a good idea nonetheless.

Frankly, I think Niche has the best idea. If running the ac in the summer wouldn't be so cost prohibitive, I'd think the idea was near flawless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe by that time (5 or 10 years?), the last wave of McMansions will be in such a bad state of disrepair that people will opt for quality over quantity when determining where to spend their dollars. It's not likely, and I know most people will chalk it up to the it-can't-happen-to-me principle, but it's a good idea nonetheless.

Its not clear to me that craftsmanship correlates negatively with house size. I'd tend to think that it would be somewhat positively correlated with price point and strongly positively correlated with being within a municipality that has adopted and enforces the International Building Code.

Also, from my own experience and observations, I'd conclude that the quality of building materials and industry practices have changed through the decades (mostly for the better since about 1950), but human nature has not.

Frankly, I think Niche has the best idea. If running the ac in the summer wouldn't be so cost prohibitive, I'd think the idea was near flawless.

A lack of air conditioning doesn't bother me much during waking non-working hours. Metal walls cool quickly once the sun gets low in the sky and a building with high ceilings, a ridge vent, and a slab that is cooler than the ambient air temperature will tend to naturally ventilate. My primary enemy is the ambient air temperature, and even then, only really when I'm trying to sleep. (The other enemy is sweaty concrete.)

I do have a night-time solution for that, although it partly depends on the layout of the building and possibly the owner's willingness to let you make minor modifications. Just rig up a curtain of heavy tent canvas, pretty much like you would a shower curtain, on a framework of steel or even just PVC pipe. This should be large enough to envelop your sleeping area. The less floor area encompassed and taller, the better, and even a 10' curtain can make this approach work. Bring in a portable A/C unit. Duct tape some excess canvas over the portable A/C unit's vent to guide the vented air downward towards the floor and to slow it down so as to minimize air turbulence. The hard part could be finding a way to exhaust the warm air, and again, that might require a tad bit of modification to the building in some situations (since warehouses rarely have operable windows)...but at this point the canvas should be a good enough insulator and the curtains high enough and the conditioned air slow-moving enough that air stratification should keep me plenty comfortable during the warmer months, and on a budget that is a fraction of that of the continuous cooling of a traditional indoor space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe by that time (5 or 10 years?), the last wave of McMansions will be in such a bad state of disrepair that people will opt for quality over quantity when determining where to spend their dollars. It's not likely, and I know most people will chalk it up to the it-can't-happen-to-me principle, but it's a good idea nonetheless.

Frankly, I think Niche has the best idea. If running the ac in the summer wouldn't be so cost prohibitive, I'd think the idea was near flawless.

I was drooling at Niche's pad potential with some guys, but I'd have to build a small drywall structure to watch TV and sleep in so it can have AC. Otherwise, can you imagine indoor dodgeball?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My lease is up and I'm thinking about leasing a small freestanding metallic warehouse to live in. By small, I mean a couple thousand square feet month-to-month. All I really need is a toilet, a hose, and a floor drain. The extra space, a grade-level dock, 20-foot clearances, and three phase electric service merely suit my aesthetic preferences. But if there weren't a budget constraint, I think that I might prefer to live in a hangar large enough for commercial airliners. That'd be cool.

Frankly, I think Niche has the best idea. If running the ac in the summer wouldn't be so cost prohibitive, I'd think the idea was near flawless.

I was drooling at Niche's pad potential with some guys, but I'd have to build a small drywall structure to watch TV and sleep in so it can have AC. Otherwise, can you imagine indoor dodgeball?!

Planning on staying single?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planning on staying single?

I'm still hoping that I can get medical waivers so that the Army will take me. If accepted for Officer Candidate School, it'd probably be another six to eight months before I'd ship, optimistically.

Additionally, it has become clear (from a process of trial and error) that I cannot be both honest about my aspirations and also achieve and maintain sex appeal among such women as I find myself attracted to. Those things are mutually exclusive. It is the human condition, or mine at least. If I am to be celibate, I shall be celibate on my own terms and no one else's.

So the short answer is no, I'm not planning on being single. Nor am I desiring of it. I am expecting it, however, because the alternative is to purger myself. And I don't do that willingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planning on staying single?

Heh. Yeah, good point. I doubt my wife and kid would be as pleased with the arrangement.

I am expecting it, however, because the alternative is to purger myself.

If you'd stop eating Kroger brand pizza topped with chorizo and bacon you wouldn't have to purger yourself anymore. You may still have to perjure yourself though. I've got no solution for that, except to maybe kill a wealthy businessman and steal his soul. Then you'd be rich. Or so a curandero told me once.

Edited by AtticaFlinch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing worse than a McMansion is the demolition of a McMansion. What a waste. So many of these homes whose owners have gone into bankruptcy are being bought at fire sales to be torn down.

I read an article over the weekend about one outside Atlanta that is the largest home in Georgia or something like that. It's supposed to be twice the size of the White House. It cost the owner $30 million to build, and some comedian bought it for $8 million. He plans to tear down the existing home and build an "environmentally friendly" mansion of his own.

You know what's "environmentally friendly?" How about not throwing a perfectly good house in the garbage!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing worse than a McMansion is the demolition of a McMansion. What a waste. So many of these homes whose owners have gone into bankruptcy are being bought at fire sales to be torn down.

I read an article over the weekend about one outside Atlanta that is the largest home in Georgia or something like that. It's supposed to be twice the size of the White House. It cost the owner $30 million to build, and some comedian bought it for $8 million. He plans to tear down the existing home and build an "environmentally friendly" mansion of his own.

You know what's "environmentally friendly?" How about not throwing a perfectly good house in the garbage!

How many? You've mentioned one. While I agree that tearing down to build new is more wasteful than repurposing or simply living in it, I haven't heard that it is epidemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing worse than a McMansion is the demolition of a McMansion. What a waste. So many of these homes whose owners have gone into bankruptcy are being bought at fire sales to be torn down.

I read an article over the weekend about one outside Atlanta that is the largest home in Georgia or something like that. It's supposed to be twice the size of the White House. It cost the owner $30 million to build, and some comedian bought it for $8 million. He plans to tear down the existing home and build an "environmentally friendly" mansion of his own.

You know what's "environmentally friendly?" How about not throwing a perfectly good house in the garbage!

Thanks for returning the topic to the subject.

I realize the definitions are fuzzy here, but that was a true mansion. To me the term 'McMansion' denotes more large tract houses than a custom one-off.

I don't object to McMansions per se as much as the fact that they end up getting built in areas like the Katy Prairie. The McMansion style is popular because it seems to give an appearance of good taste and prosperity. Whether the houses actually do is of course a matter of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing worse than a McMansion is the demolition of a McMansion. What a waste. So many of these homes whose owners have gone into bankruptcy are being bought at fire sales to be torn down.

I read an article over the weekend about one outside Atlanta that is the largest home in Georgia or something like that. It's supposed to be twice the size of the White House. It cost the owner $30 million to build, and some comedian bought it for $8 million. He plans to tear down the existing home and build an "environmentally friendly" mansion of his own.

You know what's "environmentally friendly?" How about not throwing a perfectly good house in the garbage!

In the 50's and 60's large Victorian houses were a drug on the market, and were known as 'white elephants'. The prevailing view was that these structures were ostentatious and obsolete, and many were demolished.

They possessed other attributes; interesting architecture, fine materials, careful craftsmanship. An appreciation of these qualities grew, and they're now jealously guarded as irreplaceable landmarks.

The McMansions of today, to my untrained eye, seem to be distinguished only by their sheer bulk. While it's regrettable that recent structures should be torn down and added to our overflowing landfills, perhaps the more efficient houses which take their place will be appreciated for their own attributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teardowns are off by about a third. New home sales have dropped through the floor. It is a natural consequence that McMansion building would drop with it. The unanswered question is whether they will return. I believe there will always be a market for oversized homes in certain circles. It was the extension of easy credit to a larger portion of the populace that fueled the unbridled McMansion craze. If lending practices return to mid-2000s levels, McMansions will return. If not, the McMansion as a common building type is likely gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 50's and 60's large Victorian houses were a drug on the market, and were known as 'white elephants'. The prevailing view was that these structures were ostentatious and obsolete, and many were demolished.

They possessed other attributes; interesting architecture, fine materials, careful craftsmanship. An appreciation of these qualities grew, and they're now jealously guarded as irreplaceable landmarks.

The McMansions of today, to my untrained eye, seem to be distinguished only by their sheer bulk. While it's regrettable that recent structures should be torn down and added to our overflowing landfills, perhaps the more efficient houses which take their place will be appreciated for their own attributes.

Your comment seems to contradict itself. McMansions are (generally) not ostentatious. They are large and functional, therefore highly efficient on a per square foot basis. I'm not sure what could replace them that would be more efficient, particularly after factoring in demolition costs and the opportunity cost.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some key points mentioned in relevant article about McMansions and housing trends (The Next Slums? - http://www.theatlant...xt-slum/6653/3/):

This future is not likely to wear well on suburban housing. Many of the inner-city neighborhoods that began their decline in the 1960s consisted of sturdily built, turn-of-the-century row houses, tough enough to withstand being broken up into apartments, and requiring relatively little upkeep. By comparison, modern suburban houses, even high-end McMansions, are cheaply built. Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than solid-oak doors and lath-and-plaster walls. The plywood floors that lurk under wood veneers or carpeting tend to break up and warp as the glue that holds the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typically need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built houses take what structural integrity they have from drywall—their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to hold the houses up.
Of course, not all suburbs will suffer this fate. Those that are affluent and relatively close to central cities—especially those along rail lines—are likely to remain in high demand. Some, especially those that offer a thriving, walkable urban core, may find that even the large-lot, residential-only neighborhoods around that core increase in value.

On the other hand, many inner suburbs that are on the wrong side of town, and poorly served by public transport, are already suffering what looks like inexorable decline. Low-income people, displaced from gentrifying inner cities, have moved in, and longtime residents, seeking more space and nicer neighborhoods, have moved out.

I doubt the swing toward urban living will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century; many people will still prefer the bigger houses and car-based lifestyles of conventional suburbs. But there will almost certainly be more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities—allowing people in most areas a wider variety of choices.
Edited by JJVilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unmitigated bull____. I'd expect better fact checking of articles in The Atlantic.

You're right. That is a load of bull. In fact, McMansions built in the City of Houston are required to be sheathed in OSB or plywood, have hurricane clips nailed to every stud, have straps nailed across the ridge of the roof, and the whole thing anchored to the slab...enough strapping to withstand 120 mph hurricanes. They are further required to have insulation throughout, have energy efficient windows, have every crack and crevice sealed and instal high efficiency air conditioners...all per City Code. Furthermore, most homes built in the City's ETJ follow the same codes. While there are homes built in the county that are not required to meet city codes, most new homes do so anyway.

This is by no means an endorsement of tract home builders, but things aren't as bad as that article suggests. Even crappy shingles come with 20 year guarantees.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 50's and 60's large Victorian houses were a drug on the market, and were known as 'white elephants'. The prevailing view was that these structures were ostentatious and obsolete, and many were demolished.

They possessed other attributes; interesting architecture, fine materials, careful craftsmanship. An appreciation of these qualities grew, and they're now jealously guarded as irreplaceable landmarks.

The McMansions of today, to my untrained eye, seem to be distinguished only by their sheer bulk. While it's regrettable that recent structures should be torn down and added to our overflowing landfills, perhaps the more efficient houses which take their place will be appreciated for their own attributes.

Coincidentally, I recently picked up a book on residential architecture that was published in the 1930s. The opinion of the author effectively mirrors the first part of your post, in that he criticizes Victorian houses for their excess and unnecessary complexity of their architectural features.

Considering the country was in the midst of the Great Depression at the time the book was published, it is no wonder that these buildings were unpopular. An architectural style that aspires to express wealth through the perception of large size, combined with copious amounts of ornamental features would naturally be seen as "gaudy" or "ostentatious" in a time when many people were being forced to adopt more frugal lifestyles. Furthermore, the additional maintenance of ornate architectural features resulted in additional expenses that also turned many people away from Victorian architecture.

It's fairly simple to draw a parallel between the Victorian houses from the turn of the 20th century and the McMansions from the turn of the 21st century, given that both house types share the same goal of conveying the perception of their occupants' wealth through architectural features.

The author of the book I was reading was lobbying for a return to Colonial-style homes, as the simplicity of their architecture results in lower construction and upkeep costs. The real estate market of the 1930s eventually came around to this as the lean economic times of the Great Depression wore on. The "Minimal Traditional" style became popular in the late 1930s and early 1940s (this is a simplified Colonial style; most original Lindale Park houses are considered Minimal Traditional). Homes continued to be simpler from the 1950s to the 1970s, as the "Ranch" style home prevailed. Homes didn't get larger and more lavish again until the 1980s when the Baby Boomer generation began to build homes. These people had not lived through the economic hardships of the Great Depression, so they had no qualms about demanding larger homes.

I think we will eventually see a similar paradigm shift towards more simple residential architecture for several reasons. First, as economic uncertainty and the memory of the housing market crash persists, many consumers will be reluctant (or forced) to hold back when making housing choices. Second, the growing popularity of "Green" construction will result in homebuyers who are more willing to forego luxury features in order to create the perception of having a "Green" lifestyle. Third, the growing interest in mid-century styles and architecture also carries with it a desire for more simple design.

As a disclaimer, I know I am making a few sweeping generalizations here. There always has been, and their always will be a segment of the population who desires the most "bang for their buck". The McMansion is not dead, nor will it ever die. However, I do believe that it will fall out of favor as the preferred housing type.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coincidentally, I recently picked up a book on residential architecture that was published in the 1930s. The opinion of the author effectively mirrors the first part of your post, in that he criticizes Victorian houses for their excess and unnecessary complexity of their architectural features.

Considering the country was in the midst of the Great Depression at the time the book was published, it is no wonder that these buildings were unpopular. An architectural style that aspires to express wealth through the perception of large size, combined with copious amounts of ornamental features would naturally be seen as "gaudy" or "ostentatious" in a time when many people were being forced to adopt more frugal lifestyles. Furthermore, the additional maintenance of ornate architectural features resulted in additional expenses that also turned many people away from Victorian architecture.

It's fairly simple to draw a parallel between the Victorian houses from the turn of the 20th century and the McMansions from the turn of the 21st century, given that both house types share the same goal of conveying the perception of their occupants' wealth through architectural features.

The author of the book I was reading was lobbying for a return to Colonial-style homes, as the simplicity of their architecture results in lower construction and upkeep costs. The real estate market of the 1930s eventually came around to this as the lean economic times of the Great Depression wore on. The "Minimal Traditional" style became popular in the late 1930s and early 1940s (this is a simplified Colonial style; most original Lindale Park houses are considered Minimal Traditional). Homes continued to be simpler from the 1950s to the 1970s, as the "Ranch" style home prevailed. Homes didn't get larger and more lavish again until the 1980s when the Baby Boomer generation began to build homes. These people had not lived through the economic hardships of the Great Depression, so they had no qualms about demanding larger homes.

I think we will eventually see a similar paradigm shift towards more simple residential architecture for several reasons. First, as economic uncertainty and the memory of the housing market crash persists, many consumers will be reluctant (or forced) to hold back when making housing choices. Second, the growing popularity of "Green" construction will result in homebuyers who are more willing to forego luxury features in order to create the perception of having a "Green" lifestyle. Third, the growing interest in mid-century styles and architecture also carries with it a desire for more simple design.

As a disclaimer, I know I am making a few sweeping generalizations here. There always has been, and their always will be a segment of the population who desires the most "bang for their buck". The McMansion is not dead, nor will it ever die. However, I do believe that it will fall out of favor as the preferred housing type.

Excellent post. One of the hallmarks of McMansions is the complex facades and rooflines, at least relative to the simpler modern and "Minimal Traditional" styles that were prevalent until the 1980s-1990s. The apparent architectural complexity for the sake of complexity is of course a signifier of wealth and may be one reason why they are so often seen as ostentatious.

mcmansion.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of you guys are confused to what a McMansion is? To me its the McDonalds part of the name that is key. Its a big tract house out in the burbs with no sense of architecture. Just a bunch of cliche elements all jumbled up together with no meaning, and put up quickly and cheaply without respect to its site or neighbors. That's a pretty good burger for the money, but size alone doesn't make a McMansion. And I will object and say that there is absolutely no Architectural Complexity in any of them. Far from it.

Edited by texas911
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of you guys are confused to what a McMansion is? To me its the McDonalds part of the name that is key. Its a big tract house out in the burbs with no sense of architecture. Just a bunch of cliche elements all jumbled up together with no meaning, and put up quickly and cheaply without respect to its site or neighbors. That's a pretty good burger for the money, but size alone doesn't make a McMansion. And I will object and say that there is absolutely no Architectural Complexity in any of them. Far from it.

I have to disagree. Size DOES matter. ( I know, that's what she said).

A 2000 sq ft home is hardly a mansion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it considered a McMansion if it is a 'reasonably' sized home but squeezed into a tiny lot?

My wife and I always debate - if we strike it rich she wants a home in Rice U - I want a home on a big piece of land :)

*edit*

After reading the above posts - to me it's cramming as much house as humanly possible on your land, and doing so with cheap building methods.

Using my definition you could hav a 1500 sqft McMansion. Like minds will differ?

Edited by Yankee_in_TX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McMansions are definitely springing up in River Oaks in my opinion, especially in Avalon Place.

To me, what makes a McMansion are as follows;

1) In an older neighborhood, a McMansion is usually a builder home that doesn't fit the scale of the neighborhood or the lot. These are popping up all over River Oaks, Avalon, West U, Southampton, Bellaire, etc... The types of houses that have 5,200 ft of living space on a 7,000 square foot lot whereas the home it replaced likely had between 2,000 to 3,000 sq feet of living space

2) Out in the burbs, the mass produced houses of large scale builders. Huge spaces built on the cheap but hopefully (for the builders) disguised by things like vaulted ceilings, grand entry ways, granite counter tops, stainless appliances, wine "cellars" and media rooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comment seems to contradict itself. McMansions are (generally) not ostentatious. They are large and functional, therefore highly efficient on a per square foot basis. I'm not sure what could replace them that would be more efficient, particularly after factoring in demolition costs and the opportunity cost.

The point was that 'large and functional' are traits which apply to institutional housing. The enduring value of yesteryear's structures is missing. What I see are stage sets; meant to impress from a distance (but don't look too close!), and of limited duration. Might as well tear them down now as later.

Link to comment
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...
×
×
  • Create New...