Remember a couple years ago, when there was the Architectural Competition for University Boulevard? (Click here to see the documentary depicting the process.) For those who weren’t here, University Boulevard is the area from the trolley bus loop to the bookstore, including the gym, the Aquatic Centre, and the plaza on the South side of the SUB. There were three designs, and the campus voted for the one they liked. The winning design is at left.

The idea was to create a “hub”, a central area on campus. It would create a mixed-use plaza, housing new administration buildings, shops, a cinema (ha!), and the underground bus loop. Another notable feature – the market housing lining the boulevard. (This writer believes that the basic idea of creating more of a “hub” on campus is a fundamentally good idea, but this idea is seriously flawed… read on!)

Criticisms abounded. The plan destroyed all open green space, would create an automobile thoroughfare where there probably shouldn’t be one, would hurt the SUB, place market housing right in the core of campus, and, most poignantly, destroy the grassy knoll.

Interestingly, the project has gone through no end of trouble. First, the jury approved a version different from that which people supported in the vote. Then there was the issue with the re-location of the outdoor pool. Next, the architects dropped out; rumour has it that they had difficulties working within the constraints of UBC Properties Trust. Add the cost over-runs, the division of the project into phases, the issues with the bus loop, and you’ve got a fiasco.

It came to a head in summer 2006 when the Board of Governors had a “fish or cut bait” meeting in Kelowna, where they had to make a final determination about the future of the project. It passed. But consider that the project was initially supposed to begin construction in late 2005; a year later the completion date was early 2008. Now, with no firm architects on board, the completion date is even fuzzier. At the last Board meeting, the discussion of the Boulevard was in closed session, reports Darren Peets, which indicates that the conversation is sensitive and probably weighty.

The implications, positive and negative, are weighty. Yes, it might create more community, a more vibrant “heart” to a campus that very dearly needs one. But at what cost? Of green space? Of the SUB’s health? Of market housing right at the student core? As well, the University is going through a hard decision; what ought the AMS role to be? A complete re-design? Scrapping the project? Continuing it, with major changes?

Where the candidates stand:
Jeff Friedrich – Specific “zoning” regime for student housing.
Jerry Fan Fan – Lobby University to allow only non-competing businesses. Have to be practical, not idealistic.
Brendon Goodmurphy – Prioritize study space, student and local businesses, student housing options, green space, and student employment
Bruce Krayenhoff – Include affordable student housing.
Darren Peets – We need to re-consider the project – “why are we doing this?”
Tristan Markle – Set requirement for 25% of students living on campus.


Comments

12 Comments so far

  1. maayan k on January 27, 2007 3:12 am

    What I don’t get is how the project could get to such an advanced stage of planning, and be so far away from what everyone wants, and what everyone will find acceptable. There was even a big model presentation in the SUB just last term. The synopsis in your article was helpful, but I’m pretty confused about the timing. Does the governance review fit ito how the BoG is approaching this project at all? It just seems bizzare to have had a contest, chosen a design, worked on the design, and then turned around and canned the design.

  2. maayan k on January 27, 2007 3:12 am

    What I don’t get is how the project could get to such an advanced stage of planning, and be so far away from what everyone wants, and what everyone will find acceptable. There was even a big model presentation in the SUB just last term. The synopsis in your article was helpful, but I’m pretty confused about the timing. Does the governance review fit ito how the BoG is approaching this project at all? It just seems bizzare to have had a contest, chosen a design, worked on the design, and then turned around and canned the design.

  3. Gina Eom on January 27, 2007 8:40 am

    total sidenote: holy timbits where did you dig this picture up?

  4. Gina Eom on January 27, 2007 8:40 am

    total sidenote: holy timbits where did you dig this picture up?

  5. Tim Louman-Gardiner on January 27, 2007 9:42 am

    Maayan,

    There’s (as far as I know) no relationship between the governance review and UBlvd. The review was prompted by Friedrich in response to Mahony’s in teh Strangway building, which isn’t technically part of UBlvd.

    So there’s really no relationship between them at all, which I definitely find interesting.

    Gina: which pic? The one you sent me (the knoll) or the model of the blvd.?

  6. Tim Louman-Gardiner on January 27, 2007 9:42 am

    Maayan,

    There’s (as far as I know) no relationship between the governance review and UBlvd. The review was prompted by Friedrich in response to Mahony’s in teh Strangway building, which isn’t technically part of UBlvd.

    So there’s really no relationship between them at all, which I definitely find interesting.

    Gina: which pic? The one you sent me (the knoll) or the model of the blvd.?

  7. Fire Hydrant on January 27, 2007 9:46 am

    I wrote a lengthy (massive) comment on this, attempted to preview it, and got an error logging in. Then the browser reloaded the page every second or so until it crashed. Sigh. This time I’m saving the work separately.

    The U Blvd story really starts with the Official Community Plan (1996), which allowed “mixed use” in a red blob around East Mall and University Boulevard, roughly covering the old bus loop, the rhododendrons outside Chem/Phys, and the entrances to the bookstore and Wesbrook. There was no mention of what these uses were, or whether housing was one of them, but some retail uses were expected.

    Around 1999, UBC came up with a “comprehensive community plan” that basically laid out what they thought they could get away with, and it was truly atrocious. There were now condos in the area.

    About 4 years ago, UBC Properties Trust came up with a neighbourhood plan for the area. This was highly top-down (described as the “design-display-defend” consultation model), and met with near-universal vehement opposition. Various parts that would have required OCP amendments were scrapped (cars through to Marine Drive, three 18-storey towers,…). Still, the only students in favour were the swim team, who would get a metric pool suitable for competitions. The faculty were perhaps even more annoyed — the Faculty of Science passed a motion of No Confidence in the Board over this.

    Why was this being done? Profit, so far as anyone could tell. The most lucrative commercial land on campus was the old bus loop, largely for its proximity to said bus loop. A transit study concluded that the then-status quo was actually the best model for a transit terminus, so it had to be buried, at a cost of about $15M, or possibly $17M (remember this number). The stuff built above ground would pay for it, then run a profit.

    The plan passed Board because the “dentistry” (Strangway) building and bus terminal were urgent. The plan could be fixed later. It passed with 1.5 pages of caveats, though — e.g. an architectural competition, all housing had to be “university rental” housing, and the AMS had to be involved in coming up with a plan for all of the retail and its placement. The “University of Shoppers Drugmart” welcome mat is the result of the latter part being ignored by Properties. “University rental housing” means that people working at UBC, TRIUMF, etc. could reasonably be expected to be able to afford it, but there would be no controls on who’d actually live there.

    And so we had an architectural competition. The area considered included U Blvd from Wesbrook to Main Malls, East Mall from the bookstore to SUB Blvd, both sides of U Blvd up to the buildings, the GSA Building at Wesbrook, the old bus loop, SUB plaza, and the grid of trees outside SUB. The documentary really is quite good — if you have 45 minutes to kill, I recommend it. I feature in it prominently, in part because of a penchant for sarcasm. Anyway, the bus terminal was now up to about $20M, and the stuff atop it $100M. There was no longer any hope that the stuff on top would pay for the bus terminal.

    Three anonymous teams’ submissions were shown to the public and the jury. In a poll, Team A won. It got 79%, B got 6%, C got 11%, and 4% of respondents figured out how to spoil an electronic ballot. A couple days before the poll opened, a student-initiated “none of these” option was canned. Teams B and C had atrocious and uninspiring designs respectively, and were both very poorly presented, while A was fairly well presented, had a number of good ideas, and clearly put some effort into understanding what students wanted there in order to mislead us and sway the poll. Hence, parking looked like forest and road looked like plaza. They also drew a TTC streetcar on East Mall outside the bookstore, for reasons that escape me.

    The jury eventually agreed that Team A was the best, but produced a second page of recommendations, never publicly released or mentioned, detailing what they wanted changed. This included no “ecostream”, far more parking, more brick, and no complicated, weird stairways in the plaza. The stuff atop the bus terminal now cost $120M.

    Team A turned out to be Moore Ruble Yudell of Santa Monica, paired with local firm Hughes Condon Marler. MRY eventually won the highest possible architectural award for this plan, and UBC’s Public Affairs department put full-page colour ads everywhere they could think of, so everyone was happy with the results of the contest.

    About a year ago, MRY walked away from the project. UBC’s explanation was that MRY were busy, had won all the accolades they could get (I’d point out anything built would be quite unpopular, and it’s best to go out on top, then blame problems on others), and they couldn’t agree on a fee. MRY says the fee never came up for discussion and they could easily afford the staff. There is “speculation” that MRY’s main reason for leaving was that they had a very strong commitment to public consultation, and Properties absolutely would not stand for such a thing. Oh, and the bus terminal was up to $30M.

    MRY was replaced by Kuwabara Paine Someone Somebody of Toronto, and they came back with a plan in November, based on MRY’s designs and assorted input. It was run past several committees and went to an open house in SUB. In all venues, and by all levels of admin, students, faculty, etc., it was roundly panned. This was the first time the thing had really been rendered properly, so that people could actually visualize it. It looked like Buchanan with giant shoeboxes sticking out, and the glass roof was now mostly made of considerably-less-transparent douglas-fir. No matter, the roof would have cost $7M anyway. We don’t really need it — it’s not like it rains here. The bus terminal? $35M.

    In fact, the cost of moving the pool had nearly doubled (far exceeding available funds), preventing the “admin” building from being built (it would have had just over one floor of admin in it, to be financially viable), and the GSAB site would have to be a separate third phase, because “admin” didn’t mean the same admin currently housed in GSAB, so GASBers would need to be moved somewhere first. So now we have three phases.

    For that matter, it was also by this point concluded that not all the buses could fit in the terminal, so the trolleys would stay on the surface, across the street in some green space. Because they have those poles sticking out the top, this saves $1-2M in digging, and another $4M is saved in not having to expand under the East Mall sidewalk, which conceals the campus IT spine. By their estimates, the terminal should hold all the diesel buses for a good 15 years, by which time hopefully we’d have SkyTrain. But it would never be possible to put the trolleys underground because of the shallower excavation, so it’s assumed they’ll be phased out by then.

    Interestingly, the transit ridership estimates used were done before U-Pass, and U-Pass was roughly twice as successful as expected, so I’m not convinced the terminal would be able to hold all the diesel buses required even when it opened.

    Kuwabara Paine worked tirelessly through December redoing the plans for Phase I (bus terminal site) from scratch, so early January brought a whole new scheme for us to look at. Oddly, it looked exactly like its predecessor, but without the atrium roof and with splotches of brick on it for colour. Properties had had a cost consultant look at the plan to try to cut costs (and because they didn’t believe the architects’ estimates). I didn’t get to read the result, because that part of the presentation was skipped over in disgust. Let’s call the terminal $40M.

    As with all versions of this scheme, the plaza atop the new bus terminal would be a concrete slab, although the more recent version has trees growing out of it. Their roots would be in the transit level, whe
    re I would ordinarily expect to find buses — possibly yet another not-quite-thought-through aspect of the whole mess.

    Incidentally, I recently plotted bus terminal cost vs. time, and it’s higher than exponential. It extrapolates to $50M later this year, and $100M in late 2009.

    So, there we stand. We have an ugly and unaffordable set of buildings on top of a too-small bus terminal (there’s at least one other critical flaw in its design, but that one take some explaining), no roof, and a set of land uses almost nobody actually wants anyway. Phase I may become three phases: the tunnel into the bus terminal, the bus terminal itself, and anything atop it, and none of these phases is guaranteed to happen. The higher-ups, of course, want to add a sixth floor to everything, build buildings down the south side of the road, triple the retail, and have all the other additions be market condos. All students have ever been asked is whether they wanted the plan (no) (too bad) and whether they wanted it to be white, gray or brown (brown) (brown it is!). “Fiasco” may be an understatement.

    My more fundamental concerns:

    – First, the bus terminal site is immediately downwind of Chemistry, next to the Pit, and atop the second-busiest transit transfer point in BC (after Broadway/Commercial). If you’re looking for toxic and corrosive air, this may be the best place in the region. If you’re looking for loud, drunken students urinating and vomiting in public at 2am, this place is as good as any. Speaking of noise, Chem’s fumehood fans sound like jet engines, but are sheilded from ground level by concrete. The project would fit well in Port Moody, but this is possibly the single least appropriate place for it.

    – We’re divesting ourselves of core academic land. This could be classrooms, research labs, offices, 24-hour study space, or, heaven forbid, azaleas, grass, trees, and/or rhododendrons.

    – We’re making the main entrance to campus urban, when it’s clear students dislike that and rather prefer green space.

    – The single most popular piece of open space on campus is the grassy knoll outside SUB. That area would be a concrete slab with restaurants around it. There have been thoughts of putting a mini-knoll in front of Wesbrook to replace the current knoll, but Wesbrook may not be long for this world, there may not be much space there, and the solar orientation’s not great.

    – The intent is to let cars drive in on U Blvd and turn left on East Mall, with loads of parking available. The social and pedestrian heart of campus is not an appropriate place for this, and backups due to people crossing in front of cars could jam up the trolleys, which would be on the surface in the area.

    – We’d be spending $40M on a bus terminal that could last, at best, 15 years without SkyTrain, could never hold trolleys, and can likely never be expanded. UBC is dotted with “temporary” buildings. There’s no such thing as “temporary” here.

    – And, of course, the level of consultation that got us to this point (i.e. before the competition) is disgraceful.

    Note: some of you will be alarmed at the prospect of an underground bus terminal. It would be open and well-lit, looks like it would have decent sight lines, and would be staffed by security at all times.

    I, personally, feel the transit terminal is important, and has to be done right. But not if doing so prevents us from building enough daycare spaces, for instance. The public space atop it also has to be done right, and needs something to break it up, or else it will be too collosal and empty. Something like a knoll. Possibly hollow, with a hobbitt-themed coffee shop inside it. I’m not fundamentally opposed to more retail in the area, but it has to be tastefully done, subtle, quirky, and not major chains. If there’s to be a plaza that students would want to use year-round, it will need a roof, and it may need things resembling walls to make it feel contained and not just wide open and empty. Other than that, I see no need for buildings, and housing would be better aimed at students and better located elsewhere (like the current diesel loop).

    We really do need to ask why we’re doing this. Profit’s no longer possible, so if we’re building something students don’t want, who does want it and why? Are we actually trying to accomplish something here, or is it just being driven by inertia?

    Above all, we need to be guided by “first, do no harm.” Oh, and this has basically nothing to do with the governance review, but the Strangway Building (and Mahoney’s) is part of U Blvd, it and the bus terminal were excluded from the competition, for speed and technical reasons respectively.

    –Darren Peets

  8. Fire Hydrant on January 27, 2007 9:46 am

    I wrote a lengthy (massive) comment on this, attempted to preview it, and got an error logging in. Then the browser reloaded the page every second or so until it crashed. Sigh. This time I’m saving the work separately.

    The U Blvd story really starts with the Official Community Plan (1996), which allowed “mixed use” in a red blob around East Mall and University Boulevard, roughly covering the old bus loop, the rhododendrons outside Chem/Phys, and the entrances to the bookstore and Wesbrook. There was no mention of what these uses were, or whether housing was one of them, but some retail uses were expected.

    Around 1999, UBC came up with a “comprehensive community plan” that basically laid out what they thought they could get away with, and it was truly atrocious. There were now condos in the area.

    About 4 years ago, UBC Properties Trust came up with a neighbourhood plan for the area. This was highly top-down (described as the “design-display-defend” consultation model), and met with near-universal vehement opposition. Various parts that would have required OCP amendments were scrapped (cars through to Marine Drive, three 18-storey towers,…). Still, the only students in favour were the swim team, who would get a metric pool suitable for competitions. The faculty were perhaps even more annoyed — the Faculty of Science passed a motion of No Confidence in the Board over this.

    Why was this being done? Profit, so far as anyone could tell. The most lucrative commercial land on campus was the old bus loop, largely for its proximity to said bus loop. A transit study concluded that the then-status quo was actually the best model for a transit terminus, so it had to be buried, at a cost of about $15M, or possibly $17M (remember this number). The stuff built above ground would pay for it, then run a profit.

    The plan passed Board because the “dentistry” (Strangway) building and bus terminal were urgent. The plan could be fixed later. It passed with 1.5 pages of caveats, though — e.g. an architectural competition, all housing had to be “university rental” housing, and the AMS had to be involved in coming up with a plan for all of the retail and its placement. The “University of Shoppers Drugmart” welcome mat is the result of the latter part being ignored by Properties. “University rental housing” means that people working at UBC, TRIUMF, etc. could reasonably be expected to be able to afford it, but there would be no controls on who’d actually live there.

    And so we had an architectural competition. The area considered included U Blvd from Wesbrook to Main Malls, East Mall from the bookstore to SUB Blvd, both sides of U Blvd up to the buildings, the GSA Building at Wesbrook, the old bus loop, SUB plaza, and the grid of trees outside SUB. The documentary really is quite good — if you have 45 minutes to kill, I recommend it. I feature in it prominently, in part because of a penchant for sarcasm. Anyway, the bus terminal was now up to about $20M, and the stuff atop it $100M. There was no longer any hope that the stuff on top would pay for the bus terminal.

    Three anonymous teams’ submissions were shown to the public and the jury. In a poll, Team A won. It got 79%, B got 6%, C got 11%, and 4% of respondents figured out how to spoil an electronic ballot. A couple days before the poll opened, a student-initiated “none of these” option was canned. Teams B and C had atrocious and uninspiring designs respectively, and were both very poorly presented, while A was fairly well presented, had a number of good ideas, and clearly put some effort into understanding what students wanted there in order to mislead us and sway the poll. Hence, parking looked like forest and road looked like plaza. They also drew a TTC streetcar on East Mall outside the bookstore, for reasons that escape me.

    The jury eventually agreed that Team A was the best, but produced a second page of recommendations, never publicly released or mentioned, detailing what they wanted changed. This included no “ecostream”, far more parking, more brick, and no complicated, weird stairways in the plaza. The stuff atop the bus terminal now cost $120M.

    Team A turned out to be Moore Ruble Yudell of Santa Monica, paired with local firm Hughes Condon Marler. MRY eventually won the highest possible architectural award for this plan, and UBC’s Public Affairs department put full-page colour ads everywhere they could think of, so everyone was happy with the results of the contest.

    About a year ago, MRY walked away from the project. UBC’s explanation was that MRY were busy, had won all the accolades they could get (I’d point out anything built would be quite unpopular, and it’s best to go out on top, then blame problems on others), and they couldn’t agree on a fee. MRY says the fee never came up for discussion and they could easily afford the staff. There is “speculation” that MRY’s main reason for leaving was that they had a very strong commitment to public consultation, and Properties absolutely would not stand for such a thing. Oh, and the bus terminal was up to $30M.

    MRY was replaced by Kuwabara Paine Someone Somebody of Toronto, and they came back with a plan in November, based on MRY’s designs and assorted input. It was run past several committees and went to an open house in SUB. In all venues, and by all levels of admin, students, faculty, etc., it was roundly panned. This was the first time the thing had really been rendered properly, so that people could actually visualize it. It looked like Buchanan with giant shoeboxes sticking out, and the glass roof was now mostly made of considerably-less-transparent douglas-fir. No matter, the roof would have cost $7M anyway. We don’t really need it — it’s not like it rains here. The bus terminal? $35M.

    In fact, the cost of moving the pool had nearly doubled (far exceeding available funds), preventing the “admin” building from being built (it would have had just over one floor of admin in it, to be financially viable), and the GSAB site would have to be a separate third phase, because “admin” didn’t mean the same admin currently housed in GSAB, so GASBers would need to be moved somewhere first. So now we have three phases.

    For that matter, it was also by this point concluded that not all the buses could fit in the terminal, so the trolleys would stay on the surface, across the street in some green space. Because they have those poles sticking out the top, this saves $1-2M in digging, and another $4M is saved in not having to expand under the East Mall sidewalk, which conceals the campus IT spine. By their estimates, the terminal should hold all the diesel buses for a good 15 years, by which time hopefully we’d have SkyTrain. But it would never be possible to put the trolleys underground because of the shallower excavation, so it’s assumed they’ll be phased out by then.

    Interestingly, the transit ridership estimates used were done before U-Pass, and U-Pass was roughly twice as successful as expected, so I’m not convinced the terminal would be able to hold all the diesel buses required even when it opened.

    Kuwabara Paine worked tirelessly through December redoing the plans for Phase I (bus terminal site) from scratch, so early January brought a whole new scheme for us to look at. Oddly, it looked exactly like its predecessor, but without the atrium roof and with splotches of brick on it for colour. Properties had had a cost consultant look at the plan to try to cut costs (and because they didn’t believe the architects’ estimates). I didn’t get to read the result, because that part of the presentation was skipped over in disgust. Let’s call the terminal $40M.

    As with all versions of this scheme, the plaza atop the new bus terminal would be a concrete slab, although the more recent version has trees growing out of it. Their roots would be in the transit level, whe
    re I would ordinarily expect to find buses — possibly yet another not-quite-thought-through aspect of the whole mess.

    Incidentally, I recently plotted bus terminal cost vs. time, and it’s higher than exponential. It extrapolates to $50M later this year, and $100M in late 2009.

    So, there we stand. We have an ugly and unaffordable set of buildings on top of a too-small bus terminal (there’s at least one other critical flaw in its design, but that one take some explaining), no roof, and a set of land uses almost nobody actually wants anyway. Phase I may become three phases: the tunnel into the bus terminal, the bus terminal itself, and anything atop it, and none of these phases is guaranteed to happen. The higher-ups, of course, want to add a sixth floor to everything, build buildings down the south side of the road, triple the retail, and have all the other additions be market condos. All students have ever been asked is whether they wanted the plan (no) (too bad) and whether they wanted it to be white, gray or brown (brown) (brown it is!). “Fiasco” may be an understatement.

    My more fundamental concerns:

    – First, the bus terminal site is immediately downwind of Chemistry, next to the Pit, and atop the second-busiest transit transfer point in BC (after Broadway/Commercial). If you’re looking for toxic and corrosive air, this may be the best place in the region. If you’re looking for loud, drunken students urinating and vomiting in public at 2am, this place is as good as any. Speaking of noise, Chem’s fumehood fans sound like jet engines, but are sheilded from ground level by concrete. The project would fit well in Port Moody, but this is possibly the single least appropriate place for it.

    – We’re divesting ourselves of core academic land. This could be classrooms, research labs, offices, 24-hour study space, or, heaven forbid, azaleas, grass, trees, and/or rhododendrons.

    – We’re making the main entrance to campus urban, when it’s clear students dislike that and rather prefer green space.

    – The single most popular piece of open space on campus is the grassy knoll outside SUB. That area would be a concrete slab with restaurants around it. There have been thoughts of putting a mini-knoll in front of Wesbrook to replace the current knoll, but Wesbrook may not be long for this world, there may not be much space there, and the solar orientation’s not great.

    – The intent is to let cars drive in on U Blvd and turn left on East Mall, with loads of parking available. The social and pedestrian heart of campus is not an appropriate place for this, and backups due to people crossing in front of cars could jam up the trolleys, which would be on the surface in the area.

    – We’d be spending $40M on a bus terminal that could last, at best, 15 years without SkyTrain, could never hold trolleys, and can likely never be expanded. UBC is dotted with “temporary” buildings. There’s no such thing as “temporary” here.

    – And, of course, the level of consultation that got us to this point (i.e. before the competition) is disgraceful.

    Note: some of you will be alarmed at the prospect of an underground bus terminal. It would be open and well-lit, looks like it would have decent sight lines, and would be staffed by security at all times.

    I, personally, feel the transit terminal is important, and has to be done right. But not if doing so prevents us from building enough daycare spaces, for instance. The public space atop it also has to be done right, and needs something to break it up, or else it will be too collosal and empty. Something like a knoll. Possibly hollow, with a hobbitt-themed coffee shop inside it. I’m not fundamentally opposed to more retail in the area, but it has to be tastefully done, subtle, quirky, and not major chains. If there’s to be a plaza that students would want to use year-round, it will need a roof, and it may need things resembling walls to make it feel contained and not just wide open and empty. Other than that, I see no need for buildings, and housing would be better aimed at students and better located elsewhere (like the current diesel loop).

    We really do need to ask why we’re doing this. Profit’s no longer possible, so if we’re building something students don’t want, who does want it and why? Are we actually trying to accomplish something here, or is it just being driven by inertia?

    Above all, we need to be guided by “first, do no harm.” Oh, and this has basically nothing to do with the governance review, but the Strangway Building (and Mahoney’s) is part of U Blvd, it and the bus terminal were excluded from the competition, for speed and technical reasons respectively.

    –Darren Peets

  9. Anonymous on January 27, 2007 12:19 pm

    That was an amazingly educational review of the University Boulevard issue. Wow.

  10. Anonymous on January 27, 2007 12:19 pm

    That was an amazingly educational review of the University Boulevard issue. Wow.

  11. Anonymous on January 28, 2007 4:19 am

    That article taught me so much. I was so amazed.
    Thank you, Darren

    Alfie Lee, Senate Candidate

  12. Anonymous on January 28, 2007 4:19 am

    That article taught me so much. I was so amazed.
    Thank you, Darren

    Alfie Lee, Senate Candidate

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet