Seven years ago Kevin Drum wrote a very nice review of Joel Garreau's excellent Edge City:
Posted by DeLong at April 4, 2004 03:13 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postDrumNet - Edge City: ... [Joel] Garreau provides five concrete prerequisites for an area to be called an edge city, but the most important one by far is this: an edge city must have 5 million square feet of leasable office space. This fundamentally distinguishes an edge city from a simple residential suburb and makes it into a place where people live, work, and shop, just like a traditional downtown. Or sorta like, anyway. In fact, the conflict between edge cities and densely populated downtown cities (or CBDs--Central Business Districts--as he calls them) runs throughout this book and forms one of the core dilemmas of urban planning in America for the past 50 years. The dilemma looks something like this:
1. Edge cities are sterile and lifeless. 2. To give them more flavor and a better sense of community (i.e., more like an old-time CBD), you need lots of funky shops, used bookstores, ethnic restaurants, mass transit, etc. 3. None of those things make economic sense until a certain density level is reached. 4. However, Americans appear, on a massive level, to dislike the high densities of urban cores.
Thus, the central problem: If a sense of community requires high densities, and Americans don't like high densities, how will edge cities ever gain a sense of community? It's a good question, but if you're looking for an answer you'll have to look elsewhere, because although Garreau reflects intelligently on this question throughout the book he admits that it doesn't look like anyone really has an answer yet. And maybe never will.
However, Garreau does offer some interesting insights into why edge cities have developed so rapidly in postwar America, and the prime one is this: it's not edge cities that are the aberration but the old-time CBDs: "Throughout human evolution, most people lived in the countryside; few in the city. Only in the last century was that order reversed, and cities became top heavy." Garreau suggests that the extremely dense American urban core was a temporary response to the industrial revolution, with workers swarming into the cities solely because that's where the jobs were, not because it was natural to enjoy being crammed into tenements and apartment high-rises.
What's more, if it was jobs that created our old urban cores, Garreau tells us that it is also jobs that are creating edge cities. Specifically, jobs for women. Edge cities began to take off in the late 70s, which was also the peak year in all American history for women entering the work force: The spike year was 1978. That same year, a multitude of developers independently decided to start putting up big office buildings out beyond the traditional male-dominated downtown. Land was more abundant and more automobile-accessible in the residential suburbs that had once been condescendingly referred to as "the realm of women." And the new advantage was proximity to the emerging work force. These Edge City work centers were convenient for women. It saved them time. This discovery was potent. A decade later, developers viewed it as a truism that office buildings had an indisputable advantage if they were located near the best-educated, most conscientious, most stable workers--underemployed females living in middle class communities on the fringes of the old urban areas.
On a more practical level, Edge City also provides a primer on the nuts and bolts of how development is done in edge cities and how it all revolves around one fundamental, never changing prime motivator: parking. Yep, parking. "Ample free parking" is the touchstone difference between edge cities and CBDs, and developers have to site the parking for their buildings before they can design the building itself...
We see this out here. Waikiki has 25,000 residents in addition to all the tourists, but other than those who have to, we refuse to go into that part of town because the parking is so horrendous.
Posted by: Linkmeister on April 4, 2004 03:53 PMOne comment on Garreau's argument about urban history & anomaly. Although very large cities have traditionally been the exception in human settlement, dense, urban places have not. Anyone who's been to Europe recognizes this. Koblenz and Montabaur and Hillegom are not big cities, but they are dense and urban and full of character. They possess exactly what edge cities lack. They may not be useful models, as such, for Edge City, but they illustrate that desirable urban living is entirely compatible with low and moderate populations.
Perhaps not with free parking , though....
Posted by: JRoth on April 4, 2004 04:14 PMthere are few things more painful than trying to navigate a European city, whether a large one like Paris, a mid-sized entry like Amsterdam or a small one like Koblenz, via automobile. conversely, navigating these same cities by public transit and foot is usually quite pleasant.
the edge city is the new reality, and I expect J.G. Ballard is quite pleased at his own prescience. as for me, I hate 'em and try strenuously to keep myself near real cities.
to each his own, I guess.
Kevin reprised some of the "Edge City" points today over at www.washingtonmonthly.com . I found the following fascinating:
"And finally, a series of laws that helps explain the lack of mass transit in edge cities and why this will never change. Note that "FAR" stands for "Floor-to-Area Ratio," the ratio of the total floorspace of a building to the area of the land the building is on. It's basically a measure of population density.
The level of density at which automobile congestion starts becoming noticeable in edge city: 0.25 FAR.
The level of density at which it is necessary to construct parking garages instead of parking lots because you have run out of land: 0.4 FAR.
The level of density at which traffic jams become a major political issue in edge city: 1.0 FAR.
The level of density beyond which few edge cities ever get: 1.5 FAR.
The level of density at which light rail transit starts making economic sense: 2.0 FAR.
The level of density of a typical old downtown: 5.0 FAR.
The density-gap corollary to the laws of density: Edge cities always develop to the point where they become dense enough to make people crazy with the traffic, but rarely, if ever, do they get dense enough to support the rail alternative to automobile traffic."
Just a comment on something else that I think is a factor besides free parking: traffic congestion.
As population increases, congestion increases and commutes get worse, and living somewhere close to your job becomes more desirable. If your job is right in your community, that's a big plus.
I'd also point out regarding "communities" that unlike the rest of the world, we have very, very cheap gasoline. This makes it less of an economic burden for us to drive long distances to do our shopping, working, etc.
In Japan, on the other hand, you can't afford to do that. People must use their cars very sparingly. So I think that helps explain why they have tons of little stores sprinkled everywhere in "residential" areas that let you walk to do most of your shopping. I haven't been to Europe but I suspect expensive gasoline has similar effects there too.
Posted by: DanM on April 4, 2004 05:22 PMIf cities don't provide for residents and places to accomodate them in the downtown, that city will be sterile. Few people live around Wall Street and it is empty at night compared to the Village.
Many people like urban living, but will not do so if it is too inconvenient or unaffordable.
I really think the author misses the point and fails to distinguish between daytime density and residential density. A lot of "sterile" small cities have few living in the downtown areas.
Posted by: bakho on April 4, 2004 06:01 PMhttp://www.newcolonist.com/edgeless.html
Edge Cities are yesterday's news. Now it's Edgeless Cities. I'm from Atlanta, where it's becoming apparent that there won't be another Edge City, even if we manage to do something with the ones we already have, which we probably won't.
Still, Garreau's book is a must-read. I'm still continually amazed at how many people I encounter who should've read it and haven't.
Posted by: Tom Marney on April 4, 2004 07:39 PM“If a sense of community requires high densities, and Americans don't like high densities, how will edge cities ever gain a sense of community?”
I’m not sure a sense of community requires high density, but in any case Americans don’t like high densities for a number of sensible reasons. For one thing, people like to feel safe when they walk the streets, especially with regard to their children. As I child I lived in the upper west side of Manhattan, and I walked the neighborhood with no sense of danger. In those days the beat cop would interrogate anyone who looked or behaved threatening. Today things are different. Last September I spent about a week on west 72nd Street, and almost every time I left my hotel, I had to face the same menacing street bum. He not only looked and acted menacing, he was truly menacing as I found out from a doorman. It seems this guy was a permanent fixture of the neighborhood and had attacked women on the street. He was even arrested once, but to no effect, the doorman said he was out of custody in less than two hours and back at his usual spot annoying everyone. The city does not seem to have the will or the means to put an end to this sort of thing so people either put up with it, or move to “the edge city.”
Garreau has interesting ideas, but I can't agree with the notion that Americans don't like high-density urban areas. I live in the SF Bay area, in a lower-density area. I and virtually everybody I know would live in the city if we could possibly afford it. Why can't we afford it? Why, because so many others want to live in the city that shelter costs there are crazy-high. The edge city phenom exists because people want to be close to the city, not because they want to get away from it. These crummy housing developments going up in previously rural areas on the outskirts--do you think anyone really wants to live there? They only live there because it's the only thing they can afford.
Posted by: Nancy Irving on April 4, 2004 08:00 PMNancy Irving writes:
>
> Garreau has interesting ideas, but I can't agree with the
> notion that Americans don't like high-density urban
> areas. I live in the SF Bay area, in a lower-density area. I
> and virtually everybody I know would live in the city if we
> could possibly afford it. Why can't we afford it? Why,
> because so many others want to live in the city that
> shelter costs there are crazy-high.
Interestingly, but surprisingly to some people, the Bay area is NOT representative of most metropolitan areas in the US! Wow, like who'd a thunk *that*?
But, just for a minute, pretend you were living in (or, way more likely, around) St. Louis. Housing is completely affordable in many places in St. Louis (or Kansas City, or Detroit, or...) with just a few "gotchas". The primary one being that: if you live there, your kids have the choice of going to a bombed out public school or whatever private school you can or can't afford. On the other hand, if you lived in suburb Y, your housing costs would be rather higher (but affordable) and you feel your kids could safely go to public school. Obviously, this is a caricature, but it's close enough to being true for our purposes. In this situation, the basic demographic data tells us that people prefer "Y". I can still buy a house in the city of St. Louis if I want, and pay a lot less (even after renovation) than I do in, e.g., Chesterfield, but not very many people find this to be a worthwhile deal. Again, this is contrary to what is happening in SF or (now) San Diego, but those places are not typical.
You also say:
> The edge city phenom exists because people want to be
> close to the city, not because they want to get away from
> it. These crummy housing developments going up in
> previously rural areas on the outskirts--do you think
> anyone really wants to live there? They only live there
> because it's the only thing they can afford.
You are correct that people want to be close (enough) to the city, but I can only wish you were right about the crappy developments part. A subdivision in St. Charles County, MO (fastest growing place in the state) is cheaper than Clatyon, but a heck of a lot more expensive than many places in St. Louis the city (or the county). Unlike the situation in SF, this is the *most expensive place* they can afford. Is it a pending disaster area? OH yeah, without doubt. Do people still move there at the highest practical velocity? 'Fraid so. Is it going to be yet another Edge(less) city? You bet. O'Fallon was a corn field, then the site of a huge credit card financial operation, and now a city of over 50,000 people. Inside of 15 years.
No, for me the really scary part is that Garreau got it almost exactly right 13 years ago, and little has changed in the interim to invalidate his basic premises. (One thing that may have changed is that Edge Cities may have gotten even less dense than the 5 million square feet of office space criterion.) So you really can't afford to live almost anywhere in SF, SD, Boston, NY or even LA, but housing costs can be below construction costs in Philly, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and many, many other places. It is a major puzzle, I agree.
Tom Marney writes:
> http://www.newcolonist.com/edgeless.html
>
> Edge Cities are yesterday's news. Now it's Edgeless Cities.
> I'm from Atlanta, where it's becoming apparent that there
> won't be another Edge City, even if we manage to do
> something with the ones we already have, which we
> probably won't.
Two points here. First, thanks for the link, which in turn links to a Brookings report on this. Second, I think it's clear that Alanta is another extreme case (one opposite to San Fransisco, to be sure). Atlanta and Phoenix and Las Vegas are, I think, the first places to start from very little and get Truly Big in the post-war automobile age. (Atlanta was bigger than the other two, but it was the only big place within hundreds of miles in the old South.)
As far as the Brookings report goes, I think it's pretty deeply flawed by looking only at 13 extremely large metro areas. That alone will make your coverage spotty, but just below the radar of this report you get the endless wash of a good chunk of the metro US today: Seattle, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, Nashville, Charlotte, San Diego, Portland and on and on and on. And then there are now whole metros whose cores were never really big enough to qualify as big cities, and are now essentially "all edge" (in the Midwest alone, any place named Springfield, Des Moines, Omaha, Lincoln, Columbia, Madison, Ann Arbor, etc.) I agree we're past the point of just CBD and Edge City, but I don't know that "Edgeless City" captures the growing ranks of places whose effective metro populations are in the 250K range.
> Still, Garreau's book is a must-read. I'm still continually
> amazed at how many people I encounter who should've
> read it and haven't.
It is a must-read. When you come to terms with what developers face when they've got a chunk of land and a desire to maximize future income and realize that it all comes down to parking spaces and where the sewerage system is...brrr.
Posted by: Jonathan King on April 4, 2004 09:09 PM“I live in the SF Bay area, in a lower-density area. I and virtually everybody I know would live in the city if we could possibly afford it.”
The Bay Area does have edge cities, and dare say some people don’t want to live in SF even those can afford it. Let’s look at the historical population (the last column is population rank).
1940 634,536 12
1950 775,357 11
1960 740,316 12
1970 715,674 13
1980 678,974 13
1990 723,959 14
2000 776,733 13
We see that the population decreased for about 30 years, reflecting a movement to the edge cities in the Bay Area. The last 20 years shows a population increase, but 2000 is barely higher than 1950. This is the same pattern we see all over the country (including NYC).
well, it's not just parking: it's cheap gasoline. Quadruple the price of gas and density would go up quickly. It's really not clear what our reserves are; some think they are vastly overstated, and we could peak in terms of oil output within ten years. If that is true, the economics of edge city development will change drastically.
that said, i think edge cities are very 'white'. white suburbanites have particular ways they express anti-social feelings: by being republicans, and by living in communities with low social cohesion, no side walks, no stores, little social interaction, etc. there are many places in the world where social interaction on the street is an important source of pleasure. the ways that such pleasures provoke horror in white surburbanites is actually a measure of anti-social attitudes and feelings.
Posted by: camille roy on April 4, 2004 10:15 PMDoes he discuss the role of racism and white flight in the growth of edge cities? Large swaths of downtown Detroit were destroyed in 1960s race riots. It is still not rebuilt.
Interestingly, Indianapolis is the 11th largest city in the US and does not have Edge Cities. One reasons is Richard Lugar, mayor of Indianapolis in the 60s (and one of the true remaining statesmen of the GOP) forged a move to unify the governments of Indianapolis and all the governments in the county (unigov). With a single tax base, Indy never lost its tax base and did not deteriorate the way some cities did. There was no competition between city center and edge communities for tax incentives to locate tall office buildings outside the city center.
The Chicago edge cities like Rosemont are on a separate tax base and compete with Chicago. Lots of people live in Chicago and like to live there. I don't buy this "people don't want to live in urban areas" idea. I agree with Nancy, mostly it is affordability. The population numbers are misleading. There is a limit to the density of any urban area can withstand without changing the character of the area. SF is surrounded by other municipalities. It cannot grow out and cannot grow much more dense without serious restructuring. Boston is the same way. NYC is not increasing in density. They would have to build into Central Park, something no New Yorker would support.
Posted by: bakho on April 4, 2004 10:27 PMI think Atlanta is the classic area to study edge cities, and their beltways with a classic central urban core. What an amazing time the late '70's and 80's was in Atlanta!
San Jose, on the other hand, is a somewhat different archetype. Because of the Bay, San Jose's edge cities moved linearly away from it in the form of a horseshoe, to become mini-"cities" of their own, although they all look alike, and if you're from out of town, even with a map, save that last bullet for yourself (just kidding, go visit Riverside, S.CA, if you want to experience out-of-body street-level travel).
None of them work. Young kids are moving back into the inner cities, gentrifying them, re-urbanizing them, leaving edge cities for day workers, and any nighttime lost vacationers. ;)
I still have edge city nightmares even today. Wonder if micro- and macro-cosm mirroring can explain the parallel between our centralized mindset of the 40's and 50's, to the turned-on, tuned-in edge-scape mentalities that followed.
Will our urban architecture devolve into an MDMA ecstacy of linear drum and bass office spaces, throbbing traffic flows pulsating through them,
and a pulsating hangover the next day's commute?
e.g. World as Tokyo?!
Posted by: Nick Paul on April 5, 2004 12:14 AMSprawl-- edged or edgeless-- is all about externalities. In order to curtail sprawl, it will be essential to curtail the ability of developers to externalize the societal costs and burdens their developments generate, which in turn will require profound (though entirely sensible) political change, especially at the local level.
I'm no expert, but I've written a paper on the subject that, I'm told, is quite good. If anyone would like to see it, email me.
Posted by: Tom Marney on April 5, 2004 03:19 AMI trust that everybody around this joint is working on Jane Jacobs's Economics Nobel -- for her magnificent, and very very important, "Death and Life of Great American Cities."
This was important not just because it turned urban planning around for the good in a single generation. It deserves the Economics Nobel because it corrected the false notion that human wealth consists of cities built on mysteriously spontaneous bucolic surpluses: the wealth of settlements is preliminary to the invention of, inter alia, agriculture. This was news to everybody at the time.
Funny -- nobody here is talking about how government intervention helped to create both dense urban structures, then suburbia, then edge cities. For economists, you're forgetting your primary shibboleth!
Secondly, about safety -- I feel much safer in a CBD than in an edge city. In a CBD, there are people around, which makes me safe. In an edge city, I am vulnerable and exposed. Not only can I not walk, but even entering and elaving my car in a lot I know that I can get jumped easily and nobody would be the wiser.
Posted by: Random on April 5, 2004 07:08 AMInteresting David Brooks piece in the NYT magazine this w/e. taking aim at critiques of suburban conformity and soullessness. From a forthcoming monograph.
Posted by: james b on April 5, 2004 07:46 AMAnecdote time.
From Melbourne, Australia;
There was a coordinated effort to keep residents in the central business district, so that the place would have some life after 5pm, called Postcode 3000.
It was, and is, quite successful, but gave rise to some nice adapt and survive tactics early on.
For instance, there was basically nowhere to buy late night "how did I run out of that?" supplies. Toilet paper, milk, that sort of thing. So the residents came to an arrangement with the local strip clubs and adult bars, who were actually open late, to keep things like that on hand for them to buy.
These days, somewhat less colourfully, a couple of 24 hour supermarkets have opened to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
Posted by: polychrome on April 5, 2004 08:05 AMMy wife and I used to live in an inner-ring suburb west of Mpls. Our commutes to work weren't terrible by most standards but were too much for us. When my company moved its offices to a neighborhood just outside downtown Mpls but still well within the city and also near where my wife's sister & husband live, we took the opportunity to buy a house in that neighborhood and reduced our commuting times considerably (mine is now 5 minutes by bike).
The dramatic reductions in commuting time and proximity to relatives had to be balanced against the basic reality that homes in this neighborhood were quite old, many built in the 1920's or earlier. We lucked out in that we found a rare relatively new (1997) construction that replaced a condemned house that used to sit on that lot. Had this newer house not been available we would have had to weigh the risks and costs of buying an older home, like potential electrical and plumbing problems, reroofing, etc. It would not have been an easy decision.
I suspect that part of the appeal of suburban communities is the relative newness of the shelter there. Buying newer shelter eliminates a lot of worry and cost, and that's very attractive for people who don't have the time or expertise to fix things themselves (which we don't) or are too cash strapped to hire it out.
We love where we live now because there are tons of restaurants and stores within walking or biking distance. For us, that's both convenient and important to the way we prefer to live.
Posted by: Jon on April 5, 2004 08:35 AMjamesb writes:
>
> Interesting David Brooks piece in the NYT magazine this w/e.
> taking aim at critiques of suburban conformity and
> soullessness. From a forthcoming monograph.
I was wondering whether this was what sparked the blog-owner to remember the review of Edge City he liked from back in the day.
But I wasn't that impressed by the Brooks piece. Maybe the book is better, but a lot of the NYT Magazine essay was the same kind of shallow, thinly sourced stuff we've been seeing recently in his column. The most spot-on observation was the new phenomenon of stopping traffic in a parking lot just to get a space 3 slots closer to the front door from a spot that is wide open and waiting. But he doesn't know why it happens either.
The one most bizarre theory in the piece is that the current exodus from established places to the middle of what was nowhere is anything more noble than the pursuit of some place where people are somewhat more like yourself and somewhat less like others who aren't like you. Or, failing that, where things are less messy.
Posted by: Jonathan King on April 5, 2004 12:43 PMOther links of interest -
City Comforts blog at http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com
and an interesting contrarian view of New Urbanism - "Hey, look at all the white people" - at
http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#107962181803907750
I think Jon raises an interesting point regarding the housing itself. Spending $400,000 on a condo in downtown Boston gets you a lot of things but it mainly gets you a condo that is 40+ years old. Some parts of the downsides of that are easier to remedy than others. Fixing the plumbing isn't too bad compared to modernizing the kitchen and closets (often approximately the same size) by doubling or tripling their sizes. Our lifestyles have changed but the living spaces built a half-century ago are slower to adapt. Where I live now you can already tell the difference between the "new" houses (5-10 years old) and the "new new" houses...the "new new" ones come with three car garages instead of two car garages to accomodate the reality of both parents working while having one (or more) teenage children.
Posted by: Justus on April 5, 2004 02:15 PM"This was important not just because it turned urban planning around for the good in a single generation. It deserves the Economics Nobel because it corrected the false notion that human wealth consists of cities built on mysteriously spontaneous bucolic surpluses: the wealth of settlements is preliminary to the invention of, inter alia, agriculture. This was news to everybody at the time."
Having recently read a bunch of modern scholarship on the evolution of cities, the only reference I found to Jacobs' idea thorough debunking in an introductory segment on a book on Mesopotamia. Apparently her idea fails fairly basic practicality tests of "given reasonable assumptions about ecology and travel time, could hunter-gatherers have possibly supported significant permanent communities based on trade".
If a sense of community means anything it must include concern for your neighbors, and on that our modern (post WWII) high-density cities come up short. There is the famous 1964 Kitty Genovese murder in Kew Gardens where the press alleges that her neighbors watched the act and did nothing to help her, not even a call to the police. I say “alleged” because some people dispute (for example) the story as reported in the New York Times. But I can rely on my own personal experiences as well as the experiences of my friends in that big city and others. In Manhattan, in El Barrio, several street thugs tried to mug me (they were not successful). But what made an even bigger impression was the admission by one of my neighbors who witnessed them following me. She told me the next day: “I thought about warning you, but I decided not to.” This is community? Community must be something beyond “funky shops, used bookstores, ethnic restaurants.”
Posted by: A. Zarkov on April 5, 2004 08:14 PMI think bakho made a very important point: Cities and their tax base. This very thing has been happening in Berlin (Germany) over the past 150 or so years -- businesses and mostly well to do people (and to some part employees of those businesses?) deserted the city and settled outside the city limits. In 1920 the city completed a successful merger with its surrounding communities, bringing them back into the tax base (the city core had fallen in financial distress). Then another "fat belt" formed around the city. In the 90's Berlin attempted another merge with the Brandenburg state surrounding it to increase "business and social synergies", but Brandenburgers thought "1920" and let it fall through.
The problem is that some kind of positive feedback is involved -- certain initial movements, either purposefully or by chance, create a differential in "desirability", prompting more movements of the same kind. This is the same force that separates poor and rich neighborhoods, forms business clusters, etc. The alleged racism may often well be the consequence, not the cause, of the processes and the tensions they create.
For example, in East Berlin the authorities managed to put low-income immigrants into communally owned high-density housing in certain peripheral districts, with the result that classrooms were filled with kids to whom German was a second language to put it mildly, to such an extent that education was seriously hampered, and this created pressure on whoever could afford it to move out, further increasing the ratio of immigrants and increasing the social tensions in the area.
camille roy
"that said, i think edge cities are very 'white'. white suburbanites have particular ways they express anti-social feelings: by being republicans, and by living in communities with low social cohesion, no side walks, no stores, little social interaction, etc. there are many places in the world where social interaction on the street is an important source of pleasure. the ways that such pleasures provoke horror in white surburbanites is actually a measure of anti-social attitudes and feelings."
I lived for a time in Prince Georges County, Maryland. It's far from a 'white' suburb but the rest applies - no side walks, little social interaction, and etc. Yet the population was 75% African-American. So much for 'whites' having a lock on anti-social attitutdes and feelings.
Posted by: brian on April 5, 2004 10:14 PMPlaying at the right online casinos is possible only through
Posted by: the world of online casinos available at online casino helper on May 30, 2004 08:23 AMOnline Casino Directory
Posted by: Online Casinos on June 23, 2004 03:19 AMNeutiquam erro - I am not lost
Pro opportunitate - As circumstances allow
online video poker
Posted by: strip poker online free on July 16, 2004 01:48 PMonline poker free
Posted by: online poker on July 17, 2004 03:39 AMfree online strip poker games
Posted by: online poker on July 17, 2004 04:58 AMstrip poker online
Posted by: online poker on July 17, 2004 09:41 AMplay online poker
Posted by: online poker on July 17, 2004 10:54 AMonline video poker
Posted by: online poker on July 17, 2004 01:21 PMFree Online Poker
Posted by: online poker on July 17, 2004 02:48 PMonline poker mac
Posted by: online casino on July 17, 2004 03:52 PMonline poker game
Posted by: online casino on July 18, 2004 01:30 AMpoker game online
Posted by: online casino on July 18, 2004 02:41 AMonline poker sites
Posted by: online casino on July 18, 2004 03:46 AMonline poker game
Posted by: online casino on July 18, 2004 06:17 AMfree online video poker
Posted by: online casino on July 18, 2004 07:32 AMNihil agere delectat - It is pleasant to do nothing. (Cicero)
Totum dependeat - Let it all hang out
online video poker
Posted by: texas holdem on July 19, 2004 04:33 AMIta erat quando hic adveni - It was that way when I got here
airline tickets
Posted by: airline tickets on July 22, 2004 06:49 AMBis dat qui cito dat - He gives twice, who gives promptly. (Publilius Syrus)
Nulla regula sine exceptione - There is no rule/law without exception