Sprawl: a Compact History, Part VIII -- What Is Sprawl, Anyway?

Bruegmann on what general point he's trying to make about sprawl:

In the following chapters I will argue that the characterisitics we associate today with sprawl have actually been visible in most prosperous cities throughout history. Sprawl [...] can now be said to be the preferred settlement pattern everywhere in the world where there is a certain measure of affluence and where citizens have some choice in how they live.

This rings true to me. If given a choice, a lot (probably most, maybe even the vast majority) of people would prefer to move from their current higher population density place to some lower population density place, all other things being equal. It's true of urbanists, even. I mean, what person living in Manhattan, for instance, wouldn't really like more living space? It's a similar impulse to wanting a house without other people on the other side of all the walls, or wanting to look out from your window and not see any other signs of human habitation.

Where 150,000 people per square mile was once a standard urban density, it is rare to find densities of even 25,000 people per square mile in affluent cities today, and most urban dwellers live in densities much lower still.

Interesting. He does have a lot of good information about population density and its variations in time and space.

Bruegmann on what people mean by sprawl:

Most people don't believe that they live in sprawl. Sprawl is where other people live, the result of other people's poor choices.

Ugly but true. There may be objective reasons why sprawl is bad, but the emotional mainspring is usually "Those other people have got to stop messing stuff up I like!"

Bruegmann on the definition of sprawl:

For the purposes of trying to understand the basic urban processes that have been described as sprawl, I have chosen to define it in the most basic and objective way possible, as low-density, scattered, urban development without systematic large-scale or regional public land-use planning.

(Note that "urban" is never defined! But you have a pretty solid idea of what "urban" is anyway, don't you?)

I was skeptical about this definition in this post, but I've gradually come to agree with this definition as a useful one to work with.

The fact is that it's the appearance of development in a place where it "doesn't belong" that really sets people off and it's in the areas where development is still scattered and low-density that development is going to be most visible and most likely to be denounced as sprawl.

I don't think that people really care about density as such or how scattered the development is. However, the net result of the dislike of development appearing where it "doesn't belong" is anti-sprawl sentiment, with "sprawl" defined pretty much as Bruegmann defines it.

At any rate, Bruegmann doesn't limit himself to looking at areas that fit his definition of sprawl as stated above. He says in a couple of different places that he's interested in the entire urban and urban influenced area, and how it changes over time, and what its various parts are and how they interact, etc. etc.

There is one point that I think is important, though, that I don't think Bruegmann ever really addresses. I think that some of the dislike of suburban style development is actually dislike of the physical buildings (and associated parking lots, giant signs, etc.) themselves. As I've said before, I think automobile dominated landscapes are always going to be less comfortable for people to be in than more human scaled places. There's no reason this discomfort shouldn't translate into dislike of the buildings themselves, regardless of whether the buildings can be considered invaders or not. 

¶ 1/31/2006 09:07:00 PM 0 comments

 
Moving

No comment. 

¶ 1/30/2006 01:18:00 PM 0 comments

 
Sprawl: a Compact History, Part VII -- Density/Los Angeles

Bruegmann has a lot of interesting things to say about density, by which he basically means population density. One of his basic points is that suburban density is increasing in many places by many measures, even as the anti-sprawl chorus gets louder.

(Now, I don't think that the increasing density and the increasing concern about sprawl are as contradictory as Bruegmann seems to think, because I don't think that low density development as such is what most people mean when they complain about sprawl.)

Perhaps the most provocative density-related statement Bruegmann makes is the following, concerning Los Angeles:

Los Angeles, for example, often taken to be the epitome of sprawl, has become so much denser over the past fifty years that it is now America's most densely populated urbanized area, as measured by the census bureau. It is considerably denser than the New York or Chicago urbanized areas, for example. Although this might seem preposterous since Los Angeles has no neighborhoods with densities anything like parts of Manhattan, Los Angeles has a relatively high density spread over an extremely large area. Los Angeles also has none of the very low-density exurban peripheral growth see in the New York region. In fact, quite unlike Eastern cities, Los Angeles has almost no exurban sprawl at all because the high cost of supplying water makes relatively compact development almost inevitable.

This idea is so counterintuitive that it was featured prominently in the first couple of mentions of Bruegmann's book that I saw on the net. I must say, it doesn't match my own preconceptions about Los Angeles, but, then again, I've never been there (like most other people, I guess).

Key to this statement about Los Angeles is the idea of the "urbanized area". I'll give an extended quote from Bruegmann about what this means. This is from Chapter 5, "Sprawl Since the 1970s".

The "urbanized area," by contrast, was devised by the [U.S.] census bureau to provide a functional definition of the [U.S.] city. It includes all the land with a strong connection back to the central population centers and more than 1,000 people per square mile. Although by no means a perfect measure for defining city and suburbs, the 1,000 people per suqare mile figure does approximately correspond to the threshold between the regularly developed suburban subdivisions and the exurban areas beyond because 1,000 people per square mile is today about the lower limit at which full city services like water supply and wastewater treatment can be provided in a way that most public and private agencies consider economical.

Bruegmann has collected and/or gone through quite a bit of data having to do with density of various urbanized areas worldwide, and has produced some interesting graphs, which are in the book.

One of the types of graphs he discusses he calls a "density gradient graph". This is a graph with miles from the city center on the x axis and residential population density on the y axis.

The mental picture that I (and probably most other people) carry around with me about the nature of cities includes a very densely populated city center with density gradually dropping as you get further and further from the center. This situation is represented on one of these density gradient graphs as a jagged diagonal line generally trending from the top left (city center/high density) to the bottom right (distant place/low density).

A variation of the density gradient graph shows the graph for a single city at various times, and Bruegmann gives an example of this for London in chapter 1, "Defining Sprawl". What this graph shows in a fairly intuitive manner is that the density gradient for London has been "flattening" over time -- the diagonal line on the gradient graph gradually gets less diagonal and more horizontal. In real world terms, this means that, as time goes on, the center gets less dense, outlying areas get more dense, and the total urbanized area increases in area covered. This fits in with my internal model of what has happened with cities over time, but it's interesting to see it graphically represented so clearly.

You could imagine a completely flat density gradient, which would basically mean that the entire urbanized region has rougly the same population density with no noticeable center of population at all. Bruegmann gives Phoenix as the American city that most closely approaches this flat gradient.

Another kind of graph that Bruegmann gives many examples of (in Chapter 5, "Sprawl Since the 1970s") is a graph of density of an urbanized area over time. (This is using the U.S. Census Bureau definition of "urbanized area", which I give above). As examples, the graph for Los Angeles shows the density continually increasing since 1950, which of course matches what Bruegmann has to say about Los Angeles in the above quote and elsewhere throughout the book. The graph for Cleveland (and many other rust belt cities) shows a big drop in density between 1950 and 1960, and a gradual decrease since then.

The interesting thing about the set of graphs as a set is that they're all noticeably different from one another (and he has graphs for 28 different U.S. cities). Some show general declines in density (Cleveland), some show general increases (Los Angeles) and some show substantial decreases up until some point (often the hinge is 1980) followed by gradual increases (Denver, Sacremento). There are some other patterns too.

As an Ohioan, I would love to the see the graph for Columbus, too. In 1950, Cleveland was a lot bigger and more important than Columbus, but the years since have mostly involved decline for Cleveland and growth for Columbus. It would be interesting to see this on the graph.

I like what Bruegmann has to say quite a lot when he's in his "let's see where the data takes us" historian mode. He has obviously analyzed a lot of data. I think the density gradient graphs and density over time graphs are great ways of discerning and understanding broad patterns in what's actually happening in these vast complicated urban areas.

Having said that, it sometimes seems that whole reason he's focused on density is so that he can accuse people who are complaining about sprawl in areas where the density is actually increasing of being incorrect about there being any sprawl at all. This only makes sense if you consider "sprawl" to be the same as "low density development". Bruegmann draws exactly this equivalence in several places, but I don't really agree with it myself, so the whole "See, the density is increasing" argument is kind of lost on me. 

¶ 1/28/2006 08:52:00 AM 0 comments

 
Sprawl: a Compact History, by Robert Bruegmann -- collected posts

I'm going to put all of my collected posts on this book here, and I hope someday to finish this series. These are in order of the text in the book, rather than in the order I originally posted them.

Amazon link to Sprawl: A Compact History by Robert Bruegmann.

Here's a link to Robert Bruegmann's own website.

i
iii -- Introduction
iv -- More from the Introduction
v -- Make Up Your Mind
vi -- Gentrification
vii -- Density/Los Angeles
viii -- What Is Sprawl, Anyway?
ii -- Fixed Boundaries 

¶ 1/25/2006 10:37:00 PM 0 comments

 
Sprawl: a Compact History, Part VI -- Gentrification

Bruegmann on the gentrification of his own Chicago neighborhood:

As an older working-class population left the area in the wake of the departure of manufacturing firms, they were replaced by new residents driving Volvos with license plate frames advertising suburban automobile dealerships. As an increasingly affluent population moved in, densities plummeted and automobile usage soared. [...] Increasingly, although my neighborhood looked like a traditional city neighborhood, [...] it started to function in ways that made it similar to any suburb, and it gradually obtained a comparable demographic profile.

This is an interesting point. The decrease in people density (and increase in car density) with gentrification seems pretty obvious now that I think about it, but it hadn't occured to me before Bruegmann pointed it out.

It's traditional (especially among relatively adventurous first-wave gentrifiers) to consider the "everything got nicer and more expensive" stage of gentrification as an invasion of boring suburban values. Maybe it's more useful to think of them as boring middle-class (upper middle-class? striving class? ambitious class? persona-creating class?) values that show up wherever the requisite people happen to be.

By "more useful", I mean "closer to the actual reality". I think there's a much smaller difference in class/culture/style/background/mindset between first wave adventurous gentrifiers and later stage "There's this great coffee shop just a short walk from my front door" gentrifiers than the first-stage people would like to admit.

These "boring values" can be summed up with one word: "nice". Which is to say, they're primarily aesthetic. Gentrification is "nice" with some extra amenities that only increased building density (with respect to the suburbs) can bring. It's a different tradeoff than an affluent suburb, but it's the same people doing the trading. 

¶ 1/25/2006 09:44:00 PM 0 comments

 
Sprawl: a Compact History, Part V -- Make up your mind

Bruegmann:

Despite a common belief that suburban sprawl is accelerating and that the most affluent people are moving constantly outward to areas of ever-lower density, in fact the suburbs of American cities are, if anything, becoming denser.

Ok, fine. But then, two paragraphs later:

Turning from suburban sprawl to exurban sprawl, the picture is quite different. Exurban sprawl is apparently in the process of accelerating, with more people occupying more land at lower densities...

Well, the "common belief" is still true, then, isn't it? Yeah, you have to ignore the distinction between "suburban sprawl" and "exurban sprawl" that he's trying to draw, but, by his own admission, he can't claim that people who think that sprawl is constantly moving outward at an ever accelerating rate are incorrect.

Incidentally, Bruegmann appears to mean the same thing by "exurban sprawl" that I do in this post. His use of "suburban sprawl" is more general than mine, and I think a better term for what I'm talking about might be "mall sprawl".

I promise, everything I have to say about this book isn't negative. 

¶ 1/21/2006 11:09:00 AM 0 comments

 
Sprawl: a Compact History, Part IV -- More from the Introduction

Bruegmann:

[Sprawl foes hold suburban sprawl] responsible for the deterioration of many of the older nieghborhoods[in the NYC metropolitan area].

Okay, not proven.

but then:

Large numbers of once flourishing shops along the commercial streets of Bayonne and Jersey City disappeared when new suburban shopping centers appeared further out, they will say. In many of the tightly packed neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens, house prices stagnated or fell as affluent middle-class residents left for new and more spacious houses further out in Long Island. In some cases the result was racial turmoil, abandonment, and the concentration of poor and minority residents in the oldest, least desirable house.

So, is he saying this stuff didn't happen? He sounds so....skeptical. Argue about cause and effect if you wish, but the deterioration of the inner cities is/was a fact, not some insidious myth that needs debunking. In Cleveland, it sometimes seems foolish to even believe that the deterioriation of the inner city will ever be reversed, much less believe that it didn't really happen in the first place. 

¶ 1/19/2006 09:12:00 PM 0 comments

 
Sprawl III: Introduction

So, I've discovered that I can read considerably faster than I can write about what I'm reading. I finished actually reading the book a couple of days ago (it's not really a very big book), but there's much more blogging to be done yet. It will be interesting to see if this set of posts is in any way coherent when looked at as a group.

So, Bruegmann's Introduction:

Naturally, this is the place for high level examinations of sprawl and other related topics. Early on, Bruegmann gives what he calls the most common definition of sprawl:

unplanned, scattered, low-density, automobile-dependent development at the
urban periphery

I'm not so sure this is what most people mean by sprawl. Or, rather, there's a couple of different kinds of sprawl, or a couple of different things that people see and then call "sprawl".

One kind of sprawl is where suburban/urban things show up in a rural area. The classic example from my own experience is the new subdivision surrounded by working or recently working cornfields. The key here is that the overall landscape is still rural, and the suburban/urban things are seen as invaders.

(Incidentally, you can get something very similar when suburban things show up in the city. For instance, at the moment, a big box shopping center development anchored by Wal-Mart is going up in the city of Cleveland, in an area that formerly held part of the LTV/ISG/Mittal steel plant. There are various reasons people object to this development, but I think a partial driver for some people at least is the mere appearance of this prototypical suburban/rural form in the heart of Cleveland's industrial zone. It seems like an invader, too, just like a subdivision surrounded by cornfields.)

The second kind of sprawl, in my reckoning, is the kind where a large area is entirely (or almost entirely) covered with suburban style buildings, particularly shopping centers and office parks and other building forms that are more or less dominated by parking lots ( as opposed to large areas of single family homes, which I don't think seem as oppressive, no matter how large an area they cover). Driving around in one of these places for a couple of hours (doing multiple errands, doing serious shopping, whatever) is enough to convince anyone that something is seriously out of whack, I think, especially if the traffic is bad, which it often is.

I think Bruegmann's "unplanned, scattered, low-density, automobile-dependent development at the urban periphery" definition covers the first type of sprawl (which I'll call "exurban sprawl" for convenience), but it doesn't really cover the second (which I'll call "suburban sprawl"), and I think the second type may actually be more important than the first. Exurban sprawl mainly bugs the people who lived there before the newcomers arrived -- the newcomers themselves think everything is fine. But suburban sprawl can bother even the people who deliberately move into it, let alone the people who remember what was there before.

I think what differentiates what I call "suburban sprawl" from an actual city is the total subordination of the landscape and the buildings to the needs of cars. A suburban sprawl area may not really be that much less dense than a city, and a city may represent an even more thorough triumph of the built environment over nature, but in a city, the buildings dominate the cars, and in a suburban sprawl area, the cars (and the roadways, and the parking lots) dominate both the buildings and the people. No matter how big the building, a building is still more on human scale than a parking lot is, because a building is meant for use by people, and a parking lot is meant for use by cars. I think this "not on human scale" effect may be what drives a lot of the dislike that people have for these suburban sprawl areas.

To be fair to Bruegmann, he mentions the multiple definitions of sprawl several times in the book, and he sees the very fuzziness of the definition as a benefit to anti-sprawl forces, because it maximizes the number of people who want to stop sprawl without forcing them to actually agree on a definition. But he never picks up on what I call "suburban sprawl" as being something that people object to, and instead he refutes the objections people express to "unplanned, scattered, low-density, automobile-dependent development", which I think are less significant objections overall. 

¶ 1/18/2006 09:20:00 PM 0 comments

 
Sprawl, A Compact History, Part II: Fixed boundaries

I'm going to skip forward to chapter 8, "The First Anti-Sprawl Campaign: Britain" here, because it's what I'm currently actually reading.

Bruegmann quotes an earlier British writer, Clough Williams-Ellis, who was heavily anti-sprawl.

The true countryman will know the area is infected -- the Jones have
brought the blight of their town or suburb with them...

Bruegmann says in response:

This passage is drenched in class resentment. It seems clear that for
Williams-Ellis the "true countrymen" were members of the great landed
aristocracy of Britain who had controlled the bulk of the country's land since
the medieval period.

First off, I don't think it's wise for anyone not from Britain to be talking knowingly about British class resentment, which has always seemed to me (an outside observer) to be quite, ah, intricate. (I will say that Bruegmann's quote from Williams-Ellis is longer than the snippet I gave above.)

Secondly, I'm not sure "true countryman" was really intended to refer to the aristocracy. My impression is that the British make an ideal of the small, independent farmer just as we do in the U.S., irrespective of what the reality is today or in 1920.

Thirdly, Bruegmann is missing (or ignoring) what I think is Williams-Ellis' main point, which is the idea that there are clear boundaries between places and between types of places, and each type of place is supposed to contain certain types of people and things, and these boundaries shouldn't be breached. I think Williams-Ellis would be just as disturbed by someone building a large house on a half acre of land on a town square as he apparently is by someone building houses suitable for a town in the country. Now, class could very well be tied up with these ideas of what belongs where, but it's not just a class thing, I think.

In fact, I think this desire for clear boundaries between types of things is what drives a lot of anti-sprawl feeling (even if it's not included in the arguments people actually use when trying to convince other people), and Bruegmann, up through chapter 8 anyway, hasn't really mentioned this at all. He has derisively mentioned "aesthetic objections" to sprawl a couple of times without going into detail, and maybe that's what this counts as.

Is it okay to object to development that doesn't directly affect you because it goes against your internal model of what' s supposed to be where? Is the mere fact that one development pattern "feels right" to a lot of people (and thus presumably makes them a little happier) enough of a reason to enforce that pattern? It has to be kept in mind, of course, that what "feels right" to most people most of them time is what's already there, or what was there when they were young.

UPDATE: So, is what "feels right" to most people the maintenance of proper boundaries between things or what things were like when they were young? I seem to be pushing both.

Because the point of this particular post is "maintaining boundaries", that must be the correct answer. Please disregard the last sentence of the last paragraph of the original post. Although the status quo is an obvious starting point for anyone's idea of how things are supposed to be, I don't think it's really the only thing that matters in this particular case. 

¶ 1/11/2006 08:32:00 AM 0 comments

 
Sprawl: A Compact History, Part I

I've started reading Sprawl: A Compact History by Robert Bruegmann (amazon link here). Seeing as this kind of thing is exactly (more or less!) supposed to be what this blog is about, I thought I'd blog my reading of it.

Unfortunately, I'm already halfway done with it, so my idea of blogging things from it as I get to them is out the window.

The basic aim of Bruegmann's book is to rehabilitate urban/suburban sprawl, and in the process he tries to refute as many specific ideas that people have used to attack sprawl (sprawl is unique to the US, sprawl started after World War II, sprawl is caused by cars the dependence on which is a result of a conspiracy between government and General Motors, etc.) .

Sometimes I find Bruegmann's delight in refuting a particular idea kind of off-putting, and often I don't find it as convincing as he thinks it is. He irritated me at the very beginning, when he said:

Nor do I claim that this book represents an attempt be [sic] even-handed in
treatment. Because the vast majority of what has been written about sprawl
dwells at great length on the problems of sprawl and the benefits of stopping
it, I am stressing instead the other side of the coin, that is to say the
benefits of sprawl and the problems caused by reform efforts.

In other words, he's hoping to counter propaganda with different propoganda, and he's going to pretend any actual problems with sprawl don't exist. Thanks a bundle.

Having said that, I am sympathetic to his basic project of trying to actually look at the thing itself with a more or less open mind rather than looking at it like an exterminator looks at a cockroach.

Part of the problem is definitional, which is a point Bruegmann stresses: what is sprawl, exactly, and, if you don't want sprawl, what do you want? Is everyone supposed to live in apartment buildings downtown? Are rowhouses okay? Are 8 houses per acre subdivisions built in the 1940's okay? (That would be where I live!)

Considering how many people live outside the city centers and how much economic activity occurs outside the city centers, it does seem bizarre to me that, even today, suburbs are so hated in some quarters. Actually, come to think of it, that fact that so much that used to happen in the downtowns now happens outside of them explains why they're hated, doesn't it? It doesn't explain, though, how getting rid of them is supposed to work.

Not that sprawl is necessarily suburbs (another definitional question), but they are hated by the same people and the arguments used against one are often used against the other.

So, this is basically an introduction to the book, and I plan to blog more about it as I read it. 

¶ 1/11/2006 07:52:00 AM 0 comments

 
Staying Where You Are Part II

I discsussed this post with Mrs. Beckley, and she thinks that maybe I underestimate what percentage of people who go to college here in Ohio stay here. She reminded me of why I came to Ohio, and why she (a native Ohioan) stayed here even though she very well could have gone somewhere else after college.

On further reflection, what I'm mainly reacting to is the conflict between "staying where you're planted" and what I myself believe that people like me are supposed to want. Basically, I feel guilty for not being more "ambitious", and apparently I think most other people are going to feel the same way.

Which isn't to say that most other people do in fact feel the same way. Insofar as this subsidy idea makes sense at all, maybe enough people who benefit from it would stay in Ohio to make it worthwhile. I don't actually know, it depends on the actual numbers, I guess.

Really, the idea that you must leave where you are, move to the place that's most competitive, and compete as hard as you can for success is kind of oppressive, and maybe more people than I realize reject it. 

¶ 1/07/2006 09:11:00 PM 2 comments

 
Staying where you are

In this Plain Dealer article, a scheme to give extra funding to state universities for undergraduates in certain high tech majors is bandied about. A quote:

Proponents say it would enhance the state's business climate by providing a more capable work force.

The wierdest part of this to me is the assumption that people who go to school in Ohio are going to stay in Ohio, so Ohio will get its subsidy back. Maybe the actual facts on the ground support this assumption, but it seems opposed to how most people think about their options and their goals.

In my view, most young people on their way to or in college consider the whole country (or in some cases the whole world) when they think about where they want to end up when college is over. So, the question becomes, can we count on people who feel like they can go anywhere to stay here?

I like living here and I am from elsewhere, but I honestly don't think Ohio or any particular place in Ohio has much of a tug on the imagination of people elsewhere, so I don't think we can count on the out of state people staying. Maybe they'll see our legendary quality of life while they're here, and obviously some people will stay because they acquire a job or family ties while they're here, but I think the tug of the imagination is more important for most people (especially young people!) than the actual facts.

For a lot (not all) people from Ohio, staying here is going to seem like a compromise on what they could do. "I'm going to stay forever in the place I grew up" doesn't seem in line with what most people want to think about themselves, even if it is in fact what they end up doing.

On the other hand, although staying where you were planted is certainly in opposition to what ambitious and/or capable people are supposed to want, maybe it's a small minority with loud voices that makes that view appear so prevalent. 

¶ 1/07/2006 01:11:00 PM 0 comments

 
Something's Gone Wrong Again: the Buzzcocks Cover Compilation

"Something's Gone Wrong Again: the Buzzcocks Cover Compilation", C/Z records, copyright 1992.

I've had this CD in my collection for years, and I think I've listened to the whole thing maybe twice. I had a tape around for a long time that had three or four songs from this CD, but I've finally listened to the whole thing a couple of more times (now that my car has a CD player!).

Verdict: so-so

The only bands that I had heard of on this compilation are Lunachicks and Naked Raygun. I don't follow music very closely, now or in 1992, so whether I have heard of someone doesn't really count for much, but there you are.

For the most part, these are just bar band versions of Buzzcocks songs, not inspirational in any way. Looser in all cases, I think, missing the Buzzcocks tautness, which was in large part provided by their original drummer, John Maher.

Of course, you don't really want the covers in a compilation like this to sound exactly like the originals, but the Buzzcocks parts that were removed weren't replaced with anything as good or better.

There are a couple of exceptions -- the Steve Diggle songs ("Why She's a Girl from the Chainstore", "Sitting 'Round At Home", "Running Free") seem to have lost less in the translation. Possibly this is because his voice is much closer to a normal voice than is Pete Shelley's, so it's easier for other people to inhabit the songs. On some of the Pete Shelley songs, it sounds to me like the singer went for "definitely not Pete Shelley" rather than trying to find a way of singing that actually suited the song, resulting in what amounts to a parody. Parodies don't seem worth it, unless they're extremely clever.

Speaking of parodies, the Lunachicks "Noise Annoys/Promises" medley is definitely in the parody direction, but I found it pretty entertaining anyway. Perhaps it's the drum sound, which actually gets close to John Maher's original work, which endeared it to me. Again, as I said before, duplicating the original shouldn't be the goal here, but, you know, I do like the original....

I actually liked Alice Donut's version of "E.S.P." quite a bit. It's the one case where there's a substantial departure from the original Buzzcocks tempo and arrangements, and the overall feel is darker.

The Dose version of "Everybody's Happy Nowadays" (perhaps my favorite Buzzcocks song) is also an addition rather than just a subtraction. Similar tempo and arrangement (looser and noiser, of course), but with more desperate vocals.

So, after ten years, I think this is going back on the market. Maybe I can download that Alice Donut track off the net somewhere.... 

¶ 1/07/2006 11:05:00 AM 0 comments