Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
(11-01-2015, 11:46 PM)eizenstriet Wrote: [ -> ]Lots of those houses you’re speaking of have been “viable” right next to the central part of the city for a century or so. The successive owners have built admirable communities, and aren’t about to surrender their investments, their roots, and their faculties of critical thinking just because you in your own interests would like to label them “unviable”.

OK, so if we can't expand the geographic scope of growth from downtowns into adjacent neighbourhoods, then we're going to need to build much denser and taller in the downtown.

(11-01-2015, 11:46 PM)eizenstriet Wrote: [ -> ]You seem now to be acknowledging that there will be “spillover parking”. So can we now lighten up on the warranty that high density near transit will not have parking demand? I mean, you know that a single-family detached house behind The Red has had its “BY” become a parking lot for that building. You know that people may contend with 144 Park or the Kaufman Lofts because there is not provision for their second cars. You know that residents of The Bauer Lofts complain of inadequate visitor parking. So let’s grant that “NIMBYs” are not always just paranoid, and that they may dare to suggest that development be prepared to sustain its own attachment to the automobile.

I don't buy into the premise behind the term, namely that there is some fixed amount of demand for parking and that if the building doesn't accommodate all of it on site, then the parking will necessarily go into adjacent streets. I think that the amount and cost of parking provided shapes the demand and impacts how people choose to get around, in particular if they live or work on the site. Visitor parking is an interesting point, and I think it's by far the most reasonable application of parking requirements. But it can also be solved using shared parking garages at market rates. If we put a price on curbside parking, perhaps in concert with a resident permit system, that would reduce the parking externalities.
(11-01-2015, 05:37 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with a lot of what you say. Out of curiosity, what entails "medium-density" to you, though? "Single-family detached housing" can be dense enough to support transit and other uses within walking distance. Actually, here in Kitchener-Waterloo, it did, and those neighbourhoods that now seem adjacent to the downtowns were streetcar suburbs with commercial mixed in, and where many people could walk to their jobs, most could take transit to their jobs, and most people did walk to do shopping and run errands. Before the car, there was no reason to set houses far back from loud, dangerous streets, and houses close to the street created the kinds of density that made these things possible. Again: it's possible to achieve a fair bit of density even with detached family homes.

Medium-density could be, perhaps, the equivalent of streets with two or three storey street walls - i.e. without the in-between spaces for cars and setbacks.

I think a greater density than in the past is needed to support transit, because it means supporting enough of it so that the transit is competitive with the automobile. But in terms of the history, my understanding is that these old subdivisions are far less dense than they were initially, with far fewer people living per house.
(11-02-2015, 12:36 AM)eizenstriet Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-01-2015, 01:33 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]BuildingScout
Also one of the reasons Besançon is so much nicer is because over the centuries they have never been afraid to take down their ugly buildings while defending the nicer ones.

I’d be very surprised if Besançon was a free-and-easy demolition town. France must be one of the most rigorous preservers of architectural heritage on the face of the Earth. And not only does it mandate conservation. A family whose modern (but “compatible”) home I stayed in near St. Malo was describing to me how it took 3 successive building plans to satisfy local authorities that their design would not disrupt the character of the surrounding historic structures.

These are unrelated. Not being afraid to take a structure down doesn't mean that you do not have to ask for permission. The point is you do have to ask for permission, but it is routinely granted if the building is unremarkable. Just being an old structure is not enough of a reason to keep a building.

Quote:We fail on both counts: on the one hand we let the very nice old Kitchener city hall be taken down and then we have heart attacks over Barra Castle's demolition.

These two straw man examples on the far ends of the spectrum beg the question. Serious initiative regarding the ones in between is the issue.


There are many other examples from where this comes from. The dry cleaners on Victoria St. and half the properties in that report were unremarkable. So much so that in this case the recommendations were rejected. But this shows the tenor: defend everything and anything.

We have a meddling planning department unafraid to stop a project because the parking lot isn't large enough yet routinely lets really bad plans go through. We also have a heritage committee who sees itself as a defender of the old instead of a defender of the remarkable.

Quote:I've posted plenty of pictures here of new construction for example in Strasbourg, Paris and Prague with new daring buildings smack in the middle of historical downtown. Can you imagine this ever been allowed here? The heritage committee would have a mass heart attack.

I am hard-pressed to recall “the heritage committee” here objecting to daring buildings smack anywhere. I do recall many instances of objection to removal of the “historical”. Where on the spectrum lies the appropriate resistance to demolition is the real issue. Juxtaposition of the old and the “new daring” can be stimulating – see the area of The High Line in Manhattan – as long as there is enough of each. And both the locals and the touristic public seem to find a well-conserved place like Besançon appealing. Thus my admittedly facetious commentary on the Besançon train tour.

The heritage committee would oppose the demolition to begin with, as they are wont to do when the building clocks at over 100 years. Then the planning committee starts talking about "respecting the character of the street" which is code for nothing daring goes (not even four stories in Uptown Waterloo). There is even a name for this attitude to planning, though the word escapes me at this very minute.

I agree 100% that juxtaposition is the way to go. Is how cities evolve. Locally we do not have much of it. The Breihaupt block comes to mind.
(11-02-2015, 01:46 AM)mpd618 Wrote: [ -> ]Medium-density could be, perhaps, the equivalent of streets with two or three storey street walls - i.e. without the in-between spaces for cars and setbacks.

I think a greater density than in the past is needed to support transit, because it means supporting enough of it so that the transit is competitive with the automobile. But in terms of the history, my understanding is that these old subdivisions are far less dense than they were initially, with far fewer people living per house.

You're expressing preference for a form, not a particular level of density. Density is measured in people or jobs per unit of area. I think what most people understand to be medium-density can be achieved with single family homes or, more likely, a mix of uses which include single family homes.

Again, the neighbourhoods you're discussing did support transit in the past. There's a lot of other things (hidden subsidies to cars, for instance) that make transit non-competitive with transit. You make a good point about smaller families living in the same houses as did in the past, but I'm not sure how much less density that means. If you have two kids in a house instead of four, that might be problematic for the viability of the local school, but is it meaningfully less dense in terms of supporting transit, commercial, and so on?
[attachment=512]
(11-01-2015, 01:33 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]Also one of the reasons Besançon is so much nicer is because over the centuries they have never been afraid to take down their ugly buildings while defending the nicer ones.


I knew Besançon sounded familiar. I see it is quite close to a city where our daughter stayed years ago on a student exchange.
 
It does not look or sound like a place Kieswetter Demolition should be looking to set up a foreign office:
 
 
http://about-france.com/cities/besancon.htm

"Cradled in a loop of the river Doubs, the ancient city of Besançon is one of the best preserved historic cities in France…

The whole of the old centre of Besançon - the central area of which is pedestrianised - is a delightful urban environment that has survived more or less intact against the onslaughts of modernism; the old streets are lined with houses and buildings from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century, built in the local two-coloured limestone…"
 
On the other hand, it is “progressive”:
 
"The city is also served by the brand new Rhine-Rhone TGV route, and has direct TGV services from Paris in less than 2h 30, as well as from Lille, Lyon, Strasbourg, Marseille, Basel and Zurich…

Besançon is reputed as having one of the best urban public transport systems in France…"
 

A very appealing place with good municipal judgment. Thanks for pointing me to it, Canard.
My pleasure - France is a treasure trove of wonderful public transport systems - not only trams/light rail and high speed rail, but a handful of fully-automated rubber-tyred light metros (VAL). In fact, I will be visiting Rennes in 2018 specifically to see their new "Ligne b" which is the world premiere of Siemens CityVal technology.
(11-02-2015, 11:03 AM)eizenstriet Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-01-2015, 01:33 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]Also one of the reasons Besançon is so much nicer is because over the centuries they have never been afraid to take down their ugly buildings while defending the nicer ones.

"Cradled in a loop of the river Doubs, the ancient city of Besançon is one of the best preserved historic cities in France…

The whole of the old centre of Besançon - the central area of which is pedestrianised - is a delightful urban environment that has survived more or less intact against the onslaughts of modernism; the old streets are lined with houses and buildings from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century, built in the local two-coloured limestone…"

Which proves my point. A place that doesn't demolish at all (like Bruges) would have all the buildings from the same era. Besançon's on the other hand span five hundred years. How do you achieve that if not through judicious demolition?

And the fact that somehow they stopped in the early twentieth century is plain false. Here's one Besançon's better known buildings by Japanese architect Kengo Kuma:

[Image: Dezeen_Besancon-Art-Centre-and-Cite-de-l...tes_6a.jpg]

But surely such a modern looking building would be out in the 'burbs right. Never allowed anywhere near the historical parts right? Keeping the old historical town intact, right? 

Wrong:

[Image: Dezeen_Besancon-Art-Centre-and-Cite-de-l..._ss_2a.jpg]

[Image: Dezeen_Besancon-Art-Centre-and-Cite-de-l..._ss_5a.jpg]


Of particular interest are the castle up on the hill and the medieval warehouse abutting it to its right.



[Image: IMAGE_20130404_20687943.jpg]
(11-02-2015, 01:28 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]My pleasure - France is a treasure trove of wonderful public transport systems - not only trams/light rail and high speed rail, but a handful of fully-automated rubber-tyred light metros (VAL). In fact, I will be visiting Rennes in 2018 specifically to see their new "Ligne b" which is the world premiere of Siemens CityVal technology.

I think this rubber tire metro thing is a crock. I spent a lot of time in my youth on Montreal's rubber tired metros. Part of the deal was that they were supposed to give a smoother ride. But they are way bumpier than all types of rail that I've been on.
Here are some other views of this "15th-early 20th century" town, showing late 20th century construction in the historical areas:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.2353116,6...312!8i6656

https://goo.gl/maps/YDLivsjGAC42
(11-02-2015, 02:49 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]I think this rubber tire metro thing is a crock. I spent a lot of time in my youth on Montreal's rubber tired metros. Part of the deal was that they were supposed to give a smoother ride. But they are way bumpier than all types of rail that I've been on.

Never heard a claim about smoothness. They are quieter though. I've taken the Montreal, Paris and Mexico City rubber tire metros and they are equally smooth to rail based ones but way quieter. Interestingly enough when an open competition was held in NY city for replacement technology rubber tire Bombardier metros won, but people rose up and said that screeching metros were of historical value and reversed the decision (I kid you not).
... and back to Kitchener for a moment: here is the latest at Charles & Benton.
(11-02-2015, 02:19 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]Original questionable premise:

Also one of the reasons Besançon is so much nicer is because over the centuries they have never been afraid to take down their ugly buildings while defending the nicer ones.

End of laborious process:

But surely such a modern looking building would be out in the 'burbs right. Never allowed anywhere near the historical parts right? Keeping the old historical town intact, right? 

Wrong:

[Image: Dezeen_Besancon-Art-Centre-and-Cite-de-l..._ss_2a.jpg]

I undertake that these will be my final relections on the saga of Besançon, France, the City with a new LRT system.

My reflections are no longer on the City itself, though it is worthy of study, but on the laborious process of creating a factual dog to be wagged by the tail of a questionable premise.


It struck me as curiously coincidental that the city referenced by Canard for its attractive LRT system should also have achieved a unique reputation premised by BuildingScout for “taking down ugly buildings”.
 
Some cursory research seemed to verify, however, that - contrary to the premise - Besançon’s “delightful urban environment…has survived more or less intact”. I so reported, as a matter of interest, and because the premise was obviously designed to be applied mutatis mutandis to Waterloo Region.
 
However, BS claimed as a fact, without citation, that the description of the city’s “old streets … lined with houses and buildings from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century” was irrefutable confirmation of the original proposition, now described as “judicious demolition”.


Of course, it is not difficult to imagine other paths by which an ancient city could end up with a range of architectural legacy, but I did in fact make the further effort to find citation for BS’s claim for Besançon’s subtle demolition renown. Still, I kept coming up with citations for its conservation renown. Well, OK.

Yet the laborious thesis process proceeded to additional bolstering by BuildingScout in the form of proof of the falsity (?!) of a straw man claim (?!) that “somehow they stopped [building] in the early twentieth century”. Huh?

And the refutation of this straw man claim involved a modern building with a further straw man claim that “surely such a modern looking building would be out in the 'burbs right. Never allowed anywhere near the historical parts right? Keeping the old historical town intact, right? 

Wrong:”

In any event, photos followed of “one Besançon's better known buildings by Japanese architect Kengo Kuma”. So here we had, with this admittedly interesting modern supplement, the culmination of the legacy of Besançon, The Town that “Culling of Heritage” Built - and were back full circle to the original premise. We were left to assume that some inferior Renaissance chateau, perhaps, had yielded to the prudent process of “judicious demolition” and replacement.

Research of the building shows that the project sits on a 2 ha brownfield site, in a former industrial area, and that - ironically for the purveyor of the original thesis - the new structure “wraps an old brick warehouse, creating a glassed-in box”. So we leave our examination of the wagging factual dog with an unintended illustration that this town preserves in juxtaposition even its least remarkable heritage – a 1930’s brick warehouse.


As promised, enough with Besançon. At this point, it’s catch-and-release, and back to fishin’ in Waterloo Region.
(11-03-2015, 12:04 AM)eizenstriet Wrote: [ -> ]It struck me as curiously coincidental that the city referenced by Canard for its attractive LRT system should also have achieved a unique reputation premised by BuildingScout for “taking down ugly buildings”.

You misinterpreted me. I never claimed that city to be unique in that respect. Most of France follows that model.


Quote:Some cursory research seemed to verify, however, that - contrary to the premise - Besançon’s “delightful urban environment…has survived more or less intact”. I so reported, as a matter of interest, and because the premise was obviously designed to be applied mutatis mutandis to Waterloo Region.
 
However, BS claimed as a fact, without citation, that the description of the city’s “old streets … lined with houses and buildings from the Renaissance to the early twentieth century” was irrefutable confirmation of the original proposition, now described as “judicious demolition”.

Except that even if we assume the "early twentieth century part" to be true (which it isn't, as shown with various examples) it still doesn't support your point. Those early twentieth century buildings had to be built somewhere, i.e. where older buildings used to be.

Quote:Of course, it is not difficult to imagine other paths by which an ancient city could end up with a range of architectural legacy, but I did in fact make the further effort to find citation for BS’s claim for Besançon’s subtle demolition renown. Still, I kept coming up with citations for its conservation renown. Well, OK.

I don't think there is much point on a discussion based on a false premises: the supposed claim that Besançon is unique, while my claim is pretty much the opposite: the entirety of France is unafraid to rebuild. I even mentioned Paris, Strasbourg and Prague as examples of other cities not afraid to demolish.

So talk about building strawmen. I describe a general phenomenon in Europe of not being afraid to mix the old with the new giving examples of various cities including Besançon, Paris, Prague and Strasbourg. You instead go on a tangent about some claimed uniqueness which exists only in your imagination.
Oh dear. I just thought their trains were pretty.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165