Think Pieces

THEME: Play

Images of Play

What does play mean to you? | October 2012

To tie in with the theme of the 2012 London Festival of Architecture – A Playful City – and also build on our recent debate on the same theme, this series of think pieces considers play in the city.

You are invited to join the debate using the form on the right hand side. You can comment on both the theme in general and individual author’s response, if you want to react to an existing comment, please make reference using the ‘title’ field. You are required to input an email address to submit a comment, but you won’t be contacted in any way and it will not display, this is purely to stop spam.

SHARE

Expand Article
Hide Article Print Article

A selection of images that articulate different forms of play in the city; what does play (in the city) mean to you?


Photo: Lucy Musgrave – Design and Landscapes for People
Play as gentle subversion – modification of both the game and the city to explore play.


Photo: Dubrovnik
Adapting to fit the context: Inserting \’play\’ into a historic, dense urban setting.


Photo: Rebecca Roberts-Hughes
At the bottom of Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower in London is a bizarre concrete structure that includes a sheltered area with odd openings and something that resembles a slide. Made from concrete, these could never be used as a play area for children – so what is their purpose?


Photo: Susie Clapham
A playful city to me, means one full of unexpected things.


Photo: James Parkinson
Activation of an old industrial site in Copenhagen – Using play to explore an alternative future for the area, this installation adds infrastructure to promote drama, risk and exploration in an area of the city that previously harboured no public life. Completely unsupervised, this kind of provision of potential risk would no doubt be feared in the UK.


Photo: Wilson Yau
Parkour – Moving through the city in new and exciting ways. Re-imagining the potential of the city in a way that seeks out risk, exploration and drama, for enjoyment.


Photo: Rebecca Roberts-Hughes
Iconic buildings like the Tower of London can provide commercial opportunities for play, like the annual festive ice skating rink.


Photo: James Parkinson
Richard Wilson – ‘Turning the Place Over’, Liverpool. A playful re-imagination of part of the urban fabric suddenly makes this building a destination and, consequently, highlights the limitless possibilities of re-thinking the existing city in new and creative ways.


Photo: Marsh Van Moorsel
The Sultans Elephant, London – Using the city as a stage for events and spectacle to bring people together.


Photo: Rebecca Roberts-Hughes
Once every three years Zurich holds Europe’s biggest festival. Every street is flooded with stalls; every square becomes a dance floor; and fun fairs and water games spring up around the lake, above which there are helicopter displays by day and fireworks every night. After two days of extreme festivities, Zurich returns to its usual state of calm and order.


Photo: James Parkinson
Hierarchy of priorities for Britons?!

Daisy Froud

Play: Reflections of the design and development of our cities | April 2013

To tie in with the theme of the 2012 London Festival of Architecture – A Playful City – and also build on our recent debate on the same theme, this series of think pieces considers play in the city.

You are invited to join the debate using the form on the right hand side. You can comment on both the theme in general and individual author’s response, if you want to react to an existing comment, please make reference using the ‘title’ field. You are required to input an email address to submit a comment, but you won’t be contacted in any way and it will not display, this is purely to stop spam.

TAGS

  • Play
  • Public Space
  • Freedom
  • Subversion
  • London
  • Urban Design
  • Planning

SHARE

Expand Article
Hide Article Print Article
 

Perhaps it’s only since having a four-year old by my side that I’ve realised – remembered even – what play is really all about. Having fun, certainly. Imagining different worlds, that too. But more significantly, it’s about taking risks: trying things out and pushing beyond what appears possible. And when we play together, it’s about negotiation: learning how to operate in the world and to manage our conflicting desires.

When it comes to play as an adult, and playing in and with the public realm – a theme of this year’s London Festival of Architecture – I’m definitely not against having fun, or seeing our environment in more creative ways. I enjoy sitting in giant pieces of furniture, paddling in temporary lidos, and playing parts of the city as life-sized games. But I am rarely left feeling that I, or my fellow players, have undertaken any kind of risky negotiation with the city’s form, or with the social relations that construct it. We enjoy the spectacle. Then we go home.

Play-themed strategies, including oodles of playful art, are also quite the thing in the design of London’s permanent public realm. From Spitalfields to Dalston Square, More London to Kings Cross, cheeky sculptures, interactive water features and flexible performance spaces are emerging everywhere. Kings Cross for example, explicitly aims to generate “an ambient playfulness for the whole site, regardless of age or users”.

In many ways, this is great. There are doubtless civic benefits in getting us all out there, playfully interacting. But there is an irony – as many point out regarding the increasing privatization of public space – that as symbolic play gains increasing prominence, any genuine possibility of taking risks and experimenting together in the public realm is eroded. Play is fine, as long as we play nicely, and don’t try to question the way in which space is actually produced, and ways in which we might produce it differently. Henri Lefebvre, that great spatialiser of politics, would probably have described this as the dominance, in our historical period, of certain ‘representations of space’, the conceived space of “scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers”, over ‘representational space’, the “fluid and dynamic” space of users and inhabitants.

Now we should be clear, as Lefebvre is, that there is no neat dividing line between these, and that this isn’t a clear case of us and them. Technocrats, after all, are users too. Nonetheless, the fertile ‘lived’ space of our individual and collective imaginations, of shape-shifting dreams and desires, memories and possibilities, does appear increasingly marginalized in the organization and practice of the, theoretically public, spaces of the city.

As symbols of play and fun crowd our field of vision, one might even argue that we are being deliberately distracted by a brightly-coloured illusion of agency, a parody of the Van-Eyckian ideal of the city as playground. (That concept’s political roots – hopes of participative, bottom-up urbanism – are long withered away, crushed beneath ‘good design’ limestone pavers, where only fluorescent acrylic trees, polite shrubs and No Cycling signs now blossom.) While an invisible game with much bigger stakes goes on elsewhere, as the major players exchange tokens and clean up the board.

The outcome, to cite Kim Dovey, Quentin Stevens and Leonie Sandercock, eloquent analysts of the relationship between planning and power, are places made up of a “predetermined, generic and predictable palette of images, perceptions and opportunities for action”. These “landscapes of [a certain kind of sanctioned] desire” are nonetheless vital to the work of place marketing and city branding, themselves paths to much sought-after inward investment. So we keep on making them, for the greater good of the regional, and national, economy, and the celebrated ‘trickle-down’ effects.

But away from cynicism, what might a city of real play look like? How might we open up genuine risk and experimentation in urban development? One suggestion comes from another playful trend: the world of the ‘pop-up’. It does often seem in today’s London, that once you pop-up, you can’t stop. Of course, one can still be cynical about this much-documented activity, with its ubiquitous leisure use and middle-class associations. Like Pringles given architectural form, pop-ups may be great at facilitating collective fun, and are inevitably a funny shape, but too many of them can leave a strange flat taste in your mouth.

However, what pop-ups offer, in the right conditions, given the right support, unlike much currently sanctioned play, is the opportunity to experiment not only with use and form, but also with the way we ‘do’ change. At their best, they suggest a more piecemeal and improvised way of making and re-making the city than endlessly repetitive strategic masterplans with carefully curated variety and identically bespoke assemblages of ‘character areas’. It’s just a shame that for the time being this methodology, not unknown elsewhere in the world, seems confined to ‘meanwhile’ interventions.

I am doubtless naïve. I am certainly not an economist. I do understand the logic, particularly in under-resourced areas, of private-sector partnered large-scale development of new urban districts, with all the economies of scale, benefits of experience and risk-reduction that this theoretically brings. But when I read the research behind sustainable communities, lifetime neighbourhoods, or whatever we call them now, I can’t help fantasising about things being done differently. Time and time again I see the argument that for any of these visions to really thrive, meaningful civic engagement and strong civic networks are required. What better way to do that then producing our neighbourhoods in a more experimental and collaborative manner?

Take the London Borough of Newham, for example, somewhere I spend a lot of time. And currently home to Caravanserai, a five-year pop-up ‘trading-post’, experimenting with “ideas for commerce and community cohesion” on a major town centre site. Newham is packed with regeneration areas, due to its east London location and swathes of ex-industrial land, and is doing a valiant job of balancing developer-enthusiasm with the broader needs of its existing communities.

I’ve heard positive noises about some of Caravanserai’s achievements being captured in some form within the permanent Bouygues scheme. This sounds interesting. But, thinking more ambitiously, wouldn’t it be great if sites like that one could respond to lack of public sector regeneration funding by taking risks with a more fundamentally bottom-up and playful form of development? What if Newham, or a council like it, decided to experiment with delivery of ‘placemaking’ and renewal objectives by facilitating the emergence of an experimental self-build district? And, with that, a self-build community?

This might involve moves such as long-leasing plots of land at low rates to small cooperatives, or even individuals. Or supporting the development of a variety of collaborative masterplan. (I remember an elderly Newcastle planner saying to me that he really thought we should be making servantplans not masterplans. Cheesy, I know, but you get his drift.) It could happen to varying degrees of Non-Plan-esque anarchy. But there is no lack of interesting precedents or emergent economic models to learn from and built upon, from relevant projects elsewhere in Europe like Freiburg-Vauban, to current cohousing, Community Land Trust and asset transfer experiments.

Of course, there are would be issues around equity and ownership to resolve, and the pronoun ‘we’ would have to be flung around rather less casually than it is in this article. But, in principle, wouldn’t a genuinely sustainable community, and a sustainable local economy for the wider area, be more likely to emerge through a similar process – through creatively taking risks and negotiating outcomes together – than via any attempt to design one in, no matter how many hubs and piazzas one scatters through a scheme?

I daydream of the city, my city, as a real life-size game board for risk and experimentation. Where the public realm, including what genuine public land and assets we have left, is collectively understood as a positively political space. One where – through meaningful spatial play – we work out how to live together.

............................................................

Daisy Froud is Head of Participation at AOC. She worked with Central London Partnership, Groundwork London and Groundwork Camden and Islington before co-founding AOC in September 2003. She has extensive experience of devising and undertaking stakeholder engagement and consultation and led both the community R&D process on the Building Futures neighbourhood regeneration game for RIBA and CABE and the participative briefing and design process for the Lift New Parliament. She has also worked as an expert advisor on community engagement to regeneration initiatives in Germany. Daisy has lectured at leading schools of architecture in the UK and Europe and currently teaches on the history and theory of regeneration at the Bartlett, UCL. She is a CABE Enabler, a member of the London Borough of Newham\’s Design Review Panel and an accredited Building For Life Assessor.

Steve McAdam

Play: A Seam in the City | October 2012

To tie in with the theme of the 2012 London Festival of Architecture – A Playful City – and also build on our recent debate on the same theme, this series of think pieces considers play in the city.

You are invited to join the debate using the form on the right hand side. You can comment on both the theme in general and individual author’s response, if you want to react to an existing comment, please make reference using the ‘title’ field. You are required to input an email address to submit a comment, but you won’t be contacted in any way and it will not display, this is purely to stop spam.

TAGS

  • Play
  • Public Space
  • Situationist International
  • Freedom
  • Subversion
  • London
  • Kings Cross

SHARE

Expand Article
Hide Article Print Article
 

Play is first evident, I think, in the mannerist works of such architects as Guilio Romano. Take his Palazzo del Te in Padova (1524) – a kind of fun palace for the Marquis which willfully subverts the classical canon of architecture while using its devices. With its super-scaled keystones, hyper rustication and naughty messing about with the orders, solids and voids, Romano was clearly having fun, and was hoping that others might too. Perhaps he felt his mentor, Raphael, was just too serious about the play of string instruments and harmonics. Romano also sought to draw together two and three-dimensional worlds the way anamorphic street artists do now. The “fall of the giants” mural at the Palazzo was an early attempt to dissolve architecture into another space, nearly twenty years before Michelangelo completed his Sistene Chapel.

Such playfulness recurred in the use of tromp l’oiel at a time when theatre was beginning to take shape, reaching its apotheosis in 1585, with Palladio’s Teatro Olympico. Suddenly urban spaces were all about perspective and usually about Urbano. False perspectives, anamorphic murals, and visual tricks were to pepper architectural projects of the renaissance and beyond.

Fast-forwarding to the modern movement, we find that play is still alive, even if obsessed by pure planes and Cartesian geometry. At heart though, defying gravity or removing the corners of buildings became a way of playing with form while defying structural rules. Sedition is in the detail.

It is the Situationist International (SI) that we have to thank for introducing the idea that the city itself could be seen as a playground, an idea that finds a contemporary echo with the ‘Urban Explorers’ network, who post instructions on their website (http://urbanexplorers.net/) about environments that make up the hidden underbelly of the city, to be explored rather as potholers explore caves. Guy Debord did more to suggest that urban conditions could be discovered and enjoyed than any architect or urban designer. This enjoyment was not without rules in that it was expected that the ‘psycho-geographers’ would, at least, be stoned and probably drunk too. Though there appear to be certain drawbacks with this methodology, the thought that ‘pleasant places’ and powerful experiences could be plotted may well have played a part in leading us to recent obsessions with ‘place making’. Debord drew on the work of Johan Huizinga, a professor of cultural theory at Leiden University whose 1938 book, ‘Homo Ludens’ suggested that play is primary to and a necessary condition of the generation of culture. He identified five characteristics that play must have:

Play is free, is in fact freedom
Play is not “ordinary” or “real” life
Play is distinct from “ordinary” life both as to locality and duration
Play creates order, is order and demands order absolute and supreme
Play is connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained from it

The Dutch architect Constant (Nieuwenhuys), a one time member of the SI, and an architect who was inspired by Huizinga’s work, progressed, through his 1960-75 ‘New Babylon’ project, an idea of a three dimensional field of play defined by interactions and situations along lines of connection in the city. For Constant, architecture was a co-production of strategy and inhabitation reflecting the fact that for him, and the SI in general, human endeavour was passing from work to play as the primary means of self and societal generation.

Aldo van Eyck continued this Dutch seam of play in the city through installing numerous non-deterministic playgrounds in various Dutch cities from 1947 on. Years later Quentin Stevens, a senior lecturer at the Bartlett School of Planning produced a book which drew on the works of Huizinga, Debord and van Eyck in analyzing spectacle and play in different types of urban space – His Ludic City (2007) shows how interactions and interpretations of place introduce elements of play laid out along and responding to paths, intersections, thresholds, boundaries and props, echoing Constant’s work.

A very different type of Fun Palace was created by Cedric Price and Joan Littlewood, the radical theatre director, in the early ‘60’s. Here architecture as an enabling entity was sketched and explored though never realised on its docklands site on the Isle of Dogs. But a wider, more dexterous form of fun, fun as insurrection, fun as a destabilising gesture, as detournement as the Situationist International had it, was to emerge in his ‘Potteries Think belt’ where superannuated rail stock was to be recycled as mobile kit for skilling and training – an echo and retake of the Open University system Price so admired.

The work of the Situationist International returned through the teachings of Tschumi, Nigel Coates and others and reacquainted the world of architecture with radical ideas that questioned architecture’s casual and sometimes diffident relationship with commerce. How could architects be free thinkers if they were merely a means of helping developers to make profits? ‘Constructed situations’, the ‘derive’ and the ‘detournement’ (turning something around), ‘programming’ and ‘cross-programming’ emerged as devices architects could use to invent new meanings for old structures and landscapes. Tschumi’s La Frenois film school in Tourconing, France, where an ensemble of old and new buildings is arranged below an over sailing roof, creating pockets of strange, roof-top space in which suspended walkways and galleries are arranged, presented architecture as a playful amalgam that disregards the supremacy of logical and rational decisions and opts instead for a layered way of thinking reflecting Sergei Eisenstein’s approach to film making where the ‘whole’ is seen as an amalgam of discrete and disjunctive methods, rather than a clear, blemish-free synthesis.

A certain disobedience emerged in design tendencies of the 1980’s which tapped into the vitality of the Punk movement, charted by Greil Marcus in his wonderful book, Lipstick Traces (1989). This may also have been buoyed along by the appearance of urban performance art in the 1960’s and 70’s which drew on the work of Guy Debord, Artaud, Dada and the 1950’s ‘happenings’ of Alan Kaprow. The design group Memphis are often mentioned as a product of this milieu but more radical actors were around such as Gunther Domenig and Coop Himmelblau in Vienna, Morphosis in LA and Daniel Libeskind in London and Berlin. For them architecture exceeded any sense of duty or commodity and looked instead to exploit the narrative structures so beloved of Tschumi and Nigel Coates.

In its most recent incarnation play is seen by some to be serious stuff. Pat Kane in his book, The Play Ethic (2005), suggests that the condition of play is creative and reflexive, and essential to the success of our ever-growing creative industries. Richard Florida talks of the office spaces of new SME’s in the USA as being less like offices and more like student pads. So well established is this trend now that the interiors of Advertising Agencies have almost become a parody; self consciously importing football machines, ping pong tables and curious statements into their work environments. But if relaxation of the usual codes is being pursued in the interior spaces of western cities, what of their public spaces? Where is the up-to-date equivalent of van Eyck’s work?

It might just be Kings Cross Central where it was discovered that of all elements of the emerging masterplan, locals felt most passionately that the triplet of gasholders removed to make way for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, should, as an icon for the neighbourhood, be reinstated close to its original location. This challenge was made the subject of an invited architectural competition which ultimately selected a housing proposal, arranged within the frames of the re-erected gasholders. But that was not the end of the story. A further competition ensued on the basis that some felt elements of the gasholder legacy should be public. Bell Phillips + Kimble winning entry suggests a playful landscape that is a cross between a pool, a garden and an amphitheatre for informal performances. It will sit on the margins of London’s newest public space, ‘Granary Square’, where on Bastille day this year, 14 July, Eurostar will present: “Traction – a one-day summer festival curated by the internationally renowned DJ Gilles Peterson in a unique festival bringing together music, dance and arts performers from across Europe.”

So long live play in the city – after all ….. all work and no play makes us rather dull!

............................................................

Steve McAdam is a founder and director of Fluid and has led major urban regeneration projects in both the public and private sectors in London and across the UK. In 2003 he was appointed to the London Olympic masterplanning team by the London Development Agency to direct all aspects of stakeholder consultation, public sector engagement and responsive masterplanning. Prior to this he project-led the public consultation programme for Argent’s Kings Cross Central project, for which Fluid received a CABE award for innovation. Steve is a consultant to the Council of Europe, and a visiting lecturer at London Metropolitan University.

Lucy Musgrave

Play: In conversation with Lucy Musgrave | October 2012

To tie in with the theme of the 2012 London Festival of Architecture – A Playful City – and also build on our recent debate on the same theme, this series of think pieces considers play in the city.

You are invited to join the debate using the form on the right hand side. You can comment on both the theme in general and individual author’s response, if you want to react to an existing comment, please make reference using the ‘title’ field. You are required to input an email address to submit a comment, but you won’t be contacted in any way and it will not display, this is purely to stop spam.

TAGS

  • Play
  • Public Space
  • London
  • Kings Cross
  • Landscape

SHARE

Expand Article
Hide Article Print Article
 

Lucy Musgrave in conversation with Jack Hardy

Why is play important?

Playable landscapes are everywhere – it’s amazing how the most ordinary elements of the city can contribute to its playable qualities. Everyday if I look out of our office windows in Clerkenwell Green at around 4 o’clock, I see two eight year old girls climbing across the racks of the Barclays bike stand on the other side of the square – up, over and across, up, over and across – play is an everyday, unanticipated thing but that’s what makes it so brilliant at enlivening civic space. Our current projects consider play integral to area strategies, for developers, for local authorities and for community groups. Play is an essential function of city life and it’s not just about children, about planned spaces or playgrounds. Great, unscripted opportunities are just as important.

In 2001, during the time I was director, the Architecture Foundation had its 10th anniversary. We took the opportunity to look forward to some of the challenges and issues facing London’s urban realm. With curator Clare Cumberlidge, we sent out an open invitation to a huge array of academics, architects, artists, planners, journalists and campaigners: anyone involved in the built environment. The message was simple – come and host an event in our space, come and do something about the future of London. What culminated were 3 events everyday for 21 days. People from different disciplines and different walks of life all came with ideas and contributions to share experiences. Of all the topics discussed, the most common theme, to our very great surprise, was play – people of all ages, with varied perspectives all discussing play. Largely, all were concerned that the opportunity for spontaneity in the public realm was being designed out of this great city.

How have you been involved in championing play in London?

Play is ingrained in the way that we live, act and entertain ourselves in everyday city space, it isn’t just about children. In the past, the UK and London in particular has been very intolerant about a different pace, a different activity, a different programme or different people using the public realm. Our current work here at Publica and past work at General Public Agency, the research we do, and the projects we’ve done are ways of digging into the history of play, thinking about contemporary interpretations of it, and testing what it means with practitioners. We continue to archive examples of the best playgrounds and play spaces in the world for this purpose.

We started looking at play in a lot of detail, looking back at some key campaigns and looking at how previous generations of children were able to use cities. Lady Allen of Hurtwood’s 1968 ‘Planning for Play’ documents the production of adventure playgrounds in London and internationally. Having seen new adventure playgrounds in Scandinavia, Lady Allen introduced the concept of ‘restorative play’ to the UK, fast-tracking construction by suggesting that bombsites in the city were ideal places to quickly create new play spaces. She was a really effective campaigner, positioning her first adventure playground in Lambeth directly opposite the House of Commons, and the necessity of play provision in the public eye.rnrnAnother great project came out of a book called ‘The School Looks Around’. In 1948 The Association for Education and Active Citizenship, chaired by Clement Attlee, had commissioned two architects from the AA, Justin Blanco White and Elizabeth Layton, to develop a thesis which outlined detailed plans through which school children could be charged with the task of undertaking local surveys and understanding how neighbourhoods work – from housing, employment and manufacturing policy, to open space and planning strategies. We set out to create a contemporary interpretation of this project, with aid from the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. This has been an on-going project thinking about how young people can begin to look at and influence the accumulation of intelligence, research and analysis about the urban condition.

How has London changed?

At General Public Agency, we were commissioned by Argent to produce an area strategy for the redevelopment of King’s Cross. We approached this through our interest in urban characterisation. What we discovered, as well as a rich history of illicit pleasure in the area, was that a huge amount of industrial archaeology had been softened and humanised over the years by a fine green layer. We came up with a provocation, an idea, about putting a soft play strategy into the mainstream landscaping strategy of the master plan – why not make the whole public realm an urban pleasure garden in a hard landscape? Play is a crucial and very effective tool in urban regeneration, and this is starting to be recognised throughout London. Camden Council approached us to advise on the engagement, selection and on-site appointment of design teams for their Play Pathfinder project – 29 new playgrounds in 2 years on housing estates and open space in the Borough. It was a really ambitious project and resulted in some wonderful play spaces like the Kilburn Grange Adventure Playground by Erect Architecture.

How can London be more playful?

We need to take it seriously, we need to find our collective voice and say we care about play and want it discussed at the very top. Today, the effective allocation of resources demands cross-disciplinary strategic planning around the re-use of existing spaces and support from legislation much of which exists, but has been overlooked. This is finally beginning to happen as a dialectic process between communities on the ground and planners and policy-makers in government. Tim Gill, play expert and Publica Associate, has been a leading activist for many years. Paul Hocker, working through London Play, is pushing for the re-introduction of the ‘Play Street’s programme, founded in the 1930’s, which brilliantly encouraged children to play in civic space. We need to allow for children to be inventive with the urban landscape and expect them to want to change it. Aldo Van Eyck has been highly influential to us – he positioned himself within the Amsterdam Department for Public Works in the mid 20th century, where he was able to influence policy makers from within. This process produced over 700 playgrounds in the city, and defined the fundamental representation of play in Amsterdam’s street spaces. It feels like play is finally beginning to become mainstreamed in urban policy as a major development tool, with lively discourse on ‘The Playful City’ an excellent example.

Play can be found in the most unexpected places. Broadgate, City of London.






............................................................

Lucy Musgrave is the director of Publica, a twenty strong team of architects, planners and researchers who develop urban strategies and public realm briefs. They are currently working for a range of clients including the City of London, Westminster City Council, the Crown Estate and the Howard de Walden Estate. Lucy was formerly co-director of General Public Agency and director of The Architecture Foundation. She is co-author of the book Design and Landscape for People – New Approaches to Renewal. Interview by Jack Hardy.

COMMENTS (1)

COMMENT ON
TITLE
COMMENT
NAME
EMAIL (Will not appear online)
URL

WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING...

THEME: Play

WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING...

Are architects ignoring children?

Tim Gill COMMENTING ON Play 13.07.12

In pointing to her work, my work and the work of Aldo van Eyck, Lucy is issuing here an implicit challenge to architects and urban designers: does children's experience of the city matter to you? I'd love to read some responses from the professionals here.

COMMENT ON
TITLE
COMMENT
NAME
EMAIL(Will not appear online)
URL
post comment