U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay
 [Register]
Tampa Bay Tampa - St. Petersburg - Clearwater
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:35 PM
 
48 posts, read 14,024 times
Reputation: 96

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADVANCEDmgmt View Post

Today, these people aren't merely planners for the built space at all. They have become imbeded social scientists and engineers, or worst yet, manipulators of design to achieve a "social goal", giving less attention to efficacy, purpose, expense, and use - including land use.
Excellent insights from your posts such as the one above, ADVANCEDmgmt, thank you.

As previously stated, I have lived and still frequently visit cities with dense urban settings. These particular cities were never planned but rather a culmination of centuries of haphazard growth by many of the reasons Advancedmgmt pointed out. I think that is why I enjoy them and they would not have that character if "planned". It would be like that "Disney" feeling, nice but not real. I have a hunch that "Vinickville" will also render that Disney vibe for me.

In closing, I would like to state that I enjoy living in the Tampa Bay area in my little suburb oasis with my own yard and pool. That is why I own a home here. Tampa Bay is just a disjointed mixture of municipalities on the Gulf Coast of Florida and I love it.

Anyway, good topic and the posts have stimulated what brain cells I have left. Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2019, 06:17 AM
 
3,731 posts, read 2,960,209 times
Reputation: 2456
I am glad that you have enjoyed the topic and discussion so far. I would like for ADVANCEDmgmt to perhaps share more specific links regarding the flaws of modern urban planning or the way that they try to reshape things. I'm actually not suggesting that is entirely wrong, I do see some of those things. But, I would like to see additional information to further shape my perspective, because I don't believe that all high density, even in new form, is inherently bad either. It's such a unique challenge to do a study on something like this though, because so many people in both cities in suburbs are at varying stages and with varying externalizing factors influencing their lives.

Your point makes sense, and I would agree that they weren't planned to the level things are planned for today (at the same time though, historically, cities didn't have quite the livability factors that they do today, even Belle-Epoque Era Paris had many, many flaws, even if it was perhaps more authentic. I would disagree somewhat with the comment about the fact that cities with dense urban settings were not historically planned. I think there are some cases where they weren't (or at least weren't planned wisely). In the case of many European cities, they did just kind of form over time with layers and layers of history (although modern influences have of course shaped what they are today perhaps more heavily than American ones have ever been shaped at that level). But I feel like most of the traditional cities in the Americas have been shaped by at least some overall hand mapping out how and where things would be built. Washington DC's entire layout was mapped out by Pierre L'Enfant. New York City (Manhattan at least) of course, has it's perfect grid. Chicago was perhaps the most heavily/large scale planned American city with it's north south grid, acres of park space set aside to people, and other environmental/economic considerations by Daniel Burnham and others. A place like Los Angeles is perhaps an exception to this rule, but even parts of it (Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena) were very heavily mapped out I think. This extends south to Mexico City which was probably the original one starting this, with the historically gridded historic center (outstanding BTW, it's about the size of Chicago's present CBD!), along with the modern Paseo de la Reforma, which was more of a later hallmark of Haussman-style Parisian planning from when one of the Habsburg's was running the city/country.

I understand your overall point that you prefer authentic places, but remember at one point even Old New York was New Amsterdam, so Vinik's plan, just like others has resulted from a demand to fulfill a potential need or make Tampa a more vibrant place. I also completely understand your perspective on wanting to live in a suburb oasis with a yard and a pool. That is the American dream, after all, and I think people that want to live in that way should have the right to. Frankly, it's the way in which I'm going to be living for the time being, though I'm hoping life eventually puts me in a place where I can have a more urban lifestyle, if nothing else for the temporary experience of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2019, 06:58 AM
 
223 posts, read 231,106 times
Reputation: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137 View Post
I am glad that you have enjoyed the topic and discussion so far. I would like for ADVANCEDmgmt to perhaps share more specific links regarding the flaws of modern urban planning or the way that they try to reshape things. I'm actually not suggesting that is entirely wrong, I do see some of those things. But, I would like to see additional information to further shape my perspective, because I don't believe that all high density, even in new form, is inherently bad either. It's such a unique challenge to do a study on something like this though, because so many people in both cities in suburbs are at varying stages and with varying externalizing factors influencing their lives.

Your point makes sense, and I would agree that they weren't planned to the level things are planned for today (at the same time though, historically, cities didn't have quite the livability factors that they do today, even Belle-Epoque Era Paris had many, many flaws, even if it was perhaps more authentic. I would disagree somewhat with the comment about the fact that cities with dense urban settings were not historically planned. I think there are some cases where they weren't (or at least weren't planned wisely). In the case of many European cities, they did just kind of form over time with layers and layers of history (although modern influences have of course shaped what they are today perhaps more heavily than American ones have ever been shaped at that level). But I feel like most of the traditional cities in the Americas have been shaped by at least some overall hand mapping out how and where things would be built. Washington DC's entire layout was mapped out by Pierre L'Enfant. New York City (Manhattan at least) of course, has it's perfect grid. Chicago was perhaps the most heavily/large scale planned American city with it's north south grid, acres of park space set aside to people, and other environmental/economic considerations by Daniel Burnham and others. A place like Los Angeles is perhaps an exception to this rule, but even parts of it (Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena) were very heavily mapped out I think. This extends south to Mexico City which was probably the original one starting this, with the historically gridded historic center (outstanding BTW, it's about the size of Chicago's present CBD!), along with the modern Paseo de la Reforma, which was more of a later hallmark of Haussman-style Parisian planning from when one of the Habsburg's was running the city/country.

I understand your overall point that you prefer authentic places, but remember at one point even Old New York was New Amsterdam, so Vinik's plan, just like others has resulted from a demand to fulfill a potential need or make Tampa a more vibrant place. I also completely understand your perspective on wanting to live in a suburb oasis with a yard and a pool. That is the American dream, after all, and I think people that want to live in that way should have the right to. Frankly, it's the way in which I'm going to be living for the time being, though I'm hoping life eventually puts me in a place where I can have a more urban lifestyle, if nothing else for the temporary experience of it.
The Channel/Water Street area seems to be predominantly transplants anyways, so there's potential for the area to become more denser/walkable etc. There's room for both. I'm more concerned about the actual follow through from the builders than I am people not wanting it. People want it and there's room for both. Tampa is getting younger, families are getting smaller, and people like to walk places to keep in shape. I think the area is just getting started- hopefully.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2019, 08:08 AM
 
773 posts, read 202,460 times
Reputation: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137 View Post
You aren't wrong about the fact people lived here before northerners did, but that doesn't give people living here before greater rights, it gives them equal rights to it. And generally speaking, if new people move to a place, they generally implement their ideas on how it should be shaped with time. That is just generally human nature/how things have evolved with time.

Honestly, it sounds like you just really have a strong distaste for urban planners-it is what it is. It sounds like you have a general distaste for density and think of urban spaces like that as misguided or unnecessary in general. Again, I don't have a problem with that either. But, why can't you just let the people in those places do their thing, and then you do things in your way? Again, isn't it okay for people to choose to live in a variety of different settlements? It would be one thing if people in Downtown Sarasota were telling you or me how and where you needed to live (which I would have a problem with), but as it is they are not.

Duany went to Ecole des Beaux Arts and perhaps has French ancestry, but he grew up in Cuba and has been an American citizen for much of his life. I don't know whether where someone is from is relevant, so long as they have a vision for something, don't be upset at him necessarily, be upset at people within the core of Sarasota that chose to listen to him! Lol.

Again, I respect your opinion that you don't like urban planners and believe that building places that are urban in nature is a fallacious practice, but it doesn't seem like you have specific statistics or data or anything of the sort noting why everything you mention is so bad, actually is.
Excellent thread and discussion that resonates.

We are soon to be retirees from a large NE city (inner suburb) considering Florida for relocation. I do not have any background in urban planning but agree with the pros of you cite. We enjoy the densely populated South Boston area where we could eliminate cars -- walk to grocery shop, church, restaurants and use public transportation. We live outside Philadelphia in a lovely suburb with access to multiple train stations so we can enjoy all the cultural amenities and well as first class healthcare services via train.

I think the problem may be tield to the economic tax base --

Are there sufficient large employers who will pay taxes and provide high paying jobs to attract a certain demographic with means to support cultural amenities.

Many of the cultural amenities in large cities are funded by philanthropists or large employers.

Public transportation follows from large employment centers connecting the inner suburban areas.

I would think the current deomographics of retirees on fixed income and no state income tax would be a big barrier to urban development.

Again, great discussion as most discussions on CD are about low cost of living, weather and golfing and I am left wanting. I will also check out the links you suggested. thanks.

Last edited by Maddie104; 04-20-2019 at 08:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2019, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Not the end of the Earth, but I can see it from here
3,527 posts, read 3,650,733 times
Reputation: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddie104 View Post

I would think the current deomographics of retirees on fixed income and no state income tax would be a big barrier to urban development.
Florida, while having one of the largest percentage of retirees compared to other states, still only has about 19% of the population being retired. That means over 80% of the rest of the population are not retirees and a good portion of those are working adults paying sales and other taxes. I don't see this as having a significant effect on the tax base or revenues.

The main problem as it relates to infrastructure for transportation is the uncontrolled growth that has occurred in the last 20-30 years. Municipalities have not kept up with the influx of new homes and residents, and as a result the tax revenues and impact fees required for such improvements simply isn't there. That, coupled with short-term planning, has pretty well doomed the possibility of any reasonable type of mass transit that would allow some of the situations discussed here.

RM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2019, 08:02 PM
 
89 posts, read 36,224 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADVANCEDmgmt View Post
Allow me to state clearly a couple of things.

Whether I like, or disdain the field of urban planning is almost immaterial. I will say that some if not most of the newer crop or planners that I know very well, have been steeped in a social engineering philosophy, and they are consumed with those "ideals", ideas, style, design, architecture, and decisions that buttress the philosophy of "social engineering" FIRST. (Not meeting the physical needs of the electorate....they are more impressed with sensory appeal and the resulting emotive reactions and behavior).

In short, they actually believe they hold power over demographics, movement, economics, and social strata.

That's not their traditional role...at all. Most urban planners have almost elitist, egg-headed and leftist solutions whether they are truly functional or not. Too many examples of their folly are available....among them are narrow traffic circles, paver intersections, medians eliminated for turning lanes, poor traffic light timing/design, poor placement/need assessment for BIKE LANES, etc.

My opinion is truly my own and it's based on being trained as a graduate urban planner with endorsements in public policy. The problem with most planners, is that they now ascribe to a shared "social engineering", and leftist bent. That's fairly obvious to the trained eye.

Meeting a need is one thing, creating a need is quite another, and that's exactly what most of these clowns are doing, all in the name of enlightenment, choice and progressive academic thought.

I'm not buying the cleverly-cloaked (financial) scam. They aren't about maximizing functionality or proper use, they too are guided by extracting huge profit....for them and of course for real estate investors and land owners, and of course the government flunkies who vote to pass their schemes aka "transformation".

I think I understand fully.
I have a public policy background as well, but by no means I am an urban planner. That said, I believe we are conflating a few issues. Smart urban planning by a local government makes the best use of limited resources, which if done correctly, benefits all. It shouldn’t be a zero-sum game. Cities, including some here in the South, have always had elements of, and have benefited from, some amount of “urban planning.” Unless you do not live, work, go to school in, eat in, attend events in, etc, etc.. than you do benefit from a smartly developed urban city. Now, very few cities actually have the resources to develop these things on their own so they rely on the private sector to “develop” them. Call me cynical, but left unchecked, most developers would over develop anything they get there hands on. And those examples you provided as elitist egg head folly, are actually all great examples of engineer and developer failures. The clowns that you say are creating a need are not urban planners, they are real estate developers. Frankly, while some of your points are valid ones, your obsession with “leftist solutions” borders on conspiracy theory. If you don’t like cities, stay in the suburbs, and leave the paranoia elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 05:06 AM
 
3,731 posts, read 2,960,209 times
Reputation: 2456
Trip Mcnealy: I figure people will want it too-and not a small number either. I think even if the population itself around that area is small, many from around the region and even outside of it will partake-similar to Armature Works. I don't have the exact numbers on it, but I think that a pretty good proof here can be the level of occupancy of units by % and if places in and around it have a waiting list-they often do.

Maddie104: I tend to think that is where much discussion is centered too, and so it is nice to see some discussion of what resonates to the name of this site, itself. I think some of the forums perhaps have more users of a particular interest type or another, some of the regional ones, Florida esp. end up just being about where to settle in the area, so on so forth. I think there is merit to that too, but it's nice to see something that you can actually come back and talk about as well. I will continue to update, hopefully posting at least a few new article links each week, and perhaps that will facilitate further discussion relating to the individual projects, who has used them, etc.

MortonR: I completely agree. The rate of growth here really has been unprecedented, and so I think it would be very difficult to make infrastructure updates with the consistency they are needed. I think other challenges with mass transit include the existing built environment (i.e., adding light rail in along Kennedy or somethings towards the airport would be quite difficult). I also do think much of where the population lives is away from where stations would be themselves. In many places, the idea is called TOD or Transit Oriented Development. That is difficult here though because so much low density land use already exists, it would be difficult to build TOD over that from scratch. I think that a light rail, or at least some type of regular BRT would be pretty well used if it was a more regular and fast line from say USF or Brandon Mall to Downtown. Not easy to get something started like that, but even the Ybor streetcar line proves demand is there.

AdvancedMGMT: So, I can't really refute or deny your claims about the way that urban planners are. I will take your word for it on them (I can't really confirm or deny it, honestly I have no experience or visualization that would specifically cause me to feel a certain way on it, other than that I enjoy walking around, exploring, and participating in city life). I also don't think it comes as a huge surprise that urban planners have a leftist bent, either. My thing is though, you've expressed complaints about the way they do things, and about high density, eliminating setbacks in building, etc., but I don't know that you've expressed what specifically is actually wrong with those things other than to say that they are "socialist" in nature and "wrong-headed" "not right for the area" etc. My question though is why? To be fair also, can't the "needs of the electorate" be considered subjective in nature by whoever it is that is interpreting them? That's not a liberal statement, that's just a "people act on what they feel is right" feeling.

To your comments on the examples, for one thing I will be curious to your response actually on reasonablevoice's comment about the fact that many of those examples you cite as poor practices were actually the result of engineer/developer failures, rather than public/city planners. I honestly am not certain.
Narrow Traffic Circles: I think they most directly hurt those driving through, and benefit those living on said street (I usually see them in residential streets, honestly), because it does slow down traffic a little bit. I think in a way, they actually hinder walkability, though.
Paver Intersections: Perhaps you can elaborate on your problem with these. Again, so much of this, including my response, is somewhat subjective in nature, we don't (or at least I don't) have specific data which would suggest these things. But, they seem to highlight a place that people are walking (or would want to walk), without having an impact on road size, etc.
Medians... is this what you are referring to? https://www.google.com/search?q=medi...M2T1LE4t2RQRM: just checking. I think it depends. I mean, I think they can probably be good for a place trying to encourage bicycling among residents.. I think they work pretty well on Central Ave. in St. Pete for instance. But, I'd agree there are probably places where they aren't needed, at least not at this stage. Again, data is important (which I at least don't have?), along with who and what we are trying to prioritize. FL doesn't have a great reputation for pedestrian safety (an awful one, actually), and so it's maybe not the worst thing to experiment stuff.
Poor traffic light timing/design: Don't really know what you mean, but what I can attest to whether it's suburban, urban, what have you is that Florida seems to have longer light signals than anywhere in the country in general. That's not really a political thing either, just general thing I've noticed.

Poor placement/need assessment for bike lanes: Again, this is one of those things where I won't refute your opinion, but again, we can make all sorts of claims, but I feel like having individual people say "oh, the bike lanes make this place a utopia" or, certain groups saying "these median eliminations are the devil", are just that. Anecdotes. I'd be more interested in considering reasoning such as "commute times were lengthened by 5 mins." or "pedestrian/auto accidents decreased by 25% in that city" or "business and sales along the street are down 15%" or property values in the neighborhood are up 10% since their installation, even when controlling for other factors. While data can be manipulated too, at least it provides more solid talking points to come up with our own conclusions.

reasonablevoice: I kind of responded to more of your points along with his previous post. I actually don't mind having a contrarian voice in the thread (though I'd like to see more specifics on arguments). I think it helps to contribute to the overall body of discussion and perspective and strengthens the overall understanding of the topic. That said, I completely agree with you that having a smartly planned core doesn't just benefit those that are living there, it benefits everyone in the area who uses those facilities. Even if they don't use them, at all, I think it helps the people just owning properties in the region at large on overall value, etc. If one thinks ignoring the core won't have poor effects on an area's overall reputation, property values (comparatively) and even the economic opportunities and competitiveness of the region at large, just look at Jacksonville. By comparison, take a look at a well planned city (Minneapolis-Saint Paul is critically acclaimed for this), and the resulting QOL and economic potential available to citizenry there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 05:36 AM
 
Location: Not the end of the Earth, but I can see it from here
3,527 posts, read 3,650,733 times
Reputation: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137 View Post
MortonR: I completely agree. The rate of growth here really has been unprecedented, and so I think it would be very difficult to make infrastructure updates with the consistency they are needed. I think other challenges with mass transit include the existing built environment (i.e., adding light rail in along Kennedy or somethings towards the airport would be quite difficult). I also do think much of where the population lives is away from where stations would be themselves. In many places, the idea is called TOD or Transit Oriented Development. That is difficult here though because so much low density land use already exists, it would be difficult to build TOD over that from scratch. I think that a light rail, or at least some type of regular BRT would be pretty well used if it was a more regular and fast line from say USF or Brandon Mall to Downtown. Not easy to get something started like that, but even the Ybor streetcar line proves demand is there.
In fairness, Hartline has tried to set up express routes for commuters with some success. However, their route planning efforts have been haphazard at best.

For example, the route that I could take from Bloomingdale to downtown used to take over an hour each way. Hardly an "express" route. My current automotive commute is roughly 30 minutes each way. That meant an additional hour of my time spent commuting. Not acceptable to me.

They accepted feedback from users and cut down on the number of stops, making it about 45 minutes each way now. It's certainly acceptable to me should I want to use it, but I'm not keen about parking my nice older car outside in the weather for 9-10 hours a day (I have indoor parking downtown courtesy of my employer.) Since this is an issue of value to me, I'll forego the bus but keep it in my pocket in the event I would decide to commute using public transportation.

This being said, at the same time Hartline cut back the number and frequency of its regular routes. That created some major pain for more urban users of the system. I'm not sure what the rationale was for the cuts/changes, but they didn't seem to be well thought out.

There is also a County sponsored ride sharing cooperative, however, I've never been able to find a car pool group through it in over five years of looking. I find this to be highly suspect, as I'm sure there are other commuters to downtown in my immediate area that come and go at or near the same time I got to/from work. I'm not sure what the issue is here, but it would appear from my experience that the program is lip service to the problem of cutting down on individual commuters.

RM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 06:15 PM
 
3,731 posts, read 2,960,209 times
Reputation: 2456
MortonR: Thank you for your thoughts and perspective. I could not agree more, while the HARTline is certainly an attempt, 45 minutes even is quite a long time for covering that distance when you can have the personal convenience of taking a vehicle. I think it would be nearly impossible to match commute times for driving short of traffic getting massively worse (possible) or getting some type of super impressive light rail on par with that in say Japan (which likely won't ever happen). I think it is very difficult to get people's habits to change (re: carpooling). I don't know what the right answers are at this point, but it is at least interesting to know the present options that exist. I wonder if there are any similarly sized Sun Belt cities doing better in the BRT or carpool regard that we could learn from. Frankly, I'd be open to car pooling with people where I live to cut down on gas expenses, wear/tear, etc.

AdvancedMGMT: That's what I tend to think. In some ways, they really seem to make cars a bigger theme of the road in terms of different directions they are going despite the fact they also more greatly inconvenience cars. I think in a situation like this, perhaps they help in that, if kids are playing out in the yard, etc. (Austin, TX) https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2483...7i16384!8i8192

But in the case of say, Saint Armand's Circle, I get that it was an auto traffic circle to begin with, but https://www.google.com/maps/@27.3183...7i16384!8i8192 it's walkable mainly because of the shops bunched together, and in spite of the circle which encourages people to stick to one quadrant.. certainly not because of it.

That's interesting to note. It seems like there is only so much one can do about that though. It's unfortunate that power is allowed to be bought like that, but it seems like when $ is involved, as both you and reasonablevoice note, things will end up taking shape in a certain way regardless of what actually works best.

Now, I guess the question is where that leaves someone like me, that doesn't necessarily have control over stuff like that, but appreciates the recreation, entertainment, and employment opportunities that a strong core can offer. The point you make about an engineer (rational fact-driven problem-solvers), I think holds some weight, but I think that each discipline perhaps considers things from the lens of each separate discipline. One of the things that was of note in the 25 Great Ideas text I was reading was that the goal should not necessarily be for one particular group to run things, but for engineers, urban planners, and various other stakeholders working together to solve problems and doing things best for the overall city. I would agree with that in an ideal, and would also posit that the more people that are informed and participate in decisions and politics, there is a decrease then in the opportunity for things to get overly corrupted. That is why I personally want to stay abreast on these projects and developments, who it will involve and affect, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Not the end of the Earth, but I can see it from here
3,527 posts, read 3,650,733 times
Reputation: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137 View Post
MortonR: Thank you for your thoughts and perspective. I could not agree more, while the HARTline is certainly an attempt, 45 minutes even is quite a long time for covering that distance when you can have the personal convenience of taking a vehicle. I think it would be nearly impossible to match commute times for driving short of traffic getting massively worse (possible) or getting some type of super impressive light rail on par with that in say Japan (which likely won't ever happen). I think it is very difficult to get people's habits to change (re: carpooling). I don't know what the right answers are at this point, but it is at least interesting to know the present options that exist. I wonder if there are any similarly sized Sun Belt cities doing better in the BRT or carpool regard that we could learn from. Frankly, I'd be open to car pooling with people where I live to cut down on gas expenses, wear/tear, etc.
I am definitely interested in car pooling, but again, the resources for identifying potential members are nonexistent. The county claims to have a vanpool/rideshare resource, but again, I've attempted to engage them many times over the past five years with little to no success.

"on par with Japan"?

I think not. I used to work in Tokyo on a regular basis, and there is no parallel to anywhere in the world I've traveled for Japanese public transit. I can recall the first time I arrived at Narita, standing at the curb watching the busses come and go every minute or two with military precision. The trains run in a similar manner. Nothing, I mean nothing, is ever late.

RM
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 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 - Top