Mangiamo/Paddock Place Residential Development

[AG3]

These are incomplete. But I thought I share considering the conversation.  These are four of a row of twelve buildings. Each 2 units, but each could be a single family was well. No two exactly alike.   The moderns would not work on the site, but it does show how this kind of development may need to be approached.  Similar to my Belknap Brownstone project (Which happens to be the best neighborhood infill project in GR. Just saying.  )  But no third floor - 2 floors  was much more appropriate for the the site where these will go.  

Also - my two townhouse designs we did that I want to build somewhere in Grand rapids would be very appropriate at that site as well. 

[GRDadof3]

A condo sold just recently in Fairmount Square for $282,000. That's still almost twice the value of the homes in the immediate vicinity. I can't see going much higher than that for townhouses in that area.

[AG3]

My flats are in that range. You'd have to build some really cheap looking Townhomes to sell at that price.  Which is probably why we see so many value built projects these days.

 

 

[scottythe1nonly]

"Meijer's" is possessive, not pluralized.  That's why there's an apostrophe.  

For many years it was referred to that way, and often written that way by the company.

[GRDadof3]

8 hours ago, AG3 said:

My flats are in that range. You'd have to build some really cheap looking Townhomes to sell at that price.  Which is probably why we see so many value built projects these days.

 

 

That's not true.  If they are 2 or 3 to a building, you can get under $300,000 and have a nice looking townhome (even with natural materials on the outside, which an historic district will require). Whether the HPC would allow 2 or 3 units to a building is another question, based on the Land Bank's issues with Donald Place.  But again, Fairmount Square pulled it off. They may have threatened to sue to get it passed though, based on my experiences with that developer...  I'll have to go back and re-read material on that. I think Dotti Clune tied herself to a tree to fight that development? To no avail, even though I like Dotti Clune. 

This isn't East Grand Rapids, this is a neighborhood of $150,000 homes. 

1500 square feet on two floors, leave the basement unfinished, one stall garage. If you can't build a high end townhome for under $200/sf, you may be in the wrong market. 

224 Hollister in Fairmount Square sold in July for $301,000 with a finished basement, almost 1900 square feet. Built in 09. I know prices have gone up a bit since 09, obviously, but leave off the 361 square feet finished in the basement and that saves about $10,000 or $11,000.

 

[AG3]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

That's not true.  If they are 2 or 3 to a building, you can get under $300,000 and have a nice looking townhome (even with natural materials on the outside, which an historic district will require). Whether the HPC would allow 2 or 3 units to a building is another question, based on the Land Bank's issues with Donald Place.  But again, Fairmount Square pulled it off. They may have threatened to sue to get it passed though, based on my experiences with that developer...  I'll have to go back and re-read material on that. I think Dotti Clune tied herself to a tree to fight that development? To no avail, even though I like Dotti Clune. 

This isn't East Grand Rapids, this is a neighborhood of $150,000 homes. 

1500 square feet on two floors, leave the basement unfinished, one stall garage. If you can't build a high end townhome for under $200/sf, you may be in the wrong market. 

224 Hollister in Fairmount Square sold in July for $301,000 with a finished basement, almost 1900 square feet. Built in 09. I know prices have gone up a bit since 09, obviously, but leave off the 361 square feet finished in the basement and that saves about $10,000 or $11,000.

 

Fairmount square Townhomes were definitely value engineered.  I am not knocking those homes,  thats just the case.  But even building those today would cost 30% more if not more. In addition, the land that they sit on is much more expensive today as well.   In  fact, a row of three homes with shared walls only saves you so much. I actually think what you save,  you loose with the fire suppression system, fire separation and moving to the commercial building code, instead of the residential.  I think in that setting, homes could sell easily from 275K to 400k if done right.  This was the last building in my Brownstone project.  I sold the lower unit for 400k and the upper unit for 420k - Each unit was over about 2200 sq.ft.   That is expensive and not the market I like to be in or want to be in, but there is an appetite for this kind of stuff too,  Although I agree, the 250 to 300k is where its at.  So, I guess my point and perspective was based in comparison to what I have done.  But even so, to build a decent townhouse with some exterior character, you are going to have to sell them for more than 340k to make it work today. That is why I went to flats at 1120 sq.ft. for my next project. 

Have the said whether or not they are going to be condos or apartments ? I can't imagine the neighborhood association would get on board with more apartments. 

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, AG3 said:

Fairmount square Townhomes were definitely value engineered.  I am not knocking those homes,  thats just the case.  But even building those today would cost 30% more if not more. In addition, the land that they sit on is much more expensive today as well.   In  fact, a row of three homes with shared walls only saves you so much. I actually think what you save,  you loose with the fire suppression system, fire separation and moving to the commercial building code, instead of the residential.  I think in that setting, homes could sell easily from 275K to 400k if done right.  This was the last building in my Brownstone project.  I sold the lower unit for 400k and the upper unit for 420k - Each unit was over about 2200 sq.ft.   That is expensive and not the market I like to be in or want to be in, but there is an appetite for this kind of stuff too,  Although I agree, the 250 to 300k is where its at.  So, I guess my point and perspective was based in comparison to what I have done.  But even so, to build a decent townhouse with some exterior character, you are going to have to sell them for more than 340k to make it work today. That is why I went to flats at 1120 sq.ft. for my next project. 

Have the said whether or not they are going to be condos or apartments ? I can't imagine the neighborhood association would get on board with more apartments. 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  Over 15 years of residential construction experience and having helped build and sell hundreds (maybe close to 1000 and not 4 or 6) of owner-occupied residential units tells me otherwise. If you build at $340K in this area, you're actually ignoring the very market you're building within, and you stand the potential of causing discord in the community. 

But in the projects that I've participated in, we tend to build for the market that exists at the time and don't try to create a market for the sake of profit. 

[AG3]

2 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  Over 15 years of residential construction experience and having helped build and sell hundreds (maybe close to 1000 and not 4 or 6) of owner-occupied residential units tells me otherwise. If you build at $340K in this area, you're actually ignoring the very market you're building within, and you stand the potential of causing discord in the community. 

But in the projects that I've participated in, we tend to build for the market that exists at the time and don't try to create a market for the sake of profit. 

So building a 340 k condo versus a 280k condo will cause discord ?  I don't know about that.  The person that can afford 280k is not far off from the person that can afford 340k .   My point anyway was not about an appropriate selling price  for a neighborhood. My point was, that in order to build something that is architecturally meaningful instead of crap,  the price point will has to be near 340k or above, unfortunately..    Aside from the affordable family voices, people only care what it looks like. I choose the approach to build something meaningful and made far less money doing so than if I built something cheap and not very attractive.  I didn't create a market, I simply proved that there was already one.  And I dont care if you built 10,000 units - that doesn't tell me anything.  We just have a different perspective on design principals. 

[GRDadof3]

9 hours ago, AG3 said:

So building a 340 k condo versus a 280k condo will cause discord ?  I don't know about that.  The person that can afford 280k is not far off from the person that can afford 340k .   My point anyway was not about an appropriate selling price  for a neighborhood. My point was, that in order to build something that is architecturally meaningful instead of crap,  the price point will has to be near 340k or above, unfortunately..    Aside from the affordable family voices, people only care what it looks like. I choose the approach to build something meaningful and made far less money doing so than if I built something cheap and not very attractive.  I didn't create a market, I simply proved that there was already one.  And I dont care if you built 10,000 units - that doesn't tell me anything.  We just have a different perspective on design principals. 

There are 10x the buyers at $280 than there are at $340K here in West Michigan. Yes, there is a big difference. And some of the really expensive townhomes and homes in the area don't look meaningful to me, they look cartoonish. 

In the end it doesn't really matter because neither of us is working on this project. 

 

[x99]

On 11/4/2017 at 7:54 AM, GRDadof3 said:

There are 10x the buyers at $280 than there are at $340K here in West Michigan. Yes, there is a big difference. And some of the really expensive townhomes and homes in the area don't look meaningful to me, they look cartoonish. 

Some are good, some are bad.  The posted photo from Belknap is a lost opportunity.  Lots of money spent on materials for an architectural mess that could have and should have looked a lot better for no more money.  

Gilmore's HPC problem with is probably overbuilding the site.  Even with pavement, the basic historic setting of this mansion is largely unblemished.  The heavy construction really does detract from it quite a bit.  Split lots on Luton and Paddock, remove them from the historic designation, and sell houses off.   He still makes some money--not as much--but the site is not messed up and everyone wins.  Won't happen, but a guy can hope...

 

[EastCoaster93]

I've lurked for about year and have enjoyed  seeing the discourse between members. A community only gets better with active discussion on growth and innovation. Although I don't live in Grand Rapids currently, as a former citizen it's great to see how much more progressive GR has become over the years.  I'm a big advocate for most types of urban infill especially bringing value to certain sections of GR that have had their market devalued  in the last 50 years or so. I can't really comment on the Mangiamo development, but I will say that breaking that lot up into townhouses can only be a positive. It just needs to be done in good taste and with quality in mind. AG3, I commend you for building those Brownstones in the Belknap area. Driving by them within the last year, it felt as if I was in a larger city.  It looks like they were built with quality. If I planned on moving back to the area, I would seriously considered moving to Belknap due to the close proximity to downtown and the current projects being built there. 5 years ago I wouldn't have even considered it.  I do look forward to posting in the future. Thanks for keeping me up to date from the northeast.

[AG3]

4 hours ago, x99 said:

Some are good, some are bad.  The posted photo from Belknap is a lost opportunity.  Lots of money spent on materials for an architectural mess that could have and should have looked a lot better for no more money.  

Gilmore's HPC problem with is probably overbuilding the site.  Even with pavement, the basic historic setting of this mansion is largely unblemished.  The heavy construction really does detract from it quite a bit.  Split lots on Luton and Paddock, remove them from the historic designation, and sell houses off.   He still makes some money--not as much--but the site is not messed up and everyone wins.  Won't happen, but a guy can hope...

 

LMAO -- Can I express that here ? X99 to his boys rescue..   I remember  now why I stopped posting here so many years ago.  A core few who have it more figured out than the rest, or so they so think. I certainly can take criticism , but you gotta back it up with some articulate thought, make me  a believer.    I personally don't think that in the city limits of Grands Rapids and or even in East Grand Rapids you will find  another residential infill project that comes close to what we did with the Brownstones. Thats not me bragging or me knocking other projects by any means, Its a reaction to your criticism, a knowledgeable reaction.  My goal was to set the bar as high as I could, I believe I did that.   And to be fair, I designed, developed and built them, so I may have  a tinge of bias.    So you, x99- Give me an example .. Ill wait..    Side by side comparison preferable.   

[AG3]

45 minutes ago, EastCoaster93 said:

I've lurked for about year and have enjoyed  seeing the discourse between members. A community only gets better with active discussion on growth and innovation. Although I don't live in Grand Rapids currently, as a former citizen it's great to see how much more progressive GR has become over the years.  I'm a big advocate for most types of urban infill especially bringing value to certain sections of GR that have had their market devalued  in the last 50 years or so. I can't really comment on the Mangiamo development, but I will say that breaking that lot up into townhouses can only be a positive. It just needs to be done in good taste and with quality in mind. AG3, I commend you for building those Brownstones in the Belknap area. Driving by them within the last year, it felt as if I was in a larger city.  It looks like they were built with quality. If I planned on moving back to the area, I would seriously considered moving to Belknap due to the close proximity to downtown and the current projects being built there. 5 years ago I wouldn't have even considered it.  I do look forward to posting in the future. Thanks for keeping me up to date from the northeast.

Thank you. I was more interested in using architectural elements that are not utilized any more because of there expense. Like copper coping, wrought iron, slate roof, brick and caststone banding,  instead of trying to maximize profits.  Happy that our neighborhood is a preferred destination. In fact, the last unit I sold, the buyers choose us over a condo in East GR..   Be well... 

[AG3]

Delete huh   okay.

[joeDowntown]

Whoa friends. Stop slinging insults at each other (some people probably didn't see the delete comments). It's find to have differing opinions, but again, if you want to pick fights, go to Salon or Mlive.

AG3- I like your Belknap development. X99 is a purest, and gets into the fine details. I often don't agree with him, but he usually has valid arguments about historical accuracy (though sometimes tells it in a blunt, "your shirt makes you look fat" sort of style that gets under the skin).

This isn't a .... measuring contest. I value everyone's opinions, whether I agree with them or not. I hope everyone will keep posting, keep up the critical discourse, but come on, take the high road people...

And I think GRDad put himself in a timeout on this discussion.  Let's all get along!

Joe 

[x99]

13 hours ago, AG3 said:

LMAO -- Can I express that here ? X99 to his boys rescue..   I remember  now why I stopped posting here so many years ago.  A core few who have it more figured out than the rest, or so they so think. I certainly can take criticism , but you gotta back it up with some articulate thought, make me  a believer.    I personally don't think that in the city limits of Grands Rapids and or even in East Grand Rapids you will find  another residential infill project that comes close to what we did with the Brownstones.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh.  So allow me to be constructive.  Your brownstones are among the best infill developments in Grand Rapids, and I have praised them before.  The materials are top notch and it's clear this was a project with a lot of thought put into it.  The brownstones in the drawings are beautiful.  They would complement this "Paddock Place" concept very well.  One of them has at least an air of an Italianate villa.  But the "as built" photo has an issue.  The style is attempting to be traditional, but the trim around the windows is wrong.  It's simply a window cut into the side and then picture framed with some expensive materials.  There is neither a sill on the bottom nor a lintel or pediment on the top.  Admittedly, it's a common to see it done this way in tract housing and even some high end new construction, but it never ends up looking right.  Granted, most people probably won't notice it until they see one next to it done right and the lightbulb suddenly goes off...  Then they realize why it felt a little "off"...  

Don't take my criticism too harshly.  I walked into a million dollar plus house on the Parade of Homes once and told the builder some of his trim was installed upside down.  Funny thing is the guy knew it and just figured no one would notice.  And you know what?  No one else did.  Little details just stand out to me for some reason.

[ModSquad]

Joe, I'll try to get this discussion back on track.  I for one, really hope this project comes to fruition in some form or fashion.  Here are my reasons, I'll admit some are self serving for my day job at the KCLBA.

• We have a desperate need for more housing options in the region, especially in GR's central city neighborhoods.  I know of numerous employers that are having a hard time attracting new employees from outside the area because of the lack of housing available.  Let me be clear on what I perceive is the need: high quality housing in the $175-$275K range.  
• This need exists in the neighborhoods and not necessarily downtown.  
• Because the need is at the Neighborhood level I believe that one answer to alleviating the shortage of housing in GR is to provide a market for housing types other than the traditional single family home.  
• Attached single family home owner townhouses is one of the types I think will work at the neighborhood level.
• The KCLBA got attached single family townhouses approved on Donald Place in a historic district.  We are breaking ground in a few weeks on these.  Our RE Agent used the Fairmont Square condo's/townhouses at comps.  I am excited to see more comps for projects like this.
• We also got plans approved for a larger site on Bates just West of Eastern, and Euclid behind Fair Housing on Hall street.  Unfortunately the market value of the completed townhouses cannot support our cost to construct, and we are building at cost with no mark up.
• In general I believe there is a serious structural issue in a market like ours when simply the the as built value of a new home cannot support the cost to construct.  We have to be able to build our way out of this shortage.

OK, discuss amongst yourselves in a positive manner.

[GRDadof3]

2 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Whoa friends. Stop slinging insults at each other (some people probably didn't see the delete comments). It's find to have differing opinions, but again, if you want to pick fights, go to Salon or Mlive.

AG3- I like your Belknap development. X99 is a purest, and gets into the fine details. I often don't agree with him, but he usually has valid arguments about historical accuracy (though sometimes tells it in a blunt, "your shirt makes you look fat" sort of style that gets under the skin).

This isn't a .... measuring contest. I value everyone's opinions, whether I agree with them or not. I hope everyone will keep posting, keep up the critical discourse, but come on, take the high road people...

And I think GRDad put himself in a timeout on this discussion.  Let's all get along!

Joe 

I did. But my feelings on the issue haven't changed, even though my language was a bit harsh. I just find it offensive that the housing that 99% of the population can afford is called crap, including the type of housing I live in and own. Criticizing box apartment and office buildings is one thing, going low and being insulting for no reason other than to puff up one's ego is another. Not meaning you Joe.

That's about as cordial as I can muster on the subject.

Carry on everybody.

[AG3]

4 hours ago, x99 said:

Perhaps I was a bit harsh.  So allow me to be constructive.  Your brownstones are among the best infill developments in Grand Rapids, and I have praised them before.  The materials are top notch and it's clear this was a project with a lot of thought put into it.  The brownstones in the drawings are beautiful.  They would complement this "Paddock Place" concept very well.  One of them has at least an air of an Italianate villa.  But the "as built" photo has an issue.  The style is attempting to be traditional, but the trim around the windows is wrong.  It's simply a window cut into the side and then picture framed with some expensive materials.  There is neither a sill on the bottom nor a lintel or pediment on the top.  Admittedly, it's a common to see it done this way in tract housing and even some high end new construction, but it never ends up looking right.  Granted, most people probably won't notice it until they see one next to it done right and the lightbulb suddenly goes off...  Then they realize why it felt a little "off"...  

Don't take my criticism too harshly.  I walked into a million dollar plus house on the Parade of Homes once and told the builder some of his trim was installed upside down.  Funny thing is the guy knew it and just figured no one would notice.  And you know what?  No one else did.  Little details just stand out to me for some reason.

I wouldn't have at all taken that criticism harshly, in fact I laughed at your original comment to me and then figured I play along.  And I am aware of your thought. I deliberately did not put a pediment above the windows because that to me would have changed the tone to a degree that would have created a conflict in the overall design for all four buildings. The cast stone banding around the window is a hybrid version of the kind of sill your referring too. I would concede it would give the windows more depth, but when your up close its not as bad as you see in the image.  Finally, I too pay attention to detail as well as anyone I have ever met. In fact, I don't know if I have ever met anyone who can point out things in a design that most people would never see to the degree I do.  Its why my images and designs grow so much from the first iteration, I can't sleep if something doesn't sit right.   I believe that is why I was able to sell the last three units for over 400k each as well.  Those owners wanted something unique and wanted a certain level of finish they weren't finding elsewhere within the urban core. I am builder first, a designer and then developer.. The developer grew out of how city process works here. I Honestly just wanted to build cool housing that got people excited. That doesn't mean that other projects that have been built are bad.

 

Its all good... No hard feelings on my end at all.. 

[GRDadof3]

I actually deleted my own comments from last night AG3 because I felt that they were non-constructive and below the belt on my part. I also just deleted your post today for those same reasons. All square. Have a good day. 

 

 

[GRDadof3]

5 hours ago, KCLBADave said:

Joe, I'll try to get this discussion back on track.  I for one, really hope this project comes to fruition in some form or fashion.  Here are my reasons, I'll admit some are self serving for my day job at the KCLBA.

• We have a desperate need for more housing options in the region, especially in GR's central city neighborhoods.  I know of numerous employers that are having a hard time attracting new employees from outside the area because of the lack of housing available.  Let me be clear on what I perceive is the need: high quality housing in the $175-$275K range.  
• This need exists in the neighborhoods and not necessarily downtown.  
• Because the need is at the Neighborhood level I believe that one answer to alleviating the shortage of housing in GR is to provide a market for housing types other than the traditional single family home.  
• Attached single family home owner townhouses is one of the types I think will work at the neighborhood level.
• The KCLBA got attached single family townhouses approved on Donald Place in a historic district.  We are breaking ground in a few weeks on these.  Our RE Agent used the Fairmont Square condo's/townhouses at comps.  I am excited to see more comps for projects like this.
• We also got plans approved for a larger site on Bates just West of Eastern, and Euclid behind Fair Housing on Hall street.  Unfortunately the market value of the completed townhouses cannot support our cost to construct, and we are building at cost with no mark up.
• In general I believe there is a serious structural issue in a market like ours when simply the the as built value of a new home cannot support the cost to construct.  We have to be able to build our way out of this shortage.

OK, discuss amongst yourselves in a positive manner.

$175 - $275K is pretty tough to hit but it's doable possibly. Slab-on-grade townhomes may work to get close to low $200's ??

I think Fairmount Square and its sister townhomes at Tapestry Square are perfectly fine and nice looking townhomes. Everyone loves the looks of the townhomes in East Grand Rapids (Croswell and Bagley) but "I" feel they are inappropriate for most neighborhoods in the city of GR, especially when they retail in the $400K+ range and neighboring homes are $150K. As you mentioned Dave, the biggest need is that $200 - $300K price range (I bumped my range up a bit). If you make $150,000 - $200,000+ household income, there are PLENTY of choices out there for sale above $400,000. 

[ModSquad]

12 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

$175 - $275K is pretty tough to hit but it's doable possibly. Slab-on-grade townhomes may work to get close to low $200's ??

I think Fairmount Square and its sister townhomes at Tapestry Square are perfectly fine and nice looking townhomes. Everyone loves the looks of the townhomes in East Grand Rapids (Croswell and Bagley) but "I" feel they are inappropriate for most neighborhoods in the city of GR, especially when they retail in the $400K+ range and neighboring homes are $150K. As you mentioned Dave, the biggest need is that $200 - $300K price range (I bumped my range up a bit). If you make $150,000 - $200,000+ household income, there are PLENTY of choices out there for sale above $400,000. 

We got the total construction price of our townhouses down to $255K in a historic district, we are about $230K for the same townhouse anywhere else.  What potentially makes it work for us is that the KCLBA does not have to build in large amounts for overhead and profit.  We view ourselves as the first risk taker that can get the ball rolling on a non-traditional product and then once the baseline is established let the market take over.

[x99]

On 11/7/2017 at 4:45 PM, KCLBADave said:

We got the total construction price of our townhouses down to $255K in a historic district, we are about $230K for the same townhouse anywhere else.  What potentially makes it work for us is that the KCLBA does not have to build in large amounts for overhead and profit.  We view ourselves as the first risk taker that can get the ball rolling on a non-traditional product and then once the baseline is established let the market take over.

See, that's where I still get lost on this stuff... $255,000 for a townhome?   No way.  I had friends pay that much for a brand new, 2200 square foot single family out in the suburbs on a nice lot in a good neighborhood with a three stall attached garage.  People originally built in the cities on small lots because it was supposed to be cheaper.  

You're right that there is a serious issue with affordability.  That's insane.  I expected maybe a $175k price point.  My hat is off to you guys on this one.  I would have run away screaming.  My personal suspicion is that the building code, zoning codes, and a host of other rules and regulations have all conspired to price middle class people largely out of the market for decent affordable homes.  Safe and insulated to the hilt though they may be, who cares if they are so expensive that only upper middle class people can afford them anyway.   Even a house built to 1975 code would be a HUGE upgrade for most people living in the city.

[ModSquad]

2 hours ago, x99 said:

See, that's where I still get lost on this stuff... $255,000 for a townhome?   No way.  I had friends pay that much for a brand new, 2200 square foot single family out in the suburbs on a nice lot in a good neighborhood with a three stall attached garage.  People originally built in the cities on small lots because it was supposed to be cheaper.  

x99 - Cost of construction in our region starts at $150 per square foot, and that's for entry level construction.  This does  not include the cost of the land.  I would love to know where someone could spend $255K for the home in the suburbs that you describe.   Personally, I do not like the label "good neighborhood" and "bad neighborhood."  

[x99]

1 hour ago, KCLBADave said:

x99 - Cost of construction in our region starts at $150 per square foot, and that's for entry level construction.  This does  not include the cost of the land.  I would love to know where someone could spend $255K for the home in the suburbs that you describe.   Personally, I do not like the label "good neighborhood" and "bad neighborhood."  

Look on grar.  2150 square foot house in Lowell, all above grade.  $240k including the lot.  Subtract out $40,000 for the lot and its $93 a foot, not counting the garage.  There's stuff in Byron and Rockford all starting around $115 a foot.  Again, not including garage, and assuming $40k on the lot.  And that lot price in Byron and Lowell is probably too low.  Eastbrook, Allen Edwin, and some others are all pulling this off.  Sable Homes is pulling it off even a little cheaper, but those things are so ugly it's frightening.  Still, you're at least not sharing a wall!

But given construction costs like this, I have to question whether Gilmore could even pull it off.  Maybe.  I just don't understand who pays $300,000 to live in a $125,000 neighborhood.  It doesn't take long before all of it is worth $125,000.  Maybe he thinks he can build enough stuff to keep it self-sustaining.  I suspect that's what the site plan is what it is, too.  If they just split off lots and sell them, who would buy them and build on them?  They need to build a little "community" which convincingly pulls off the illusion of value.  And then there's always just the people who can't deal with an old house, I suppose.