Home » Accessibility »Loughborough Commons »Planning & Design »South City »St. Louis County »Suburban Sprawl » Currently Reading:

Newly Constructed Starbucks and Others Lack Mandated ADA Access Route

I want to see St. Louis reach its potential and be a much more pedestrian friendly place to live. I see many people out walking and jogging but we could have so much more sidewalk activity. I’m seeing more and more couples with babies out in strollers trying to navigate our sometimes unfriendly environments. I’ve written many times about the lack of an ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) access route at Loughborough Commons to which people say someone is not going to walk to Lowe’s to buy drywall. Well, no sh*t. But people do still walk or use mobility devices to buy smaller items. I’m not suggesting we ban cars, simply make places accessible via various means. The ADA is federal civil rights legislation and, if actually followed, would make places more accessible to everyone including those elusive families we seek to attract to the city.

The newest Starbucks in the City of Saint Louis is located where Chippewa St (aka Watson, formerly Route 66) and Lansdowne Ave intersect — just east of both the well known Ted Drewes Frozen Custard Stand and a MetroLink light rail station. It recently opened but unfortunately it is about as auto focused as you can get.

The drive through lane, above, is front and center as seen from the public sidewalk. In the above image the front door is basically behind the right most umbrella. I’m not sure how they expect people from the very nice adjacent neighoborhood to walk there from the sidewalk — through the drive lane and over the shrubs? Someone in a wheelchair is out of luck.

Above, the situation is the same from the other side. You can stand on the sidewalk and read the menu of the drive-thru but you cannot access the door!


View from public sidewalk.


Basically anyone using a wheelchair to access the site must use the auto drive to get to the accessible area just beyond the maroon SUV and then backtrack to the door.


Not only is this dangerous, it is not ADA compliant. Regardless of ADA, this type of poor planning simply assumes everyone will arrive by car. I was unable to spot a bike rack anywhere on the site or in the public right of way. The public sidewalk completely lacks street trees. Sure, the building is nice and new but poorly planned. By contrast, the dated Arby’s location in the next block to the West has an access route to their entrance from the sidewalk. Although it does not meet current ADA standards, it complies with the intent which is more than I can say for Starbucks.

The City of Saint Louis is not alone in permitting poorly planned projects to be built. The adjacent suburb, quite dense and pedestrian friendly, is allowing new construction to erode what there good urban roots. One such project, is another new Starbucks which opened within the last month or so.

Located on the SE corner of Delmar and North & South this new Starbucks drive-thru is more geared toward motorists than the many pedestrians in the area. Despite a high level of pedestrians in the area, this new Starbucks shrugs off any notion of complying with the federal ADA requirement for an accessible entrance from the public street.


Above, a new Bentley, valued at roughly $170K, waits at a red light while a young couple with dog and twins in stroller cross the street.

The couple from above enter the site of the Starbucks via the outgoing auto lane and head toward the back of the building to access the ADA ramp to get their kids out of the parking lot. As others leave, a minivan attempts to back out of a space.The Royal Banks branch diagonally across from the Starbucks, built recently, also suffers from the same issue. From the sidewalk we can see the entrance and an accessible parking space but if you are on the sidewalk (and not driving a black Porsche) you are not welcomed.


Some might say this is better than the gas station that used to be on the site to which I would agree. But, when building brand new from scratch shouldn’t these businesses do a better job attempting to connect people to their front door? The best way is to build up to the street but short of that they need to provide an access route.


Those trying to enter the bank on foot (or mobility device) end up facing the outgoing auto traffic. Those able to can jump onto the sidewalk adjacent to the building but others are forced to risk it in the auto lane until they reach the ramp from the drive to entry.

Given this bank’s sidewalks and ramps I don’t think they’d get an access route right anyway. The red ‘truncated domes’ are used to help those who are visually impaired to know when they are crossing a drive/street. Their direction is meant to guide them, by feel under foot, to the other side. However, here we can see that these will send them out into the street.


The two remaining corners each have older buildings that are urban in form — butting up to the sidewalk. This makes it much easier for pedestrians to access local businesses and spend money. Of course, they must first get past the Post-Dispatch newspaper box blocking the top of the wheelchair ramp.

Back to the city we see the new big box store, The Restaurant Depot, on Manchester Road across from St. Louis Marketplace.

This store is not open to the general public, you must be a restaurant owner to get in. Still, this facility should have an ADA route from the public sidewalk as an employee might use a wheelchair or simply decide to take transit and walk from the nearest bus stop to their job.


Above is yet another new Starbucks being constructed between Broadway and 7th at Russel, just east of Soulard.  An adjacent building will have a new Bread Co (Panera for you non St. Louis readers).  I’m guessing they will lack an ADA compliant access route to both of these locations.

We cannot continue this cycle of building places hostile to pedestrians and then say there are not pedestrians as a justification to build ever more hostile environments.  People arriving at these sites on foot, bike, wheelchair, scooter or car can all be accomodated if we as a city/region make it a priority.  Our leadership in the city and in adjacent municipalities have failed to look out for the interests for whom they are supposed to serve.


Currently there are "42 comments" on this Article:

  1. Bridgett says:

    This isn’t directly about the starbucks pedestrian issue–this is about bikes. I bike with a trailer and my kids around the city, and also for exercise on bike paths. Last year, after several attempts to make trips to Soulard Market part of my weekly routine, I gave up because there is no bike rack at Soulard Market. It is listed as a destination in the bike St. Louis signs. But when I go there, I have to chain my bike to a cyclone fence at the park and then take the trailer (which converts to a stroller) over into the market. I will admit I haven’t been there this summer (due to the frustrations last year). It’s only three miles away from me–I can’t justify using the car, but walking is too far to be practical. Biking is perfect, except that there’s no place to park. Wondering if anyone else has mentioned this before.

    Oh, and we’ve biked to Drewes before, where everyone just stands on the sidewalk, and been fine. Lots of bikes with trailers there. We’ve never biked to Starbucks–Kingshighway and Chippewa is only two blocks away from my sister and we do navigate that on foot, even though it is not at all pedestrian ready.

    [SLP — Those sculptures you see at the south entrance to Soulard Market are actually bike racks.  To get to them you need to bike down the access roads for the market vendors or cross the large plaza on the south side of the market.  Thanks for mentioning the non-compliant Starbucks at Kingshighway & Chippewa — I forgot to mention that one.  For pictures of that one see my look at Southtown Center.]  

  2. njenney says:

    Looking forward to your Loughborough Commons Starbucks review. There are now awnings up and a sign in front says Starbucks is opening soon. I tried searching Starbucks’ website to find out when exactly they are opening and noticed this! Coffee and beer. What a combo!

    One Busch Place
    St. Louis, MO 63122
    United States
    Coming Soon

  3. john says:

    Have you written EWGC Bike-Pedestrian Committee, StL BikeFed, Trailnet or other ADA advocacy groups with your concerns? At least the Bentley owner showed more respect for the crosswalk then those other auto MOrons…. StL is autocentric, anti-pedestrian, anti-cycling to an extreme, what’s new?

  4. Jon Galloway says:

    It was my understanding that U. City actually gave a variance to the Starbuck’s to allow for the drive-thru.

    [SLP — Well, I hope it took a variance!  Still, U-City does not have the legal authority to give a variance to omit an access route required by federal civil rights law.]

  5. Jason says:

    The Loughborough site is an obvious one after all the press that you have already given its neighbor Schnucks and the development in general. One thing to add about the construction sign at the Loughborough location- they tout that they will have a drive thru!

  6. change says:

    I suppose now would be as good a time as any to speculate why the old Soulard area deli/former city library location across from Soulard Market has failed so many times in the coffee/food business, while Starbucks and Panera ready a new building in the same general area? Hmmmm….

    [SLP — Don’t forget that Panera (STL Bread Co) used to be located in that space under the old city library and they closed a few years ago.  I’d argue that space doesn’t feel like it is a part of the neighborhood yet it is not convenient enough as an auto destination either.]

  7. Paul Hohmann says:

    Steve, have you ever discussed these issues with Deborah Dee at the Office on the Disabled at City Hall? When we do multi-family residential projects we are reviewed for all the applicable accessibility requirements as part of the plan review process. Deborah Dee typically looks at the projects for these concerns, so I find it frustrating that commercial site plans obviously are not being reviewed in the manner that they should be. The other thing that is frustrating about this if the ignorance of the f***ing architects and/engineers that draw the site plans. Not only do they have are they ignorant of the law, but obviously have no common sense. It makes us all look stupid.

    [SLP — I met Deborah Dee at Loughborough Commons on January 25th to review flaws in the design. I’ve emailed with her since then. I will be emailing her about these projects as well. I think for the multi-family projects you’ve been doing the existing buildings are already up to the sidewalk so a public access route is a moot point. It does not appear the city has reviewed for the access route on these projects because they simply don’t exist. As you know, the city updated their Office on the Disabled web page in March to clarify some requirements — I believe in part to my continued pressure on these issues.

    Maybe the AIA needs to sponsor an ADA compliance workshop for the profession and their clients?]

  8. Paul Hohmann says:

    never type and watch the news at the same time when you don’t have spell/grammer check… comment above

  9. Kristen says:

    When I worked at the Chippewa/Lansdowne Starbucks for a short time, I petitioned store management and district management for a bike rack. No luck. I talked personally with the district manager about the lack of crosswalk and pedestrian options at that intersection, as well as on the Starbucks site. There’s no way to enter, except through the drive-thru lane or the parking lot. She agreed it was dangerous and unfriendly to the neighborhood, and she said she’d talk with her alderman about making some changes. Still nothing.

  10. Jim Zavist says:

    Kristen – there’s now a crosswalk across Chippewa, thanks to the alderwoman.

    [SLP — That would be this one which has a weird shape and no pedestrian signals.]  

  11. Jim Zavist says:

    There are two parts to this issue, attitude and enforcement. Until the mindset changes and accessibility becomes “standard practice”, it will continue to be viewed as a burden and, as these examples illustrate, ignored. And until plans are rejected for not complying, certificates of occupancy are not issued when work is “completed” and businesses are sued and pay substantial fines (all are “enforcement” actions that have “teeth”), the status quo will continue.

    Probably because Denver has active and vocal disabled advocates, there seems to be more awareness of the need for providing access for everyone. For many years, the Commission for People with Disabilities (http://www.denvergov.org/Default.aspx?alias=www.denvergov.org/Disabilities) has effectively pushed for changes from within the system, including being included as a part of the review process (and not just in an advisory role) when building permits are issued for new commercial projects.

    Could the same thing happen here? Maybe. It basically gets down to political will – if it becomes a priority, it will happen. Meeting accessibility requirements when building new isn’t a big issue IF they’re included from the start. But with owners focused on the bottom line, many are willing to “roll the dice” if they “know” that they likely “won’t get caught”. Granted, there will always be incompetent people in any profession. But, where I work (a medium-size architectural firm), accessibility is something we’re always looking out for and, at times, having to challenge our clients on.

    That said, I wouldn’t hold my breath on Starbucks, at least locally. They have yet to master the art making the traffic flow work in many of their drive-thru’s (just watch the fun at the one on Brentwood Boulevard, between 40 & Manchester), so access for other patrons isn’t likely to be any better-thought-out. It gets back to attitude and enforcement – until they get pushed on one or both fronts, corners will continue to be cut just so local elected officials can claim that they’ve brought the retail-icon-du-jour to their jurisdiction . . .

  12. Jim Zavist says:

    Finally, on the Royal Bank site – how hard would it have been to eliminate the curb at the striped access aisle (at the accessible parking space) and to add a short sidewalk segment between where the curb is now and the sidewalk (from where you were taking the picture)?! Problem solved – direct access from the corner (even if you’d still have to dodge cars in the drive aisle)!

  13. Joe Frank says:

    On developments like these, even where there is a designated walkway accessing the front door to the building, I find that I usually just cut through the parking lot anyway if coming from the sidewalk. However, I’m not in a wheelchair or other mobility device, so I don’t notice curbs.

    One thing is certain: The number of people in wheelchairs and other mobility devices will only increase, and they’ll need access to as many locations as possible. While retrofitting older buildings is difficult and costly, during new construction Steve makes a very valid point: accessibility needs to be considered as part of the design.

  14. Joe Frank says:

    Another thought: I understood that ADA was about providing accessible routes to places that provide public accommodations. So certainly, the issues with Starbucks and Loughborough Commons are valid.

    However, with Restaurant Depot I’m not so sure. It’s a wholesaler, located on property that’s zoned “J” – Industrial. There may also be some legal ambuiguity on the Loughborough Commons site, since even though it’s now zoned “H” – Area Commercial and provides retail facilities, at least the rear portion was the former Nordyne plant and was zoned “J” – Industrial.

    I’m not sure that factories and wholesalers would be considered public accommodations. Now, there are other provisions of ADA and of the Rehabilitation Act that deal with reasonable accommodations being provided to employees in performing job tasks. Does access to the worksite qualify?

    Seems like a question for Paraquad.

  15. john says:

    Yes JimZ it is all about local attittudes and law enforcement but I would also add political will. Leadership is needed to educate the community on the importance of these issues. Unfortunately the StL area fails on all three. The area is unfriendly to pedestrians, cyclists, the handicapped, etc. and the bike-pedestrian advocate organizations remain silent. Numerous projects, public and private, are non-compliant with existing federal laws and guidelines. Even MoDOT is building the New 64 in violation of their own published guidelines (see http://www.modot.org/othertransportation/bike_ped/Bikepedprogramintro.htm) The area is setting itself up for some extremely expensive liabilities, legal bills and retrofitting expenditures. Is the issuing of court orders the only way to change the APEs (attitude, politics & enfocement)? While being potentially expensive, the designs are creating an unfriendly and dangerous environment for all which is not good governance. These “unfunded” infrastructure liabilities are growing rapidly along with other unseen liabilities.

  16. Mark says:

    Since you mention Loughborough Commons again, My wife and I elecetd to ride our bicycles down to Lowe’s to pick up a few small items from the new location. Unfortunately there is NO place to secure a bike when visiting this location. I know, no one would ever pick up sheet rock on a bicycle least not in this country , but we were there for a few small tools and hardware.. 30,000 BBQ, Lawn Tractors and wheelborrows units chained out front but not a single place to secure a bike.

  17. mike says:

    Frankly, I don’t think they want the site to appear pedestrian friendly. Given the drivethru lane, any pedestrian welcoming access would have to cross that drivethru lane. My guess is they are afraid of putting in any welcoming pedestrian lane that puts people in harms way from drivethru cars. And since they can get away with it, they do. I also assume that putting the drivethru in the back is out due to the houses back there.

  18. Meghan says:

    njenney – What a strange, and incorrect address. That zip code is actually in St. Louis county. But, the map points to AB’s HQ in Soulard. I guess Starbucks is so excited about catering to the Soulard working crowd they can’t get the address correct – hopefully they CAN get their ADA stuff in order and have bike racks and easy pedestrian access.

  19. Tim says:

    The incorrect concept that Starbucks is “public” is the result of Acts like the ADA. Starbucks isn’t a government institution, it’s private property. Belief otherwise is misguided and a serious consequence of such laws as the ADA. The other downside is that it actually injures the disabled by limiting their chances of employment. Why risk being sued under ADA at all, just don’t hire them. We will never know how many small businesses never opened to provide services due to the ADA or that did open and were not able to follow through with their plans because of things like elevators and wheel chair ramps that even when they are built are never used. If a business chooses to not be available to all that is their business not the business of Congress or anyone else for that matter.

  20. Jim Zavist says:

    Tim, unfortunately the law and multiple court cases say otherwise. If you’re a business offering services to the public, you are required to comply with the ADA – it’s civil rights legislation, and you cannot discriminate against people with disabilities / traet them any differently than your “able-bodied” customers, including “choosing” not to be available to all. If you do, you risk major penalities – how does $76 million + sound? http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/ide/access/002116.html

  21. Tim says:

    Everything you say is true as far as the courts and what the law says. What I’m saying is that these laws are wrong because they destroy private property rights and should all be repealed. And while I’m at it they are outside of the authority of Congress in the first place. I find no place in Article One that gives the power to Congress to decide how wide the doors are at Starbucks, etc.

  22. LisaS says:

    At what point do private property rights end and legitimate public interest begin?

    Is allowing your property to degrade to the point of endangering adjacent buildings owned by others a valid expression of property rights? How about building a home for sale that will fall down in the next strong wind (building codes)? Should Starbucks (or Cunetto’s or DelMonico’s), as a private establishment, be permitted to refuse service to people who are not from Seattle (or Italian or Black?)? Should I have the unrestricted right to build a chemical plant next to your home?

    As a society, we generally agree that some encroachment on property rights is necessary to protect the public interest–which is to say, to protect all of our interests.

    So far as the businesses in question …. I would suggest that those of us who care about these things vote with our feet, and (for the overacheivers among us–not me to be sure) write a letter to Starbucks, Royal Bank, etc. expressing why we don’t do business with them.

  23. Tim says:

    For all of the misdeeds relating to destruction of others property you have recourse in the courts. But to claim a right that one do business with you or to claim a right that one design their building to suit your needs is destruction of the owners rights. A right to equal treatment by the law in regard to the State is one thing and proper. But to demand a right to others private property is extranous of your rights. It is an unfortunate truth that the Civil Rights movement had the consequence of destroying the concept of private property. I would like to think it was unintended but I believe it is possible that those on the left that hate the idea of property rights to begin with knew what they were doing.

  24. LisaS says:

    Mike–My guess is they are afraid of putting in any welcoming pedestrian lane that puts people in harms way from drivethru cars.

    Take a look at that minivan backing towards a stroller–if that’s not harm’s way, I don’t know what is. At least if there’s a designated pedestrian lane/sidewalk there’s a little more room for people to escape.

  25. AP says:

    Wow! A Starbucks with a drive in??? I guess being a Washingtonian I’ve been lucky enough to live in a very pedestrian friendly environment. I have NEVER even seen a Starbucks with a parking lot much less a drive in.

  26. john says:

    AP, welcome to St. Louis, one of the most pedestrian unfriendly cities in the US of A! Yes most Starbucks are designed for urban and pedestrian friendly environments but not necessarily so here. As JZ as IDed, the Starbucks on Brentwood Blvd is a drive-through and has become a hot potatoe with the problems created by the new I64 as the line extends downs the street in the morning. Instead of every customer taking a few feet of space, cars take up 10x the amount of urban space and create traffic jams in order to get their sip of morning java…. StL- style! Who in their right mind would approve of such an ill conceived arrangement?

  27. Jason says:


    I would liken your ADA comments to having separate facilites for races in a private establishment, or not allowing a particular sex into an establishment, you can’t do it. Personal rights only go so far until they infringe on the rights of others. Who says? The building code, which in turn references accessibility guidelines. There are many small shops that are able to get around the accessibility requirements by not remodeling or doing extensive work to their retail stores, I can tell you this immediately alienates anyone who is in a wheelchair, has small children in a stroller, and probably anyone with a walker. I guess you dont want those people in the store anyway.

    Check out the ADA guidelines, you may learn something. I could go on all day, but after 30 comments for this subject I think everyone is just anxious for Steve’s next Target (for lack of a better term- capitalization intended:).

  28. Tim says:

    Private being the key word there. The concept that a hotel or diner is a “public/government” place is totally and completely wrong. What I or you want in our business isn’t the point here. It’s private property and as such the owner should be able to decide who they will and will not accommodate or do business with. It’s this false concept of private/public that enables government to take property and hand it over to developers. It’s the law of unintended consequences.

  29. Rob says:

    Wow! A Starbucks with a drive in???

    Starbucks are popping up all over and a drive through seems to be a prerequisite these days. It’s interesting to watch the new breed of fast-food establishments insert themselves into our daily lives. As more and more of the general public have become wise to the crappy food, insulting service, filthy interiors of traditional fast-food places like McDonald’s and Burger King, it’s given an opportunity for Starbucks, Bread Company, Qdoba, Einsteins, to slip in and fill the void. It’s important to be aware that these new places are still the exact same thing, just in a new, trendier wrapper. “I would never go to a place like McDonald’s!”, driver of Excursion in drive through of Bread Company, 2009.

  30. 15thwardstl says:

    “It’s private property and as such the owner should be able to decide who they will and will not accommodate or do business with.”

    Thank goodness we as a society have decided that you are wrong on this count! This country and St. Louis in particular seems to be having a difficult time dealing with the legacy of the all-white lunch counter. Federal civil rights legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, have made a big difference in helping to change the patterns of individual and institutional discrimination.

  31. Tim says:

    I believe you are talking about “tyranny of the majority”. So when they come for your property and turn it over to a developer because you don’t create enough tax revenue in order to enrich society since the “majority” approves everything is right with the world.

    If Wooworth wants to refuse service based on race that is their business and their right. If the state of MO requires by law that they do so that would be wrong. It’s just that simple. There is a huge difference.

  32. LisaS says:

    I believe you are talking about “tyranny of the majority”. So when they come for your property and turn it over to a developer because you don’t create enough tax revenue in order to enrich society since the “majority” approves everything is right with the world

    Tim, I’m confused: are you saying this is a good thing? How does this sync with private property rights and free market principles?

  33. 63104mom says:

    Thanks for pointing out the plights of us urban stroller pushers. I never quite understood the difficulties of a wheelchair user until I started pushing little kids and babies around.

  34. Dustin Bopp says:

    Perhaps the powers-that-be (politicians, developers, plan reviewers) should be given a mobility device (i.e. wheelchair) and a list of typical errands one who might be disabled and without a car should expect to be able to do (post office, grocery store, COFFEE SHOP). We were required to do that in architecture school and let me tell you that’ll wake ’em up quickly to the real challenges many people face.

    People tend to take their mobility (or should I say “automobilty”) for granted. The best comment I have heard on the subject is if you think about it we are all really just “temporarily abled.” At some point in all our lives we will not be able to do those things that keep us independent and productive.

  35. Dustin Bopp says:

    Also remember that The Americans with Disabilities act is intended to serve people with a variety of impairments and accessible routes are just as important, for example, to those with visual impairments.

    I have a great deal of respect for an obviously blind gentleman who lives in the Paul Brown Building. He obviously has no sight but I have seen him countless times using the cues of accessibility to navigate his way around downtown independently. I feel awkward observing him but it is fascinating. While his immediate neighborhood still has its accessibility challenges it would be nearly impossible for him to navigate independently in most places. Too bad…

  36. newsteve says:

    TIM – I must say I got a big kick out of your first post – It made me laugh. Then after seeing your subsequent posts, I want laughing so much. You are really serious, arn’t you? Look, everyone has a right to an opinion but I got to say you sound like your living 100 years ago. Why dont we just take all disabled people, whether mentally or physically, and put them somewhere where how they get their next meal, their groceries, or just even a cup of coffee won’t matter. So – Lets say all the grocery stores in St. Louis decide not to allow blacks in their grocery stores. You seem to think this is okay, after all there privatelyowned businesses. Where would you propose they get there milk and eggs. You think thats okay? While we’re at it – why dont we put all the jews, blacks, japanese, and oh, dont forget those who don’t own cars, somewhere else too so we can solve the problem of, what do you call it, “the tyranny of the majority”!

  37. Tim says:

    Lisa, my point is that abuse of the eminent domain process by developers and politicians is the end result of laws that over reach the power of governent and the resulting destruction of private property rights.

    Steve, what I think about the choice to serve or not serve based on any kind of choice by the owner is not the point. But in case you think I’m sitting here in my double wide with my white hood obscuring my view of the keyboard I would not do business with those folks myself. But they have the right to do business with or not for any crazy reason they want. Also, if this became widespread and every “friendly” store in town banned any number of races, etc I’d be looking into starting my own store. This kind of thing is hard to enforce without the laws to back it up.

  38. Jeff Jackson says:

    I think “Tim” needs to join a “12 step program”.

  39. Jeff says:

    I took a long walk around Delmar and North & South and was appalled by the design of the Starbucks in an otherwise pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. What were they thinking? How difficult would it have been to put the front door on the corner? Sometimes developers seem to go out of their way to make stupid choices.

  40. M says:

    Every developer and neighborhood craves a starbucks, and from what I have heard, starbucks is going the Walgreen’s way of thinking and demanding that only drive-thru versions be built these days. This doesn’t apply to St. Louis only, for those above berating StL due to the fact these are popping up. It is simply the crazy notion that any development, especially a starbucks, is good development, be it drive-thru or not.

  41. LisaS says:

    When I was in grad school, my professor for Issues in Urban Design told us that statistically speaking, crime was higher on cross streets and alleys that ended next to a fast-food with a drive-thru. I never checked on that, but if it’s true, do you suppose a Starbuck’s follows that rule? It seems like just plain bad marketing to put a store that caters exclusively to the car in a neighborhood where people walk.

  42. ed hardy clothing says:

    We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
    of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
    ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
    ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
    ed hardy board shorts , don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
    ed hardy swimwearand more,
    ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
    cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.

    our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.


Comment on this Article: