The 1965-1966 Buicks were created when the company was in the midst of a renaissance. It was running a solid fifth in the industry sales race on the strength of steadily building volume, trends that would continue through the rest of the decade. Its product line had cars to cater to a variety of customers whose wants might include economy, passenger room, racy performance, or stylish luxury.

Of course, the notion of “renaissance” suggests a revival, a restoration of what was. Just a decade before, in the heady year of 1955, there was Buick — decidedly medium-priced Buick — all the way up to third in sales behind perennial mass-market leaders Chevrolet and Ford.

Nearly three-quarters of a million Buicks were produced for the 1955 model year, the crest of a wave that had been rising for several years. But it wouldn’t last, not under the weight of questionable styling and dubious quality.

Then, too, an economic recession that began picking up steam in late 1957 kept many potential car buyers on the sidelines. Buick produced just 241,908 of its 1958 models, its slowest year since 1948, when it was still making warmed-over prewar cars.

Sales figures in each of the next two years were a bit better, but they weren’t improving at the same rate as those of some other makes. In 1960, when it built 254,000 cars for the model year, Buick slumped to ninth, its worst industry ranking since 1905.

General Motors wasn’t content to let its cornerstone division flounder. New managerial blood arrived in the spring of 1959 when Edward Rollert, who had an extensive manufacturing background, was named to head Buick. By 1962, production was up to 400,000 cars and Buick was fifth in sales. Two years later, output totaled more than 500,000.

Buick was accomplishing this growth with an expanding array of vehicles. As per industry trend, the product line began to diversify in the early 1960s. In 1961, the small-car craze of the day was addressed at Buick by the Special, one of General Motors’ “senior compacts” that grew up into the new intermediate class for 1964.

Then, too, there was the striking Riviera that arrived in 1963 to enter the “personal car” field first staked out by the Ford Thunderbird.

But despite the rise of these and other new market brackets, the various divisions of the Big Three automakers still relied on their full-size “standard” cars to generate most of their sales. Buick was no exception.

More than half of its production in each model year from 1961 to 1964 was made up of the standard cars. This pattern was destined to continue into 1965-1966, when a beautifully restyled family of full-sizers was launched to offer Buick customers the choice of value, performance, or luxury they required. To learn about the first of these cars, the LeSabre, continue on to the next page.

1965-1966 Buick LeSabre

The “small car” in the lineup was the 1955-1966 Buick LeSabre. It was three inches shorter than the Wildcat and 7.3 inches shorter than the Electra 225. (Still, it was almost a foot longer than most of the mid-size Specials and Skylarks.) The name had been in the lineup since 1959, when Buick replaced all the series titles that had served it since the 1930s.

The 1965 version wore completely new styling that gave a wider appearance and included softer lines. General Motors styling chief William Mitchell pushed through the new theme for the LeSabre and other GM cars with which it shared bodies.

Essential features of the general design (which some have said were the best of the Mitchell era) were a “kick-up” beltline and rounded contours deftly punctuated by sharp bodyside creases that kept the look from going too soft. On two-door hardtops, roofs arced gently toward flat rear decks.

Each full-sized Buick series had its own grille design in 1965. The LeSabre’s extruded aluminum grille consisted of horizontal slats backing a bright “cross.” LeSabres carried three simulated “portholes,” a longtime Buick styling trademark, on each front fender.

Three LeSabre models were available: two- and four-door hardtops, and a four-door sedan. The LeSabre Custom version had those three styles, plus a convertible. Buick advertised the 1965 LeSabre as its lowest-priced full-size car, but like its larger brothers, it was still a Buick in luxury and ride.

Seats in base models featured a combination of Bartine cloth and leather-grained vinyl. Custom four-doors used a plusher Bimini cloth-and-vinyl upholstery.

The standard powertrain for the LeSabre was a 210-bhp, 300-cid V-8 engine and three-speed synchromesh transmission. This engine used a single two-barrel carburetor and had a 9.0:1 compression ratio. A higher-compression four-barrel “Wildcat 335” version of this engine — with 250 bhp and 335 pound-feet of torque — was optionally available. So was Buick’s Super Turbine variable-pitch torque converterautomatic transmission.

Underneath each full-size Buick was a new perimeter frame that replaced the X-type design of the 1961-1964 models. A ball-joint independent suspension with a link-type stabilizer bar served up front. At the rear was a four-link setup. Coil springs were used at all four corners.

LeSabre’s standard wheels were 15×5.50 steel discs, with oversize tires optional. Like the Wildcat and Electra 225, LeSabre had a 25-gallon fuel tank. A cross-flow radiator and longer-life exhaust systems were new features on all big Buicks.
Other standard equipment in 1965 included self-adjusting brakes with finned drums, an instrument-panel safety pad, armrests front and rear, and dual horns. Extra-cost items included, among other things, power assists for steering, brakes, windows, and seats; air conditioning; a choice of three radios; and a no-slip rear axle. Buick referred to each of its 1966 offerings as “the tuned car.” That year’s LeSabre featured only minor styling changes. The grille now consisted of a fine mesh over which ran a pair of thin horizontal bars. In back, larger taillights cut into the decklid and bumper for a “barbell” look. The big news for LeSabre in 1966 was more power. The 300-cube V-8 was replaced by a 340-cid engine that produced 220 bhp in standard tune or, for an extra $26, 260 bhp with a four-barrel carb. Numerically lower final-drive ratios were instituted as well.

LeSabre model offerings remained unchanged. New standard-equipment features included back-up lights and an outside rearview mirror.

The middle size of this Buick lineup was the Wildcat. Continue on to the next page to learn more about the 1965-1966 Buick Wildcat.

1965-1966 Buick Wildcat

Beginning in the 1930s with the Century, Buick had become known for producing spirited cars that blended its biggest engine with its lightest bodies. That job fell to the 1965-1966 Buick Wildcat.

The Wildcat made its debut during 1962 as a sportier bucket-seat version of the Invicta two-door hardtop. The Wildcat became a three-car series of its own the following season. Production topped 84,000 cars in 1964, the year a four-door sedan joined the line, and the Wildcat certainly looked like one of the division’s better ideas of the decade.

For 1965, the Wildcat became even more of a crossbreed between the lower-cost LeSabre and the high and mighty Electra 225. Formerly built to LeSabre dimensions, the Wildcat now moved up to the Electra’s 126-inch wheelbase.

But it did retain an elongated version of LeSabre styling. Specific appearance details started with a deep-set die-cast grille divided into two horizontal sections, and Buick’s tri-shield logo in a chromed ring at the center. Big ventlike strakes on the front fenders were the Wildcat’s interpretation of the famous “VentiPorts.”

The line again contained four models — four-door hardtop, four-door sedan, two-door hardtop, and convertible — but the Wildcat family still managed to grow. There were now base, DeLuxe, and Cus­tom versions, the DeLuxe and Custom defined by increasingly nicer upholstery and interior fittings. Only the DeLuxe subseries included all four body types; the base range had no convertible and the Custom lacked a sedan.

Performance remained the Wildcat’s calling card. Power choices began with the “Wildcat 445” V-8, so named because of its torque output. This 401-cid evolution of Buick’s Fifties-vintage “nailhead” V-8 made 325 bhp at 4,400 rpm. It featured a four-barrel carb and 10.25:1 compression.

Beyond that, there were two mightier engines, a 340-bhp “Wildcat 465” and a 360-horse “Super Wildcat.” These were both 425-cid V-8s that spun out 465 pound-feet of torque. However, the Super Wildcat, which had been developed for the Riviera, featured two four-barrel carburetors, a chrome-plated air cleaner, cast-aluminum rocker-arm covers, and dual exhausts.

The three-speed column-lever stickshift was standard, with a four-on-the-floor manual and Super Turbine automatic as options. (Both optional engines had to be ordered with either the four-speed or automatic.) The Super Turbine transmission used in Wildcats incorporated two planetary gear sets instead of the one found in automatics destined for LeSabres.

For an extra outlay of cash, a Wildcat could be made into even more of a muscle car with items like heavy-duty springs and shocks, the limited-slip differential, a tachometer, Buick’s distinctive chromed five-rib sports wheels, and — in convertibles and hardtop coupes — bucket seats and a floor console. There was a choice of four axle ratios for manual-shift cars; five for those with the automatic.

In 1966, Wildcat styling adopted the same taillight revisions seen on the LeSabre. The grille continued the cut-back motif of the previous year, but the central shields-in-a-ring device was replaced by a vertical center bar. In addition, there was now a stand-up hood ornament. The faux vents on the front fenders were restyled as well.

The standard Wildcat engine in 1966 was the 325-bhp 401 V-8, with the 340-horse 425 optional. The dual-quad powerplant was no longer available for Buick’s big Wildcat. Neither was the four-speed manual transmission.

With the demise of the DeLuxe subseries, the base Wildcat added a convertible. There was an interesting, if obscure, performance package, though. For $255, the purchaser of a Wildcat two-door hardtop or convertible could add the Gran Sport High Performance Group.

It included an upgrade to a 340-bhp engine spiffed up with a chromed air cleaner, aluminum valve covers, and dual ex­hausts. Other package components were heavy-duty suspension parts, a 3.42:1 “posi” axle, and a choice of whitewall or redline 8.45×15 tires. Gran Sport badges were found inside and outside the cars.

When legendary Mechanix Illustrated writer Tom McCahill marked the 20th anniversary of his frank car tests in the February 1966 issue, he put a Wildcat Gran Sport hardtop through its paces.

“Uncle Tom” ran it 0-60 in 7.4 seconds, cracked 125 mph for top speed, and pronounced it “without a doubt the most comfortable and best Buick I have ever driven. Even the suspension, which is pretty sloppy on some other models, is beefed up on the Gran Sport series, making the car highly maneuverable and a lot safer.”

Still, from the 26,054 Wildcat hardtop and convertible coupes built in 1966, only 21 Gran Sports are believed to have been produced.

The next model in this Buick lineup was the Electra 225. To learn about the 1965-1966 Buick Electra 225, see the next page.

1965-1966 Buick Electra 225

The 1965-1966 Buick Electra 225 was the ultimate in Buick models. Introduced to the Buick lineup in 1959 as the successor to the Road­master, its numer­ical suffix referred to the overall length in inches of the body.

While not quite 225 inches long in 1965 (though darned close), the “deuce and a quarter” was still definitely Buick’s top of the line in size, luxury, and cost. The Buick catalog put it this way: “When you’ve arrived, there’s no harm in letting other people know it … [Electra 225] is a true luxury car, inside and out. It’s big, it’s sleek, and it rides like a dream.”

Apart from greater length, rooflines and rear-quarter panels really made Electras stand out from other standard Buicks. The razor-edged roofs seen on 1962-1964 Electras were softened a bit, and rear roof pillars wrapped around slightly at the back to impart a hint of limousine-style privacy.

The look was still much more formal than that of LeSabre and Wildcat closed cars. The bodyside kick-up was the start of a long, straight line that terminated in bladelike extensions at the rear of the car. For emphasis, a thin band of brightwork topped the quarter panels.

Dave Holls was head of Buick design as the 1965s were coming together. Glenn Winterscheidt was in charge of the exterior studio. “I got into the Buick studio at the tail end of 1964, and I was doing porthole designs for the Wildcat,” Winterscheidt remembered.

He has fond memories of the design process for these Buicks, especially the Electra.

“At that time, we tried to make it look as long and wide as you possibly could,” he remembered. “We pulled the sheetmetal out to the corners. Dave Holls called it the ‘W-plan front end.’ [From above, the angles of the hood and fender ends form a “W”.] We didn’t have to make many compromises at that time. There was a maximum width before you had to put side markers on it, like a truck, and we pulled it out to that point. But the 1965 Electra profile in the rear was real crisp, and I liked that.

“I’m amazed when I see today how huge these cars were,” he continued. “In Southern California, where I live, there’s a foreign-car dealer across the street, and some of those cars are five feet shorter than the Electra.”

Bright ribbed moldings ran from the front-wheel openings to the back bumper along the lower section of the sides. Rear fender skirts also helped emphasize the Electra’s length. The die-cast grille looked much like that of the LeSabre, but a check pattern replaced the lesser car’s horizontal bars. Taillights ran completely across the rear beneath the decklid. Electra 225s were further distinguished from other Buicks by their four VentiPorts and unique wheel-cover style.

Electra 225s were offered as a base four-door hardtop, four-door sedan, and two-door hardtop. As in the other lines, a Custom subseries was also offered; it included the three closed models and added a convertible. For several years prior to 1965, the four-door sedan had been a six-window design. The new body was a four-window style with frameless door glass and a narrow B-pillar that gave it a near-hardtop appearance.

As on the LeSabre and Wildcat, the instrument panel was dominated by two large dials that flanked the steering column. The speedometer was in the dial on the left; indicator lights for oil-pressure, ammeter, and coolant functions were housed in the dial at the right. To the latter, Electras added a standard-equipment analog clock. Above them, a wood-grain appliqué ran the width of the dash in place of the brightwork applied to this area on LeSabres and Wildcats.

Uphol­stery in Customs was what Buick termed “a vinyl so soft you’ll find it hard to distinguish from real leather.” Base cars used Beaucrest cloth with leather-grained vinyl trim.

Standard conveniences included power-assisted brakes and steering. Convertibles added power windows and two-way power front seats.

For 1966, Electra 225 offered the same seven models. General styling remained similar to that of 1965, but details were altered. While LeSabres and Wildcats gained .1 inch from end to end, the Electra actually shed .7 inch, falling to 223.4 inches overall.

Its grille was now a virtual copy of the LeSabre grille but for a red “Electra 225” badge on the driver’s side. There was a new standard wheel-cover design. Inside, the dash took on more horizontal flavor with a strip-type speedometer. Climate controls were shifted to the lower right of the speedometer.

Among the extra-cost options were cornering lights, an AM/FM stereo radio, air conditioning, tilt steering wheel, and a reclining front-passenger seat in cars ordered with bucket seats. All front seats were available with headrests. Vinyl roof coverings (in black or white) were also available.

Electra 225 engine choices in 1965 and 1966 matched those in Wildcats — even the dual-quad mill could be ordered in 1965. Only the Super Turbine automatic transmission was offered in Electras, though.

Buick production surged to 600,000 cars for model year 1965. It had to in order for the division to hang on to fifth place in the industry because 1965 was another record year. The family of full-size Buicks accounted for 55 percent of that total.

Almost 100,000 Wildcats were made in what would be the best year the series would ever see. The sales boom also served as an upbeat cap to Rollert’s management tenure. In June, he moved up to a corporate vice presidency. His successor in Flint was Bob Kessler, who had been general manufacturing manager.

Divisional output fell off by 41,278 units in 1966, enough to cost Buick a couple of spots in the sales standings. Ap­prox­imately 31,000 of those losses were in the full-size field — nearly all from a decline in Wild­cat orders.

Still, the LeSabre, Wild­cat, and Electra 225 combined for more than half of the year’s Buicks. The loss proved a temporary setback. Demand (and market share) started turning up the next year, and, by 1969, Kessler and company were overseeing the production of 668,000 cars.

Like the Buicks of today, the styling of the 1965-1966 LeSabre, Wildcat, and Electra 225 was conservative, but it was definitely Buick. There was no mistaking what was coming at you down the road, or what you were trying to catch up to on the highway. To get a closer look at the 1965-1966 Buick, see the next page for specifications.

Burrard is an underground station on the Expo Line of Metro Vancouver’s SkyTrain rapid transit system. The station is located in Downtown Vancouver on Burrard Street, where Melville and Dunsmuir Streets meet, and is the western terminus of the R5 Hastings St that provides service to Simon Fraser University.

The station serves Vancouver’s financial district and is within walking distance of the Coal Harbour and West End neighbourhoods. The station is accessible via the surface from Art Phillips Park or via the underground shopping centres of the Royal Centre and Bentall Centre skyscraper complexes.

Burrard station opened in 1985 and is named for nearby Burrard Street, which in turn is named for Sir Harry Burrard-Neale. Prior to the opening of the Canada Line in 2009, Burrard station was the northern terminus of the 98 B-Line and was served by a number of bus routes that provided service to Vancouver’s southern suburbs of Delta, Richmond, Surrey, and White Rock. In 2016, bus service to the eastern suburbs of the Tri-Cities was discontinued when the Millennium Line’s Evergreen Extension opened.

In May 2018, preliminary plans were revealed to renovate and expand Burrard station. On July 13, 2021, TransLink announced that it would close the station for two years beginning in early 2022 to allow construction for the rebuild.

The structure housing the surface station entrance was designed to resemble Victorian-era British railway stations, with a peaked glass roof. The station was designed by the Austrian architecture firm Architektengruppe U-Bahn.

When originally opened, the station’s only underground passage was to the Bentall Centre skyscraper complex. A connection to the Royal Centre complex was constructed some years later, while an anticipated underground passage to the Park Place skyscraper across the street was never built. The construction of a new east entrance to the station, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Burrard and Dunsmuir, was considered as part of upgrades to the station included in TransLink’s 10-Year Vision, but the cost of such an addition was higher than expected and TransLink turned to reviewing options to improve the existing entrance.

Like Granville, the station was built inside the Dunsmuir Tunnel and has a distinctive platform design. The inbound track (to Waterfront) is stacked on top of the outbound track (to King George and Production Way–University), with the inbound platform being one level above the outbound platform.

Burrard station is one of four SkyTrain stations on the Expo Line that serve Downtown Vancouver. It has connections with many TransLink bus routes in Metro Vancouver; these buses serve the city of Vancouver, Burnaby, the city and district of North Vancouver, and West Vancouver.

Bukhara, which is situated on the Silk Route, is more than 2,000 years old. It is the most complete example of a medieval city in Central Asia, with an urban fabric that has remained largely intact. Monuments of particular interest include the famous tomb of Ismail Samani, a masterpiece of 10th-century Muslim architecture, and a large number of 17th-century madrasas.

Brief synthesis

The Historic Centre of Bukhara, situated on the Silk Roads, is more than two thousand years old. It is one of the best examples of well preserved Islamic cities of Central Asia of the 10th to 17th centuries, with an urban fabric that has remained largely intact.

Bukhara was long an important economic and cultural center in Central Asia. The ancient Persian city served as a major center of Islamic culture for many centuries and became a major cultural center of the Caliphate in the 8th century.

With the exception of a few important vestiges from before the Mongol invasions of Genghis Khan in 1220 and Temur in 1370, the old town bears witness to the urbanism and architecture of the Sheibani period of Uzbek rule, from the early 16th century onwards. The citadel, rebuilt in the 16th century, has marked the civic center of the town since its earliest days to the present,

Important monuments that survive from early times include the famous Ismail Samanai tomb, impressive in its sober elegance and the best surviving example of 10th century architecture in the whole Muslim world. From the 11th century Karakhanid period comes the outstanding Poi-Kalyan minaret, a masterpiece of decoration in brick, along with most of the Magoki Attori mosque and the Chashma Ayub shrine. The Ulugbek medresseh is a surviving contribution from Temurid. With the advent of the Sheibanids came some of the most celebrated buildings of Bukhara: the Poi-Kalyan group, the Lyabi-Khauz ensemble, the Kosh Medresseh and the Gaukushon medresseh in the Hodja-Kalon ensemble. Later buildings from this phase of Bukhara´s history include monumental medressehs at important crossroads: Taki Sarafon (Dome of the Moneychangers), Taki-Tilpak-Furushan (Dome of the Headguard Sellers), Tim-Bazzazan, and Tiro-Abdullah-Khan. In the early 17th century fine buildings were added, including a new great mosque, Magoki Kurns (1637), and the imposing Abdullaziz-Khan medresseh (1652).

However, the real importance of Bukhara lies not in its individual buildings but rather in its overall townscape, demonstrating the high and consistent level of urban planning and architecture that began with the Sheibanid dynasty.

Criterion (ii): The example of Bukhara in terms of its urban layout and buildings had a profound influence on the evolution and planning of towns in a wide region of Central Asia.

Criterion (iv): Bukhara is the most complete and unspoiled example of a medieval Central Asian town which has preserved its urban fabric to the present day.

Criterion (vi): Between the 9th and 16th centuries, Bukhara was the largest centre for Muslim theology, particularly on Sufism, in the Near East, with over two hundred mosques and more than a hundred madrasahs.

Integrity

The property contains all the attributes that sustain its Outstanding Universal Value. Its boundaries and buffer zone are appropriate and adequate. Despite the insensitivity of much of the new construction from 1920 until the 1950s and earthquake damages, Bukhara retains much of its historic ambience and still has a largely intact urban fabric.

However, the integrity of the property is threatened by aggressive impact of salinity and underground water and by termites causing the erosion of wooden structures. In addition, large numbers of the outstanding earthen buildings are in some quarters extremely vulnerable due to the deterioration of the historic fabric.

Authenticity

Bukhara has preserved a great deal of its urban layout that dates from the Sheibanid period. Modern buildings have been erected in the historic centre over the past half-century that have destroyed the appearance of some quarters, but in others the medieval townscape has survived. The proportion of old structures, particularly the public and religious buildings, nonetheless remains high, and the historic centre is unquestionably of outstanding significance as an exceptional example of a largely medieval Muslim city of Central Asia.

In the context of regarding the Historic Centre of Bukhara as an entire entity – expressed through a variety of attributes including urban setting, form and design, use of materials and techniques, functions and tradition – some factors can be recognized as having the potential to impact adversely on the authenticity of the property, namely: (i) the diminishing use of traditional materials and traditional building techniques and introduction of new building materials, as well as new architectural details; (ii) inadequate documentation of major monuments and urban fabric; (iii) urban development pressures resulting in inappropriate designs of new structures.

Protection and management requirements

Relevant national laws and regulations concerning the World Heritage property include the Law on Protection and Exploitation of Cultural Heritage Properties, 2001. Current laws together with urban planning codes provide protection of monuments of cultural heritage and their buffer zones. These documents are reflected in the Master Plan of Bukhara city in 2005. In addition, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan approved special Decree No. 49 of 23 March 2010 “On State programme on research, conservation, restoration and adaptation to modern use of the cultural heritage properties of Bukhara until 2020”. At present this state programme is being implemented which provides an additional layer for the protection and conservation of the property.

Management of monuments of cultural heritage in Bukhara is carried out by the Ministry of Culture and Sports of the Republic of Uzbekistan at national level and Bukhara Regional Inspection for Protection and Utilization of Monuments of Cultural Heritage and local authorities at regional level.

In the framework of protection of cultural heritage of the historic centre of Bukhara, Cabinet of Ministries of the Republic of Uzbekistan adopted a State Programme for complex activities on research, conservation, restoration of monuments of cultural heritage of the Historic Centre of Bukhara and their adaptation to the modern needs for the period 2010-2020. Interventions are strictly regulated in order to ensure the integrity and characteristic elements of monuments. During the realization of the State Programme the monitoring of monuments will be carried out on a permanent base. A management plan, which should include a computerized database, a Master Conservation and Development Plan, a scientific monitoring system, an infrastructure plan, design guidelines, and guidelines and regulations for all tourist services, is required in order to sustain the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and balance the needs for sustainable development. To maintain the conditions of integrity and authenticity, a comprehensive conservation strategy needs to be in place, in particular, to remove cultural layers built on later periods and to reduce the surface of streets to their historical level. Another important aspect is to build capacity in traditional building techniques. At present Urban Planning Scientific-Research and Project Institute is developing a project of detailed planning of historic centre of Bukhara, which will further address these issues.

https://www.allmusic.com/album/city-of-angels-original-soundtrack-mw0000033629

Call it a soundtrack producer’s dream. One of the most vital and influential bands in modern-day music cuts a song entitled “If God Will Send His Angels” just months before you are hired to put together a soundtrack for a movie entitled City of Angels. The band is U2, and their song not only opens the City of Angels soundtrack, but it is also the anchor of a group of tracks that narrowly escapes the sappy trail that the movie blazed when it hit theaters. In all actuality, the soundtrack sounds much too dark, menacing, and legitimate to be attached to the film. Alanis Morissette assures the direction of the album when she follows U2’s less-than-perky offering with “Uninvited,” which is nothing if not vintage Alanis. From there on the quality drops off somewhat, but not until after Jimi Hendrix comes in with “Red House.” It’s still amazing to this day how the sounds of Hendrix on the guitar could be so many things all at the same time — soothing, moving, eerie, and untouchable. In what amounts to the same effect as pulling the emergency brake while traveling down the highway, the producers followed up Hendrix with one of music’s most overrated commodities: Paula Cole. As popular belief would tell you, the movie is rarely better than the book. While the same has not been proven conclusively in the relationship of movies and their soundtracks, be assured that City of Angels is much better to listen to than to watch.

The best of Ridley from the DVD commentary and special features for ‘Gladiator’ (2000), which got Ridley a long-coveted Best Picture (but not Best Director) Oscar.

She sent tongues wagging earlier this summer as many fans questioned on Twitter if she had a boob job.

And Taylor Swift is certainly giving those skeptics something to talk about.

The 26-year-old singer was seen looking rather busty while out and about in New York City on Wednesday.

She showcased what looked like a fuller chest in a dark red cropped T-shirt as she headed out for the day in the Big Apple.

It was not just her assets on display as she also bared her midriff in the short top as she teamed the look with a pair of chic black leggings.

Taylor also wore a pair of black trainers as she accessorised with Clubmaster designer shades and a small leather bag draped over her shoulder.

Her blonde locks were worn down a she sported natural, make-up on her face topped off with a swipe of her signature bright red lip.

This comes just months after her fans flocked to Twitter to discuss whether the blonde beauty has had a little help in the cleavage department after showing off a noticeably larger chest.

Keen-eyed fans have observed that Taylor looked to be much more top-heavy than usual as she stepped out with her new man Tom Hiddleston back in June.

Leaving Selena Gomez’s Nashville, Tennessee, gig hand-in-hand with Tom, the Shake it Off singer stunned in a plunging red crop top which she teamed with a matching high-waisted skirt.

And the hot co-ordinated ensemble prompted a big reaction from her fans, with one writing: ‘Omg did Taylor get a boob job?’

Still in disbelief, some fans have suggested she has the help of a very good bra, with one adding: ‘Did Taylor get a boob job or was she wearing a padded bra or something because, s**t… Not trying to be mean bc I love her, btw.’

Meanwhile, Mr Adrian Richards, Consultant Plastic Surgeon at The Private Clinic of Harley Street told The Sun: ‘In recent photos, it seems her breasts are more defined and slightly larger.

‘I’d suggest she has had implants that are fairly moderately sized and teardrop in shape – what I’d call low profile implants. This form of enhancement is proving increasingly popular.’

As with countless other female celebrities, Taylor has been the subject of much unconfirmed plastic surgery speculation since rising to fame.

Questions about whether or not she has undergone breast augmentation surgery have arisen before, as well as suggestions that she’d received a nose job prior to launching her career.

And, with fuller figures now being the trend in Hollywood, the blonde beauty even ignited rumours of having had a butt lift, after she was photographed sporting a rounder rump.

Meanwhile, Taylor donated $50,000 to the Greater Baton Rogue Food Bank in light of the recent Louisiana floods that killed at least 13 people.

This comes after the Blank Space singer vowed to donate $1 million to those in need as she said in a statement to the Associated Press: ‘We began The 1989 World Tour in Louisiana, and the wonderful fans there made us feel completely at home. The fact that so many people in Louisiana have been forced out of their own homes this week is heartbreaking.’

The Food Bank took to social media on Thursday to thank the singer for her donation as well as the Salvation Army who tweeted: ‘Thank you @taylorswift13 for helping us serve the #LouisianaFlood survivors by donating to our relief efforts! #DoingTheMostGood.’

What was the role of the West and the Soviet elite in the dissolution of the USSR, dubbed by President Vladimir Putin as the “biggest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century?

US political scientist and geo-strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski noted in 1990, a year before the fall of the USSR: “In my view, this deepening crisis [in the USSR] is not a transitional crisis; it is a historic crisis… The crisis of the Soviet Union is a historic crisis like the crisis of the Ottoman Empire, for example. It is a crisis of stagnation, of attrition, of demoralization, of fragmentation, and of intensified potential for violence.”

So, was the old hawk right and the Soviet Union was destined to lose? Was the Soviet system crumbling and falling apart at the seams?

Interestingly enough, some archival documents released by Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in a commemorative brochure dedicated to the 25th anniversary of 1989, “the year that changed the map of Europe,” draw a slightly different picture.

Mikhail Gorbachev and the Trilateral Commission

The Commission was established in 1973 and brought together experienced leaders of the Western political establishment to “discuss issues of global concern.”

In January 1989, the Commission’s task force authors on East-West relations — Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Henry Kissinger and Yasuhiro Nakasone — undertook a mission to Moscow in order to meet Soviet leaders, notably Mikhail Gorbachev.

The group and Gorbachev were discussing the issue of coexistence as well as a roadmap of the USSR’s integration into the world economy. Due to the 1986 conspiracy between Saudi Arabia and the US, the Soviet economy faced a temporary recession caused by sharp fall in oil prices.

However, the USSR was not in a “dire state.” The transcript of Gorbachev’s meeting with the Commission group on January 18, 1989 indicates that the Soviet leader had no doubts the USSR and the West were “on par” in that period of time.

“The questions you have raised deal with how the USSR is going to change. But it is also important to know how you are going to change in your attitude toward the USSR. We are all at a crucial stage — both capitalism and socialism,” Gorbachev emphasized, stressing that neither side should ask the other to abandon their social philosophies.

“The two systems should show they can adapt to new conditions,” he added.

Was it a bluff? Why did Gorbachev hint that both systems were facing similar problems?

“Black Monday”: US Stock Market Crash of 1987

Indeed, it was not solely the USSR who faced a recession — in the late 1980s a ghost of depression was haunting the United States. Two years earlier, on October 19, 1987, the United States experienced a severe stock market crash which prompted deep concerns regarding the efficiency of the country’s monetary system.

Within one day, also known as “Black Monday,” the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) swiftly lost 508 points, or 22.6% of its value.

Experts gloomily predicted that it would take “a miracle” to save the American economy. Curiously enough, the collapse of the USSR had become the “miracle” that postponed the US and global financial crises for decades and in the 1990s the US enjoyed unprecedented economic growth.

Back in January 1989, Gorbachev offered the West closer economic cooperation that could purportedly bring both parties back from the brink of economic disaster. The USSR boasted substantial achievements in industrial machinery, steel, mining and petroleum production, aircraft, military and space industry; it was developing sophisticated technologies, including microbiology and electronics.

The Soviet leader urged the West to lift sanctions imposed on the USSR. “This would not be a favor to the USSR. The West would also benefit from the trade,” he told the Trilateral Commission during the historical 1989 summit.

The USSR Posed Substantial Economic Threat to West — Thatcher

However, the devil is always in the details. The group avoided giving a direct answer, saying that the USSR had to carry out a series of necessary “reforms” first as well as to join international financial institutions — the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and others. In a word, the West seemingly was not much enthusiastic about the idea of the USSR’s integration into the global market.

According to Director of the Center for Russian Studies at the Moscow University for Humanities and the Institute of System Strategic Analysis, historian and publicist Andrei Fursov, the West was unwilling to collaborate with the USSR “on par.” It needed a “raw-material appendage,” rather than a serious competitor, the historian elaborates.

Citing former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s speech delivered at the American Petroleum Institute in Houston, Texas in November 1991, Fursov points out that the West considered the USSR a “serious threat” to the Western world.

Surprisingly, the ex-prime minister referred to the “economic threat,” adding that the West was never afraid of the Soviet Union’s military “offensive.” With the planned economy and the particular combination of moral and material incentives, the Soviet Union managed to achieve high economic indicators, Thatcher warned. Combined with the enormous natural resources of the USSR, the sound management could deal a heavy blow to the West’s positions in the global market, she noted.

But was not the centrally planned economy “the root of all evil” that dragged the USSR into a vicious circle of the recession of the 1980s?

Soviet Planned Economy — a Yacht That Could Not Catch the Wind

Indeed, prominent American economist and Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics Wassily Leontief (1906-1999) compared the USSR’s economy to a yacht that was unable to catch the wind. The Soviet economy was doomed to further recession, restrained by excessive government interference and regulation, he noted.

At the same time Leontief praised the Soviet planned economy for an unprecedented industrial leap in the 1930s and added that it facilitated the country’s rapid recovery after the Second World War. Furthermore, the centrally planned economy allowed the USSR in the 1970s and the early 1980s to gain economic growth rates comparable to those of the US and even exceeding those of Western Europe.

Curiously enough, the economist also criticized the American financial system, freed from government control, comparing the United States to the yacht sailing without a map and a compass. Both systems desperately needed reforms, Leontief believed.

But does it mean the USSR had to be dismantled? Was it really necessary to destroy the system and build a new one from scratch?

Fursov narrated that in the late 1980s Leontief was invited by the Soviet government to carry out a thorough analysis of the USSR’s economic system. The Nobel Laureate’s verdict was that the structural changes were needed to bolster economic growth but the Soviet system in general was viable and could be “mended.” The USSR did not face a systemic crisis.

But what happened next and what were the results of “Perestroika,” Gorbachev’s initiative aimed at rebuilding the Soviet system?

The USSR’s Transitional Reforms Were Hijacked by West

Paradoxically, in January 1989, Gorbachev discussed the possibility of USSR-Western joint ventures and mutually beneficial collaboration in the global market and two years later the Soviet Union was brought to its knees and collapsed.

Andrei Fursov believes that there was a conspiracy between Communist high-ranking “apparatchiks” and the Western political and financial elite. A part of the Communist senior officials sought to join the Western global capitalist establishment.

Although they did not actually want to tear the USSR to pieces, the country’s transitional reforms were hijacked by the more experienced, smarter and more hawkish Western elite, the historian deems. As a result the country was split and lured into the abyss of political and economic catastrophe.

Remarkably, in 1992 economist Wassily Leontief slammed Gorbachev and Yeltsin’s leadership for ruining the country’s economic, political and social order. He emphasized that the Kremlin had to conduct the transition from a “centrally planned” to a “market” economy incrementally and under government supervision. The country’s economic system was literally burned to ashes, now the market system had to be built from scratch.

Due to the “efforts” of Russia’s liberal “reformers” and their Western economic consultants, the country’s production volume was hacked in half and this vacuum was immediately flooded by Western goods, Russian Presidential advisor Academician Sergei Glazyev wrote in his 2003 essay “How to Win a Battle with Poverty in a Rich Country.”

“The neoliberal revolution after 1991 was indeed intended to dismantle post-Soviet industry, to pull it up by its roots. H.I.I.D. [Harvard Institute for International Development] and A.I.D. [US Agency for International Development] operatives bought out Russian companies playing a key potential military role and dismantled them,” Michael Hudson, a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri, said in an interview with The Saker in June 2015, and added: “For the ruble to rise in value, Russia would need to re-industrialize [now].”

By the early 2000s Russia had become the West’s “raw-material appendage” and a promising market, contributing a lot to the West’s economic rise in the 1990s, according to Andrei Fursov.

So, could efficient management have brought the country back from the brink of catastrophe thus saving the USSR from dissolution? According to Russian historians, this question is a rhetorical one. But, undoubtedly, the history of the fall of the Soviet Union is an important lesson the global powers should learn.