On 09/05/2013 17:44, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2013 17:21:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:


East Berlin was similar. If you could see it from the Wall, it was
luxurious, further away quite different.

I know. I got behind the Wall while it was still intact and also
visited not long after transit restrictions were considerably relaxed.
Unter den Linden was, as you say, pretty "up market" in an East German
way. Further east had the statues of Lenin and tanks as public
monuments and the brutalist housing estates. A very strange, but
worthwhile, experience.

How unlike our own Whitehall and (some random council estate)....

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 09/05/2013 13:10, Recliner wrote:
Following the Pyongyang Metro pictures I posted, here's some I took
above ground, with a particular concentration on the over-crowded
public transport system.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...7633439541991/

Pyongyang is North Korea's showpiece city, so many of the buildings
are rather smart, and the roads are wide and often tree-lined. The
roads are also quite well maintained; the standard drops the moment
you get past the police checkpoints on the city limits.

Citizens are not allowed to own cars, and cycles were also banned
until recently, so many commuters have to walk if they can't squeeze
on to the packed, battered old trams, trolley buses and diesel buses.
There are a small number of smart, modern (mainly Chinese) cars, but
you probably have to be someone fairly important to be able to travel
in one. Mobile phones are now available, but you don't yet see many
people walking along, deep in conversation. You also see very few
overweight people; most have a vigorous style of power walking.


V interesting stuff.

Do you know what the logic was in banning bicycles (until recently) in
Pyongyang? The regime fearful of the city masses having independent
mobility perhaps.

The photo of the pedestrians dutifully using the bridges over the
lightly-trafficked road intersection rather than just walking on the
flat particularly struck me.

On 2013\05\12 12:38, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Basil Jet
wrote in :

And since any
West German could get a visa to visit the east, knowledge of the charade
must have been common in the West.

Not very many West Germans took the opportunity.

Blixa Bargeld was asked in 1985 if he'd ever been to the other side and
he said "Yes, many times. Oh, the other side of Berlin... no."

To be fair to the Ossi's, TPTB in Britain think that the parts of
Britain seen by tourists have to be pretty, but the rest of it can look
like hell.

--
Ukip - Breaking the fungus of British politics

Mizter T wrote:
On 09/05/2013 13:10, Recliner wrote:
Following the Pyongyang Metro pictures I posted, here's some I took
above ground, with a particular concentration on the over-crowded
public transport system.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...7633439541991/

Pyongyang is North Korea's showpiece city, so many of the buildings
are rather smart, and the roads are wide and often tree-lined. The
roads are also quite well maintained; the standard drops the moment
you get past the police checkpoints on the city limits.

Citizens are not allowed to own cars, and cycles were also banned
until recently, so many commuters have to walk if they can't squeeze
on to the packed, battered old trams, trolley buses and diesel buses.
There are a small number of smart, modern (mainly Chinese) cars, but
you probably have to be someone fairly important to be able to travel
in one. Mobile phones are now available, but you don't yet see many
people walking along, deep in conversation. You also see very few
overweight people; most have a vigorous style of power walking.


V interesting stuff.

Do you know what the logic was in banning bicycles (until recently) in
Pyongyang? The regime fearful of the city masses having independent mobility perhaps.

I can only speculate about the cycle ban in Pyongyang, as there doesn't
seem to be any official information. It didn't apply outside the capital,
so I don't think it was about restricting mobility (which the regime does
using other means, in any case -- there are regular police road blocks on
the highways, checking that people are not moving outside their permitted
areas, and all non-residents need permission to visit Pyongyang).

I think the leaders probably wanted to avoid the third world look of
millions of shabby bikes cluttering up the elegant boulevards, as the
leaders must have observed on their regular visits in Beijing. There may
also have been an element of, "we've provided you with a Metro and plenty
of cheap buses/trams, so USE them". Also, there would have been a demand
for cycle racks both at work places and in the cramped, high rise apartment
blocks, which probably don't have room for bikes, and may not have lifts.
Finally, Pyongyang is fairly compact, so most people probably live close
enough to walk to work if necessary (particularly if they're allocated
apartments close to where they work). Separately, women were banned from
cycling throughout the country for many years, as the leader didn't like
the look of women on bikes.

Outside Pyongyang, most people live in low rises, and there's probably more
space to store bikes; they also have to travel longer distances with little
or no public transport. And it would have been much harder to enforce a ban
on women cycling.

As a result, you see many more bikes on the motorways outside the capital,
often cycling in the wrong direction in the fast lane, or straight across
the motorway; neither causes much of a problem to the few motor vehicles
weaving their way around the pot holes.

On 12/05/2013 12:52, Mizter T wrote:

On 09/05/2013 13:10, Recliner wrote:
Following the Pyongyang Metro pictures I posted, here's some I took
above ground, with a particular concentration on the over-crowded
public transport system.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...7633439541991/

Pyongyang is North Korea's showpiece city, so many of the buildings
are rather smart, and the roads are wide and often tree-lined. The
roads are also quite well maintained; the standard drops the moment
you get past the police checkpoints on the city limits.

Citizens are not allowed to own cars, and cycles were also banned
until recently, so many commuters have to walk if they can't squeeze
on to the packed, battered old trams, trolley buses and diesel buses.
There are a small number of smart, modern (mainly Chinese) cars, but
you probably have to be someone fairly important to be able to travel
in one. Mobile phones are now available, but you don't yet see many
people walking along, deep in conversation. You also see very few
overweight people; most have a vigorous style of power walking.


V interesting stuff.

Do you know what the logic was in banning bicycles (until recently) in
Pyongyang? The regime fearful of the city masses having independent
mobility perhaps.

Aesthetics, I am guessing.

I have seen other videos of Pyongyang, which did indeed show people on
bicycles there.

On 12/05/2013 15:21, Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
On 09/05/2013 13:10, Recliner wrote:
Following the Pyongyang Metro pictures I posted, here's some I took
above ground, with a particular concentration on the over-crowded
public transport system.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...7633439541991/

Pyongyang is North Korea's showpiece city, so many of the buildings
are rather smart, and the roads are wide and often tree-lined. The
roads are also quite well maintained; the standard drops the moment
you get past the police checkpoints on the city limits.

Citizens are not allowed to own cars, and cycles were also banned
until recently, so many commuters have to walk if they can't squeeze
on to the packed, battered old trams, trolley buses and diesel buses.
There are a small number of smart, modern (mainly Chinese) cars, but
you probably have to be someone fairly important to be able to travel
in one. Mobile phones are now available, but you don't yet see many
people walking along, deep in conversation. You also see very few
overweight people; most have a vigorous style of power walking.


V interesting stuff.

Do you know what the logic was in banning bicycles (until recently) in
Pyongyang? The regime fearful of the city masses having independent mobility perhaps.

I can only speculate about the cycle ban in Pyongyang, as there doesn't
seem to be any official information. It didn't apply outside the capital,
so I don't think it was about restricting mobility (which the regime does
using other means, in any case -- there are regular police road blocks on
the highways, checking that people are not moving outside their permitted
areas, and all non-residents need permission to visit Pyongyang).

I think the leaders probably wanted to avoid the third world look of
millions of shabby bikes cluttering up the elegant boulevards, as the
leaders must have observed on their regular visits in Beijing. There may
also have been an element of, "we've provided you with a Metro and plenty
of cheap buses/trams, so USE them". Also, there would have been a demand
for cycle racks both at work places and in the cramped, high rise apartment
blocks, which probably don't have room for bikes, and may not have lifts.
Finally, Pyongyang is fairly compact, so most people probably live close
enough to walk to work if necessary (particularly if they're allocated
apartments close to where they work). Separately, women were banned from
cycling throughout the country for many years, as the leader didn't like
the look of women on bikes.


Would you say that Pyongyang is generally a rather small town?

" wrote:
On 12/05/2013 15:21, Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
On 09/05/2013 13:10, Recliner wrote:

I think the leaders probably wanted to avoid the third world look of
millions of shabby bikes cluttering up the elegant boulevards, as the
leaders must have observed on their regular visits in Beijing. There may
also have been an element of, "we've provided you with a Metro and plenty
of cheap buses/trams, so USE them". Also, there would have been a demand
for cycle racks both at work places and in the cramped, high rise apartment
blocks, which probably don't have room for bikes, and may not have lifts.
Finally, Pyongyang is fairly compact, so most people probably live close
enough to walk to work if necessary (particularly if they're allocated
apartments close to where they work). Separately, women were banned from
cycling throughout the country for many years, as the leader didn't like
the look of women on bikes.


Would you say that Pyongyang is generally a rather small town?

I wouldn't go that far, but by Asian standards, it's not a large city. As
admission is restricted, you don't get the normal influx of peasants
looking for pavements paved with gold, and we saw no evidence of beggars or
homeless or even unemployed people. You do see a few shacks, but not the
typical large shanty towns or illegally extended properties. I presume only
those with jobs or academic places in the city are allowed to live there,
so it keeps it tidy. And of course there's no litter or graffiti, but
that's also true of Japan and South Korea. I don't know what Japanese
tourists make of filthy European cities.

But you do see peasants and soldiers foraging for food in the country,
where it's harder to cover up the poverty. And you do see workers (possibly
'volunteers') travelling around standing in the backs of open lorries, even
in Pyongyang, which is distinctly 'third world'. There are also lots of
apparently abandoned building projects which show evidence of very poor
workmanship (the concrete looks hand moulded).

On 12/05/2013 20:47, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12/05/2013 15:21, Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
On 09/05/2013 13:10, Recliner wrote:

I think the leaders probably wanted to avoid the third world look of
millions of shabby bikes cluttering up the elegant boulevards, as the
leaders must have observed on their regular visits in Beijing. There may
also have been an element of, "we've provided you with a Metro and plenty
of cheap buses/trams, so USE them". Also, there would have been a demand
for cycle racks both at work places and in the cramped, high rise apartment
blocks, which probably don't have room for bikes, and may not have lifts.
Finally, Pyongyang is fairly compact, so most people probably live close
enough to walk to work if necessary (particularly if they're allocated
apartments close to where they work). Separately, women were banned from
cycling throughout the country for many years, as the leader didn't like
the look of women on bikes.


Would you say that Pyongyang is generally a rather small town?

I wouldn't go that far, but by Asian standards, it's not a large city. As
admission is restricted, you don't get the normal influx of peasants
looking for pavements paved with gold, and we saw no evidence of beggars or
homeless or even unemployed people. You do see a few shacks, but not the
typical large shanty towns or illegally extended properties. I presume only
those with jobs or academic places in the city are allowed to live there,
so it keeps it tidy.

It's neither about jobs or academic places, so much as it is about
political loyalty, if you want to live in Pyongyang.

There are also lots of
apparently abandoned building projects which show evidence of very poor
workmanship (the concrete looks hand moulded).

Because it is hand moulded.

" wrote:
On 12/05/2013 20:47, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12/05/2013 15:21, Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:


Would you say that Pyongyang is generally a rather small town?

I wouldn't go that far, but by Asian standards, it's not a large city. As
admission is restricted, you don't get the normal influx of peasants
looking for pavements paved with gold, and we saw no evidence of beggars or
homeless or even unemployed people. You do see a few shacks, but not the
typical large shanty towns or illegally extended properties. I presume only
those with jobs or academic places in the city are allowed to live there,
so it keeps it tidy.

It's neither about jobs or academic places, so much as it is about
political loyalty, if you want to live in Pyongyang.

Presumably only people with high 'songbun'? Of course, without it,
Pyongyang jobs and places in good universities would be impossible to come
by, regardless of skills or talent.


There are also lots of
apparently abandoned building projects which show evidence of very poor
workmanship (the concrete looks hand moulded).

Because it is hand moulded.

Even their motorway bridges look to have been built that way. I wonder how
many buildings and bridges collapse? Of course we'd hear nothing of it
abroad.

On 12/05/2013 21:27, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12/05/2013 20:47, Recliner wrote:
" wrote:
On 12/05/2013 15:21, Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:


Would you say that Pyongyang is generally a rather small town?

I wouldn't go that far, but by Asian standards, it's not a large city. As
admission is restricted, you don't get the normal influx of peasants
looking for pavements paved with gold, and we saw no evidence of beggars or
homeless or even unemployed people. You do see a few shacks, but not the
typical large shanty towns or illegally extended properties. I presume only
those with jobs or academic places in the city are allowed to live there,
so it keeps it tidy.

It's neither about jobs or academic places, so much as it is about
political loyalty, if you want to live in Pyongyang.

Presumably only people with high 'songbun'? Of course, without it,
Pyongyang jobs and places in good universities would be impossible to come
by, regardless of skills or talent.

Thus ...

Even their motorway bridges look to have been built that way. I wonder how
many buildings and bridges collapse? Of course we'd hear nothing of it
abroad.

Much of the Pyongyang Tram network was also built by hand, I understand.