"Is Warsaw a Third World City?"

[ianek70]

miasta.gazeta.pl/warszawa/1,34862,3383263.html

Most Poles say a typically melodramatic "tak".
Personally, I'm not so sure, but as the capital of a country which has chosen
Third World status I reckon it's only a question of time.
And Poland would love to have something as interesting as shanty towns, crack
dens or cholera on its doorstep.

[ejmarkow]

Warsaw is often described as being a capital city with a provincial ambience. I
am inclined to partially agree with that in a positive manner. A third world
city it isn't.

[ianek70]

ejmarkow napisał:

> Warsaw is often described as being a capital city with a provincial ambience.
I
>
> am inclined to partially agree with that in a positive manner. A third world
> city it isn't.

I see it more as a provincial city with the snobbery and high prices of a
capital, but in an old-fashioned centralised state like Popeland that's maybe
not surprising.
OK, so it's not Mogadishu or Harare, but it's not Paris or Copenhagen either.
In a thousand years it could be Bratislava or Cardiff.

[marcus_anglikiem]

ianek, really, i think your reference to Cardiff, i mean, isn't that a little
too disrespectful to W-wa ?

[ianek70]

marcus_anglikiem napisał:

> ianek, really, i think your reference to Cardiff, i mean, isn't that a little
> too disrespectful to W-wa ?

Cardiff is capital of a nation with thousands of years of history and is near
the sea.
The buses are better in Warsaw, but try getting a pint of cider there.

[bartis_ervin]

I never got it why people who live outside Warsaw must fulfill their duty of
disliking Warsaw? The most hillarious is when they dislike "Warsaw people", when
in fact after the WWII the population was around 200.000, so most people in
Warsaw are from the province or first generation Warszawiacy.

Ervin

Thebartiski.blogspot.com

[chomskybornagain1]

and that is exactly why most Poles dislikes the so-called varsovians

[bartis_ervin]

If I understand well, you are saying that people from the countryside dislike
people from the countryside. Interesting!

Ervin

Thebartiski.blogspot.com

[firemouse]

Ianek, that's biggest bull..it I have read in weeks.

You beat even PWC reports.

What is Bratislava? Are Slovaks a nation really? What history they have which
predate Priest Tiso?

Cardiff is near the sea and Welsh have thousand year history - so do Poles, and
if you need sea go to Gdansk.

And you really want to say that in such a modern decentralised UK London does
not have high prices? And snobbery?

Thanks God Warsaw is not Paris. One of two ugliest cities in Europe, the other
one is London of course. Yes, I know about Baron Hausmann, but what did he make?
Turnign down buildings to create wide avenues? Ceausescu did the same for
Bucharest, with remarkably similar effect. Maybe the architecture is not so
impressive.

As for London - I even don't want to say anything.

And I am glad to live in Warsaw.

[russh]

Good for you! Everyone has their opinion. Mine is that I could not live in any
large city - I find them claustrophobic, far too dirty and absurdly expensive (
with local purchasing power). Warsaw included.

You cannot compare Warsaw to either Paris or London though, in terms of its
status as a 'great' city / capital, or its offerings on the financial and
tourism fronts.


> and if you need sea go to Gdansk.

You ruined your whole post with this comment!

[firemouse]

russh napisał:

> Good for you! Everyone has their opinion. Mine is that I could not live in any
> large city - I find them claustrophobic, far too dirty and absurdly expensive (
> with local purchasing power). Warsaw included.

All is true, and Warsaw has it drawbacks - traffic kills anything. It's not that
the city is so big but traffic system is hopeless.

Luckily, I live in a quiet area so I meet all the city temptations only if I
cruise through city center during work.

>
> You cannot compare Warsaw to either Paris or London though, in terms of its
> status as a 'great' city / capital, or its offerings on the financial and
> tourism fronts.

True. But I had in mind the architecture and general infrastructure - Paris does
not turn me on, what surprises a lot of people. London on the other hand is very
big and does not look like a city, just like a lot of towns put together.

This is very personal view, and I like Amsterdam very much, but my wife says
that this is city without a center which looks like suburbs collection - which I
disagree but this is how people look at the things and have their opinions. I
like Copenhagen too. And Rome. And Barcelona. And Berlin. And Prague. And
Budapest. All are different, but have a flair.

>
> > and if you need sea go to Gdansk.
>
> You ruined your whole post with this comment!

Heh, I was not at the top of my mind writing this. Please omit this part ))

[ianek70]

firemouse napisał:

> Ianek, that's biggest bull..it I have read in weeks.

Thanks, I try
OK, so Bratislava and Cardiff were a slight exaggeration, although I've never
been to Cardiff so I could be wrong.

> What is Bratislava? Are Slovaks a nation really? What history they have which
> predate Priest Tiso?

For centuries, statehood and nationhood were vague and changeable concepts in
Central Europe - look at the history of Ukraine, Silesia, the Great Moravian
State or Austria-Hungary.

> Cardiff is near the sea and Welsh have thousand year history - so do Poles,
and
> if you need sea go to Gdansk.

Poles generally claim to have 1040 years of history, which isn't much.

> And you really want to say that in such a modern decentralised UK London does
> not have high prices?

It has scandalously high prices, this is one of the disadvantages of being a
capital city, but London also has many advantages.

> Thanks God Warsaw is not Paris. One of two ugliest cities in Europe, the other
> one is London of course.

Neither London nor Paris are the most beautiful cities in Europe, that's
perfectly true, and being so large they have enormous amounts of ugliness. And
a lot of the most impressive architecture in both of these places is a result
of local planners simply deciding "We're an important capital city and we need
boulevards, big grand buildings and lots of monuments. And huge squares." So
even the nice parts tend to lack charm.
But Warsaw is hardly pretty - it has some nice bits, some bits with character,
and historical justification for the horrible concrete parts.
Anyway, looks aren't everything - I enjoy living in Katowice, even though it's
much uglier than most of Poland's other main cities.

[nasza_maggie]

Warsaw or Warszawiacy are disliked, mainly because they are linked to
politicians and with dirty politics.

I wrote to the the guy who wrote this article:

miasta.gazeta.pl/warszawa/1,34862,3389214.html
his email: [e-mail]

I like Warsaw but I just think it's not looked after properly.

I love Berlin. Prague is ok and I remeber Budapest a little.

But I must say out of all the capitals I have been to, Rome and Berlin did it
for me.

Berlin has done well although they are now approx 40 bilion euros in debt. Now
that WAS an expensive facelift but I think it was worth it)

[firemouse]

Thanks for support! I see we like more less the same kind of things, is it the
Praga spirit?

I'm from south, but been to north a lot. And I never worried about some troubles
there.

[firemouse]

> > What is Bratislava? Are Slovaks a nation really? What history they have w
> hich
> > predate Priest Tiso?
>
> For centuries, statehood and nationhood were vague and changeable concepts in
> Central Europe - look at the history of Ukraine, Silesia, the Great Moravian
> State or Austria-Hungary.

Yes, well, it all depends how you define a nation - after a state or an actual
feeling of distinguishing from others in a way of culture or otherwise - first
choice is not the best one, becuase there never been nations of Czechoslovaks
and Yugoslavians, for example, or British one, although here I'd be careful -
concept of being British does not exclude being a Scot, for example. On the
other hand, there are nations like Kurds - who do not have a state (Palestinians
to some extend too), but are widely recognised as a nation, so I was teasing you
a little here.

> Poles generally claim to have 1040 years of history, which isn't much.

More than Austrians or Swiss (if they are a nation). Also, this is just history
of state, but the tribes living there were merging and separating in various
configurations, like Krakow was for a while an important Czech (or Moravian - I
can't remember) city, and Prague was part of the Polish kingdom for a while too.

> It has scandalously high prices, this is one of the disadvantages of being a
> capital city, but London also has many advantages.

We can drag it for ages, all big cities have advantages and disadvantages.

> Neither London nor Paris are the most beautiful cities in Europe, that's
> perfectly true, and being so large they have enormous amounts of ugliness.

This is question of scale, I suppose. One can have an ugly building in a small
city but this is easy to hide; if you have 10 ugly skyscrapers staying
side-to-side it is hard to claim they aren't there, so this is charm of big
cities

> And
> a lot of the most impressive architecture in both of these places is a result
> of local planners simply deciding "We're an important capital city and we need
> boulevards, big grand buildings and lots of monuments. And huge squares." So
> even the nice parts tend to lack charm.

Wow, that's a great analysis! Frankly, it's great idea, I haven't think of that.

> But Warsaw is hardly pretty - it has some nice bits, some bits with character,
> and historical justification for the horrible concrete parts.

It's hard to have nice city which was bombed, then bombed again then shelled,
and after all burned to the ground within 5 years. Reconstruction was done on
some spots and on other ones ideology (and economy) prevailed, so Warsaw is like
its name (war saw). I have mixed feelings, once I long for the old architecture,
and then I like the street system improved, at least in city center (where we've
been if the trans-Warsaw streets would not cross the city center?).

> Anyway, looks aren't everything - I enjoy living in Katowice, even though it's
> much uglier than most of Poland's other main cities.

Hard to deny, but has its charm too. Not at the Spodek and Superjednostka part,
but the old miners living quarters are very interesting, sadly it's all so
dirty. I presume this is coal dust over all of it.

And katowice isn't anything, just at the arm's distance you have interesting
cities like Myslowice, Chorzow, Bedzin, Pszczyna (OK, even if some of them are
in Zaglebie and not Slask, does not matter for me). I treat the whole region as
one piece.

[ejmarkow]

When evaluating the attractiveness of a major city in Europe, I always take
into consideration the city's history and circumstances. With Warsaw's
destruction similar to that of Hiroshima, and then ruthlessly occupied by the
Soviet administration for 45 years after the war while other European countries
were either rebuilding or complimenting their city's existing infrastructure
and architecture, it must be said 'considering the circumstances', Warsaw is
quite attractive. Even some of the post-war Soviet architecture contain an air
of elegance and style. I'm not particularly a fan of modern high rise
skyscrapers and glass buildings, but that's inevitable when it comes to a
bustling city where a new capitalism has been resurrected. I'm a fan of the
older style tenement buildings with their unique facades, cornerstones,
figures, window styles, and metal-arched balconies. Warsaw is a unique mix of
old and new.

Town vs. City

[ianek70]

firemouse napisał:

> Yes, well, it all depends how you define a nation - after a state or an actual
> feeling of distinguishing from others in a way of culture or otherwise - first
> choice is not the best one, becuase there never been nations of Czechoslovaks
> and Yugoslavians, for example, or British one, although here I'd be careful -
> concept of being British does not exclude being a Scot, for example. On the
> other hand, there are nations like Kurds - who do not have a state
(Palestinian
> s
> to some extend too), but are widely recognised as a nation

Perfectly true - a Jew, German or Ukrainian could be a good responsible citizen
of the Polish Republic without considering himself a Pole, just as a Pole could
be a model citizen of the multi-ethnic Habsburg Empire and still be as Polish
as he wanted. You can choose your loyalties, you can't choose your nationality,
and only politicians can decide your citizenship.


> Also, this is just history
> of state, but the tribes living there were merging and separating in various
> configurations, like Krakow was for a while an important Czech (or Moravian -
I
> can't remember) city, and Prague was part of the Polish kingdom for a while
too
> .

Wrocław was also (apparently) a great Czech cultural capital for a while, but
there weren't actually very many Czechs there at the time.
And in Scotland, most towns with originally Gaelic names are inhabited by non-
Gaels, while towns and islands in Gaelic-speaking areas have mainly
(gaelicised) Norse names.

> > And
> > a lot of the most impressive architecture in both of these places is a re
> sult
> > of local planners simply deciding "We're an important capital city and we
> need
> > boulevards, big grand buildings and lots of monuments. And huge squares."
> So
> > even the nice parts tend to lack charm.
>
> Wow, that's a great analysis! Frankly, it's great idea, I haven't think of
that
> .

Pszczyna is a good example.
It has a lovely rynek, park and a few old streets and alleyways. If you put
these in Paris or London, they'd be out of place and charmless.
In the same way, if you put the Arc de Triomphe or Trafalgar Square in the
middle of Pszczyna, it would look ridiculous. Big grand things need a big grand
context, and Notre Dame would look stupid even in the prettiest desert or
forest.

> It's hard to have nice city which was bombed, then bombed again then shelled,
> and after all burned to the ground within 5 years. Reconstruction was done on
> some spots and on other ones ideology (and economy) prevailed, so Warsaw is
lik
> e
> its name (war saw). I have mixed feelings, once I long for the old
architecture
> ,
> and then I like the street system improved, at least in city center

And that's the problem.
New towns look soulless and artificial, and you can't bring back the past, so
how do you re-create a grand, old, but destroyed city? Do you look forwards,
backwards, or just consider practical matters?

they printed

[nasza_maggie]

my email))

miasta.gazeta.pl/warszawa/1,34862,3390644.html