▲ 79 points
back
29 comments
Russian metro train stations are also extremely gorgeous. They are all done differently with intricate designs, sometimes making passengers feel as if they are passing through a palace. There was no advertisements anywhere. But then when you look at all the communist symbols, slogans and architecture heavily embedded in design, you realize that the whole thing itself is a massive advertisement for the political system. Not surprisingly it was all sponsored by Stalin because he wanted to make them as people's place. Anyhow, those stations sets the example of how beautiful these transportation spaces could be. Any tourists to Moscow are definitely recommended to visit its best train stations (Eyewitness guide has a list).
In Moscow, the subway stations are gorgeous. Most of them are unique pieces of architecture and art, clean, and well maintained. There are coffee table books of high resolution pictures that are worth seeing; here is an online sample of a handful of stations [1]. Contrast this to nyc, where the subway is both filthy and looks like a place that, if I didn't know it was a subway station, I would not be willing to enter unless in a large group.
If you're there, it's well worth spending an afternoon visiting the stations.
[1] http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/05/art-and-decor-of-moscow...
I agree that the subway stations are gorgeous. I think it's also worth reflecting on the means by which public works were built in the former Soviet Union. [1]
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110866/This-theatre...
Pray tell which Moscow subway stations where built by Gulag prisoners.
"With the new emphasis on Gulag as the means of concentrating cheap labor, new camps were then constructed throughout the Soviet sphere of influence, wherever the economic task at hand dictated their existence (or was designed specifically to avail itself of them, such as the White Sea-Baltic Canal or the Baikal Amur Mainline), including facilities in big cities — parts of the famous Moscow Metro and the Moscow State University new campus were built by forced labor. Many more projects during the rapid industrialization of the 1930s, war-time and post-war periods were fulfilled on the backs of convicts. The activity of Gulag camps spanned a wide cross-section of Soviet industry." [1]
That's a vague and unsourced statement.
If you try and dig around a bit, there is no connection between construction of Moscow metro and the Gulag system. None whatsoever. Construction had its share of issues, most notably with work safety, but forced labor wasn't a part of it.
With respect, the facts are against you:
"It is easy to misjudge the Gulag’s contribution because its more lasting monuments—the Moscow metro, the Moscow University, and the Norilsk Nickel Combinat—are what remain. Forgotten are the “roads to nowhere,” long fallen into the decay that is not unique to Gulag projects. The countries of the former Soviet Union are cemeteries of failed construction projects, which would never have been started if project analysis had not been distorted by the absence of market pricing in the national economy and by the country’s isolation from international markets. Many such projects came into being merely because of fleeting political considerations." [1]
[1] http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/...
Typing "moscow metro forced labor" into Google returned the PDF cited above as the second entry in the search results that were returned.
Perhaps you could provide a source for your claim that there is no connection between the construction of the Moscow Metro and the Gulag system?
> The project began in 2002, when Herwig decided to cycle from London to Stockholm, to live with his girlfriend. “Taking a bike on Ryanair,” he explains, “would have cost four times the price of a seat.” As he set off, he gave himself a challenge: to photograph something interesting every hour of the way. A particular roadside feature began to catch his eye, and so began an obsessive quest. “It wasn’t until I got into the Baltic countries,” he says, “that they jumped out at me. Within the first 50km of Lithuania, I noticed these peculiar bus stops everywhere.”
He took a hell of a detour to get there.
Perhaps the ferry from Tallin was cheaper than staying in a hotel in Copenhagen.
I know why: because they have no advertisements on them :)
Well, some British bus stops may be not that beautiful, but are well furnished and equipped with TVs http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/6564-bus-shelter-joins-online...
It's odd how these stops seem to be in the middle of nowhere; who are they serving?
One also notes that while some of them are pretty to look at, most of them would actually be very uncomfortable to set in; pretty but useless. It's ironic, in a way, how they say that the design of these was done with more autonomy from the central planners; but then these stops are planned like from far away by somebody who'd never wait at any of these stops.
They were built when personal transportation wasn't an option, so I assume they were used (although not by that many people).
Actually, the bus stations were (and still are) used by a lot of people! Car owning in USSR was nowhere near the levels of western countries and the majority of people relied on public transportation. The article has a reference to Jonathan Meades' photobook in which there is a photo of the bus station in one of the Republic of Moldova villages called Șipoteni¹. They "seem to be in the middle of nowhere" indeed, because the main roads/routes don't always come into the middle of the villages but at the right time these stations are full of people that may wait up to a half an hour there. It was just natural for the authorities to try to exceed themselves in the eyes of the villagers as there aren't many opportunities for them to do so! (Villagers didn't use to need much from the system.)
¹ http://fuel-design.com/media/uploads/thumbs/uploads/homepage...
On the same theme, check out the exhibition[1] of Magnum photographer Harry Gruyaert that is about to open in London. It includes quite a few bus stop images and indeed leads with one. I saw it in Paris a few months ago, where it featured at both the Magnum agency's own gallery[2] and the Maison Européenne de la Photographie.[3]
[1] http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=24P...
[2] http://www.parisphoto.com/paris/exhibitors/magnum-gallery
Similar idea to a well-known project in Armenia by Ursula Shulz-Dornburg:
http://www.schulz-dornburg.info/english/Werke/Armenien-Busha...
>why Russia has the world's most beautiful bus stops
Only a single photograph in the article was shot in Russia, Siberia one in extended gallery. Let's see: Abkhazia (Georgia), Kazakhstan, Estonia, Armenia, Belarus, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan. This kind of pisses me off.
One of most impressive bus stop in Crimea[0] was destroyed almost immediately after occupation of Crimea[1], so it may explain why it is so few good bus stops in Russia.
0: http://siver.com.ua/_nw/143/26589030.jpg
1: http://siver.com.ua/_nw/143/87966600.jpg
2: http://espreso.tv/uploads/data/news/2014/03_2/2014-03-31-16-...
3: http://espreso.tv/uploads/data/news/2014/03_2/2014-03-31-16-...
Yeah, not many of these bus stops survive in Russia. The ones that remain are made of super-thick blocks of concrete and are, therefore, practically indestructible. They don't look very nice though.
A well-known designer, Artemiy Lebedev recently designed bus stops for my home town. A mere year after they were installed, all of them were vandalized beyond recognition.
It seems the “bus pavilions”, as they were respectably known, provided a much needed outlet for creative energy, which was otherwise stifled.
You should see the metros. Gorgeous!
Neither Abkhazia nor Kazakhstan nor Estonia nor Kyrgyzstan is Russia.
Only the headline says "Russia". The story does not. Headlines are awful; I wish HN would rewrite them more accurately and less clickbaity. (See also: the "Why" clickbait)
Yes. I'd love for you to realize how much we already do remove inaccuracies and linkbait from titles on HN. Users help greatly by pointing out inaccuracies and linkbait when they see it. If a title is particularly bothersome, you can usually get a quicker fix by emailing hn@ycombinator.com, since there are too many HN comments for us to read them all.
Even better is to suggest what a good title would be, especially if it's a phrase from the article itself—that is much better than making up a new title oneself, though we did do that above.
HN uses the article title for the most part. And the article itself is very clearly talking about the Soviet era, where "Russia" meant both the specific country Russia and the USSR as a whole. Just as how in the 19th century, "England" meant the specific country England and also Great Britain/British Empire.
Neither the photos nor the copy suggest the topic is modern Russia.
> HN uses the article title for the most part
Yes, but with explicit exceptions for misleading titles and linkbait (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), both of which were the case here. So harryjo was right and we've changed the title. If anyone wants to suggest a better one, we can change it again.
Also, unlike those three countries, Abkhazia is a region of Georgia currently occupied by Russia.
For now
Lot of Russia stories on the front page lately