Poland is first world

Poland is first world.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Rc3zONK8ERk
youtube.com/watch?v=LB2rWJbWaRQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>take cherrypicked polish neighbourhood
>has like 3 modern skyscrapers and 12 run down gommieblocks
>wait until dark so that all you see is a sea of lit up windows
>photograph it with HDR to make it seem more colourful and interesting

its dont

3 buildings built with eurogibs

Kenya is first world too

The first world is here.

NO. Poland cant into space

mashALLAH

N.Korea is also first world

>pooland is first world's third world

At the night even my city will seems like I live in the first world coutry

>>has like 3 modern skyscrapers
Warsaw has like 11 skyscrapers proper and 24 buildings in total above 100 m, and more u/c, among them the tallest building in the EU
looks shit compared to Warsaw

Good job, neighbour

Warsaw is a total shithole
capital city of every single USA state looks better than this slav pile of shit
all you can find on the internet are some cherrypicked pictures with good angles showing all 5 skyscrapers that are there
this city was 80% destroyed by Germans, then rebuilt by commies and it looks like dog's shit
only good looking polish cities are Wrocław and Gdańsk, both of them were built by Germans

To you.

and Warsaw is richer and more liveable than both of them kek

stay jelly non-capital peasant

this

keep pretending that this shit post-communist country isn't poor as fuck
wykop--->

kurwa

1st world mean maciek the forklift driver can live comfy with his gf, can afford a place, a car, has some savings, goes to poorer beach country during summer

nobody cares how the pavement looks if its littered with homeless ppl

>he associate big glass boxes with wealth

now post pictures of the same places that were taken during daylight hours

...

thanks. looks good

...

Do Poles know that with a better economy everything they are so proud of now compared to West Europeans go away or do they think they can handle both those things at the same time?

Warsaw is ugly as fuck. Literally the only place worth visiting there is the teeny weeny old town. Especially downtown Warsaw with its wannabe western skyscrapers looks soooo fugly.

Wroclaw on the other is hand stunning

>he associates expensive buildings with wealth(that was, of course, necessary to build them in the first place)
how stupid!

and you have a plenty of comfy old stuff in Warsaw as well

*on the other hand is stunning

Lil typo sorry peeps

>Poland is first world.
Good, now start acting like one.

all these buildings are younger than USA, therefore not old.

lol with this criteria Argentina too nice

nothing particularly stunning about that picture, no continuous urban tissue, should have posted the actual historical centre of Wroclaw

and while Warsaw's old town may not be among the very best in Poland(Kraków, Gdańsk and Wrocław are imo the top3), it's still grossly underrated

also, Warsaw, as the capital, has more great palaces than any other city in Poland

kl can look pretty 1st world city even though entire malaysia a common southern asian shithole

>Especially downtown Warsaw with its wannabe western skyscrapers looks soooo fugly.
>I want modern businesses to be placed uhh ohh I don't care I hate skyscrapers!!! the centre of the largest city in the country should be comfy!
how stupid can you people get?

>palace of culture
laffin

i'm quite sure that building a skyscraper in traditional european architecture is more expensive than building it in glass or concrete.
skyscrapers are ugly and if you think otherwise you've lost your european mindset

first, learn English, then talk

second, modern skyscrapers are the greatest engineering feat of all humanity, and while you may not appreciate their aesthetic(I think you haven't seen any of the really good examples though), you must admit that they fit their purpose which is allowing for much, much higher concentration of people and wealth which is absolutely necessary for modern economy, especially in case of larger cities(which wouldn't be even existing if there was no some sort of concentration). Even small capitals like Oslo are developing their business centres(I think even Helsinki has recently approved some high-rise complex).

>skyscrapers are ugly and if you think otherwise you've lost your european mindset
>stop liking what I dislike
also I appreciate both traditional and modern architecture, but I won't be jerking off to thousands of small repetitive buildings like you do, I'm used to them, they exist in large quantities in the centre of any larger Polish city, it's nothing extraordinary to me and honestly most of them do not have any great architectural value either

There's nothing wrong with his English.

You, however, fail at basic things like putting a space between a word and a bracket, which is embarrassing as fuck.

your arguments are only relevant in places like hong kong or singapore where they have limited place to build on. especially considering warsaw metro has a population density of only 500/km2 which is the same as the entire country of south korea.

it's not an opinion. traditional buildings are more detailed and has more charm + history than skyscrapers. you can find similar skyscrapers from tokyo to rio de janeiro to new york and so on. but you can't find buildings like in paris, venice or amsterdam in any other cities.
and of course the fact that all pictures that are made out to picture skyscrapers in a positive light is taken far away whereas pictures of traditional buildings are taken up close.
skyscrapers are basically "muhh dick" of urban planning architecture.

We posting neat skyline pics from shit countries?

>skyscrapers make the country 1st world
Wtf I love Kenya now

...

...

...

lol

...

>your arguments are only relevant in places like hong kong or singapore
I don't know if it's a blessing or a curse to not even be capable of understanding that most of the abstractions we use are far more complex than simple 0s and 1s, either way you're retarded

what you say is either a city is some extreme case with a shortage of land, like HK or Singapore, or skyscrapers are redundant, if that was the case Americans wouldn't base their cities on densely-packed skyscrapers

I won't be telling anything in detail, clearly your brain isn't capable of processing so many variables, but generally, that's enough to prove my point: if there's huge demand for offices in Warsaw, then it's vastly more economically feasible to put them in highrises in the centre, if you aren't doing it, you're wasting millions of dollars, not to mention you're actually harming the environment(highrises let cities to be more packed instead of spreading out endlessly and contaminating more and more land)
>it's not an opinion. traditional buildings are more detailed and has more charm + history than skyscrapers
never claimed otherwise, dumb idiot, what I claimed is skyscrapers serve a specific purpose and are necessary even if you don't like their aesthetics(also I claim some skyscrapers are actually good looking, but I understand some faggot from some Danish village, btw this entire country is a village I doubt you've seen any actual city in your life, would find skyscrapers "horrible")

>but you can't find buildings like in paris, venice or amsterdam
and here it's clearly evident you have no basic knowledge of the subject

Paris do have skyscrapers, actually a lot of them, pic related, they're built in a separate place yes, but still prove my point, it's just a different approach(like in the case of London, Warsaw, Frankfurt, skyscrapers are being integrated into an existing urban tissue, Paris with its extensive historical core is ofc different)

...

I wish Warsaw rebuilt as much of its prewar structure (tenements and palaces) as possible.
youtube.com/watch?v=Rc3zONK8ERk

Amsterdam has its high rises as well. So does the Hague and most notably Rotterdam(pic related).

the Hague

...

...

Amsterdam(these ones certainly aren't impressive but again, prove my point)

Another good example is Vienna which also has its highrises outside of the city centre.

Venice is a zombie city, its only relevance is tourism, it's not a financial hub, and its relatively small, so why would there be any highrises? idiotic

...

Why do poles always get so butthurt if you don't adore them?
Warsaw would look much better without skyscrapers. If you want to built them built them to another spot away from historical buildings and commieblocks.

...

...

...

>emirate is first world

are you dumb? Do you see any historical buildings in Warsaw's modern centre? The old town is in a different place. Commieblocks are not of any concern(aesthetics wise), and they're being replaced anyway.

...

they think are are special and invincible in the same way Americans do

Specify what do you mean exactly.

>Warsaw would look much better without skyscrapers. If you want to built them built them to another spot away from historical buildings and commieblocks.
Yes THIS.
>Another good example is Vienna which also has its highrises outside of the city centre.
Yes EXACTLY - OUTSIDE ITS CITY CENTRE like herein La Defense or and But skyscrapers are built haotically all over Warsaw city centre that's what pisses me off. Instead of rebuilding old tenaments and bringing back the "Paris of the North"(en Europe) as Warsaw was called before the war.

...

Go back to poland when you love it so much

...

...

...

...

>capital city of every single USA state looks better than this slav pile of shit
some might be but there are some that are tiny
carson city is barely even a city

And where is the skyscraper

>this city was 80% destroyed by Germans, then rebuilt by commies and it looks like dog's shit
This is exactly why they should pay reparations youtube.com/watch?v=LB2rWJbWaRQ

Self hate is not allowed faggit

I appreciate your fascination about Warsaw and Poland in general but you clearly don't take some very important factors in the account.

In the case of Paris and Vienna, they both have an extensive and dense historical core, basically permitting any modern build up without damaging the preexisting, well preserved and still nicely functioning tissue. But you must remember that generally speaking, placing your business centre outside of the city core is NOT beneficial. Again, for a variety of reasons(like you specifically need to build new infrastructure, and still it might not be so well-connected to the rest of the city). In the case of Warsaw there was really no argument about preserving the historical centre, because there was none. Which is of course bad on it's own but this is how it is. I agree that Warsaw should've rebuilt its centre(the question is, could actually Warsaw and Poland afford it following the WW2?) the thing is right now we have what we have, and you can't change the past. So you have a chaotic centre, with a few historical tenements, mostly with commieblocks, and with skyscrapers popping up. So actually, more skyscrapers here will be an improvement, it will make the centre more uniform. In a few years, when many of the currently ongoing projects will be finished, they won't look so "chaotic" and "out of place" as they will create a consistent skyline. Even the single addition of Varso Tower will make a huge impact.

Good lord how fucking obnoxious Poles are.
You'd be better off eradicated like the sweaty neanderthals you are.

>But you must remember that generally speaking, placing your business centre outside of the city core is NOT beneficial. Again, for a variety of reasons(like you specifically need to build new infrastructure, and still it might not be so well-connected to the rest of the city).
But I'm thinking generally about the Rondo Daszynskiego area and west of it which with a good urban plan could become a La Defense of Warsaw. But for each year and new skyscraper placed in Srodmiescie we are removing the possibility of rebuilding Warsaw's XIX urban tissue. Fuck, even only if tenemnents were rebuilt from Marszalkowska to Rondo ONZ (where it's possible) it would be an improvement.

The photo was taken from the top of it, of course