Talk:Ryugyong Hotel

Timeframe of pic=

Do we know what year the picture was taken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.12.242 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No lighting at night

The structure is illuminated at night? Really?--The lorax 03:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't and never has been. However, North Korean books about Pyongyang inevitably include airbrushed "lights" on the building. (They generally airbrush vehicles onto the city streets as well.)  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Illumination at night

I was in Pyongyang in September and there during 'National Foundation Day' when anything that is going to be lit up at night, is lit up. I had a good view across the city from the Yanggakdo and it definately wasn't lit. Maybe this is a recent change?

Given that the DPRK regime seems to be embarassed by it (photos of it not allowed, removal from maps), illuminating it seems really unlikely. FWIW, I was there for May Day 2005, and again it wasn't lit. ByeByeBaby 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comic

Pyongyang (comic) says 5 turning restaurants and 3700 rooms. --Error 04:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

single most unsettling structure

Not sure why User:Lotsofissues insists on removing the following. I have no connection with the site in question whatsoever so it is not a "vanity insertion" as asserted. I have seen this statement quoted on many other websites about Ryugyong Hotel including major reputable news sites and I feel it is worth being included. Please can you provide some justification why you feel it is not.

It has been described as "the single most unsettling structure ever erected by the hand of man" [1]

I have probably read every single print English article about this monument to totalitarianism. Some reporters have described the building as ominious but never used such hyperbole. I do not want this article to deteriorate into a cacophony of personal opinion. Only reputable sources. Lotsofissues 10:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I added hopefully a better description; I agree hyperbole and opinion aren't appropriate, but on the other hand, virtually every source I've ever heard describes it as "ominous", "sinister", "unsettling" or otherwise. Personally, I always say that if the Death Star was a hotel, it would look like the Ryugyong. ByeByeBaby 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not good to use phrases like It has been described as (see Wikipedia:Weasel words). Better to say something like "Project opponents like Jim Peterson haved described it..." or "Anti-communist observers in the West belittled it as an ominous and sinister example of the collossal waste typical of this Stalinist regime." (but say which observers said so: I just made that up, and sorry to say, I'm not notable enough to be quoted! ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Images?

I'm just wondering what happened to th images on this page. I know they used to be here, and a Google Images search for the hotel still links to an image which is said to be on this page. -- Jermdeeks 04:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would guess the images were deleted for lacking either source or copyright information. If you can find images licensed in a way that WP can use them, by all means please upload them. - choster 05:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a free-license image. It's not great, but the North Koreans actively discourage the taking of photos of the structure, so I don't know that a lot of better ones are floating around oth there. ByeByeBaby 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just there and while in the presence of North Korean minders took many, many shots of the building. There was never any discouragement.

Most images come from this site: http://www.ryugyonghotel.com/

which includes, as far as I can find, the only finished rendition. ( showing glass reflective finish ) 67.188.118.64 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Film?

"Hollywood has apparently seized upon the general public's reactions to the building (many claim its 75-degree slope and concrete shell make it look sinister) by setting a horror film there. Even though the project—working title A Night in the Hotel—is currently in early stages of pre-production, little is known of the cast or crew or whether or not it will be shot on location." Could whoever added this provide information of what source was used? I couldn't seem to be able to find any article that mentions such... -elynnia-

I seriously doubt this; it's only really well-known to people fascinated with North Korea, and the DPRK would never let an American movie company film a movie like this. I googled for the name, along with Korea, Pyongyang, Ryugyong, Movie and combinations of these, and found nothing. Removed. ByeByeBaby 22:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I

They could always use matte paintigs, CGI, etc. to make the movie appear to be set there without filming at the actual site, much in the way scenes in "The DaVinci Code" set at Canterbury Cathedral were filmed, despite having no permission to film there.

However I've found no reliable source that even suggests this movie is in any state of pre-production, or even in the unrealized idea stage. I can't even find mention of the rumor. 75.70.123.215 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sagging?

The basic structure is complete, but it has never been certified as safe for occupancy. As a result, no windows, fixtures or fittings have been installed.

No, the reason is not that it wasn't "certified as safe," which would imply an impartial and apolitical civil service in North Korea that could put a stop to a pet project of Kim Jong Il's. (There have been several other structural collapses in the city including an apartment block on Tongil Street and a Metro tunel.) The reason is almost certainly that North Korea ran out of funds to buy the windows, fixtures, and fittings, all of which would have to be imported. (There is nothing whatsoever of North Korean origin in the Yanggakdo Hotel.)

The building is sagging so badly that it will never open as presently constructed.

I think this is an urban legend based on the asymmetrical design of the hotel; looked at from many angles, it looks like it's leaning over, but it is not. (I have no doubts as to the poor quality of construction, but the sagging seems implausible and not credibly sourced.)

I will rephrase or remove both of these statements.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Artist's rendition

Do we really need some pic someone whipped up in Photoshop with a lot of clouds? Does it add anything to the article? does it reflect the final look of the building, which may have had, among other things, paint? --Golbez 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: I did feel it might be interesting to see an image of the hotel lit up by lights, as per the 'airbrushing' reference in the article. To make the image, I used the following for reference:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/skyscraperrot/ryug01.jpg shows the hotel in a similar cloudy, but daytime setting. The 'sunset' image is directly based on this one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/skyscraperrot/ryug03.jpg shows the hotel with a poster out front which suggests that the hotel was going to be finished in a silvery grey coloring. This might even be due to glass paneling all across its facades. The building in the 'sunset' image is basically this one. AniRaptor2001 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon re-examination (see below for my original take), it seems the Photoshop picture serves no purpose at all (other than possibly thinly-vieled North Korea nationalism, which I'd doubt) since A) there are no lights below the cloudline, thus negating any use the picture may have as an illustration of the airbrushing, and B) the building is still unfinished in the picture, without paint and glass, as mentioned above. The second picture you cite (ryug03) contains a picture of the building in twilight hours, where the lighting makes it impossible to tell if the building was supposed to be grey, black, navy blue, or just glass-panelled from top to bottom - so I find it hard to believe anyone could draw inferences as to what the building was "going" to look like. The Photoshop looks like a concerete husk with some lights on the top, and a cloudy background which borders on the unrealistic.

It is not my intention to sound harsh, but I side with Golbez. --151.200.21.93 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more effective to find an actual airbrushed picture, rather than making an original creation for the sole purpose of illustration. The current picture also bears an uneasy, nearly frightening, resemblance to those "inspiration" calenders. I can imagine the caption:

"PERSEVERANCE.

Remember, if you silence any and all opposition, and work with absolute tunnel vision, you can build magic"

:-D --151.200.21.93 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that I thought this was quite amusing.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 12:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As the one who (may have) mentioned the airbrushing business in the first place, I can scan something in from a North Korean book. I'm not sure to what extent copyright applies to information materials from the DPRK, though...  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it qualify as fair use? I didn't save anything from the time, but I recall quite a lot of magazines and newspapers publishing the photograph of the pyramids that made the cover of the infamous 1982 "retouched" National Geographic. If I'm writing a journalistic paper on photographic retouching, it seems better to include samples of what I'm speaking of, rather than refer people to old, possibly out of print, and possibly expensive magazines, newspapers, etc. --151.200.21.93 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, it probably would count as fair use. My little aside there was in reference to the fact that status of international law, including copyright conventions, is often unclear in reference to the DPRK, which is often not a signatory to such things (and which is, for example, the world's biggest forger of $100 bills, suggesting lack of attention to copyright on the part of the North Korean government).  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 08:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to the left margin. I removed the picture a couple of days ago for all the reasons mentioned above. I'd like to see a rendition of the whole building with glass facade, restaurants, entryways, etc. clearly visible, though I'm not sure it would belong here.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One image from wired.com is Here, showing the hotel cladded in glass. There is an article about the hotel's constructiion being restated Here (Chinese). There were also rumours (and I must stress, they are just rumours, nothing more) that Orascom was going to invest in North Korea, restart contruction of the hotel and had been given the right to set up 3G networks there.Izax143 (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Flagship project

Does anyone know why the project halted? If opened, it would have been a shot in the arm for the regime. Why did they give up?

Lack of money? Structural problems? --Uncle Ed 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The first one caused the second one. The cement used was such poor quality that I'm guessing it would have collapsed if they continued. This is just my guess, though. --Golbez 19:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the structure is complete and it hasn't collapsed, despite 15 years exposure to the elements. The big reason was lack of money, as the facade and other elements would have to be imported and would have cost, at the very least, hundreds of millions of hard-currency dollars (ie, not fake North Korean $100 bills). This for a project that would never have earned any of this money back, as there are very few foreign visitors to Pyongyang, and never will be until the DPRK collapses; the running costs would also have been extremely high. Ultimately that money would have either had to have come from the army or the Kim family cognac fund, neither of which is politically doable, so the hotel was never completed.

Another thing, many DPRK observers assume that the real reason this hotel, and many other prestige projects in Pyongyang, such as Tongil Street, the 1987 metro extension (which contains the most ornate stations), and most notably May Day Stadium and the several single-sport stadiums in west Pyongyang, was the Olympics -- the North Koreans seriously believed they could threaten their way into co-hosting the 1988 Summer Games in Seoul. The South Koreans did in fact offer them a few events as a goodwill gesture, but ultimately this was not enough, and North Korea boycotted the event instead. The 1989 World Festival of Youth and Students was given as a pretext for the construction of all these buildings, but it was political and not very athletic in character, and drew (I think) only 17,000 participants, so it should be obvious what the DPRK had really intended.

Had they got to co-host the Olympics, I think you might have seen a finished Ryugyong Hotel in mid-1988.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 22:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro sentence

The first sentence is jumbled--I can't fix it because I can't tell what it's supposed to say. AOB 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to restore the first sentence. I can see what Ed Poor was getting at by describing it as a "project" but most sources don't do that, and then we have to guess when the "project" began and ended, whereas we know when the thing was built. Furthermore, quite a few buildings in North Korea are thought to be, essentially, empty shells designed to impress, but the only difference here was they didn't have money to cover the structure in glass and finish the restaurants and a couple of floors. (I stayed at the Yanggakdo Hotel a few years ago and couldn't help get the feeling that parts of it were incomplete, even though it was built by a French company.)  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Architect

My wife visited North Korea in 2002, and was told while she was there that the architect who built the Ryugyong Hotel was executed after the hotel was discovered to be unsound. Has anyone else heard this? Are there reports to that effect anywhere in the media? Vidor 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox image

I've listed the infobox image on WP:PUI as there doesn't seem to be anything on the website http://www.ryugyonghotel.com/ to indicate that the images are licenced under the GFDL. DWaterson 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Height compared to other tall buildings..

Earlier, the article stated that if the building were ever completed it would be the world's largest hotel and seventh tallest building. Since the hotel Rose Tower in Dubai is 333 meters, 3 meters taller than Ryugyong, it could still never be the tallest. I changed the first part of the sentence to say it would be the second tallest hotel in the world, but I don't know what to do about the rest of the sentence. Is it the 8th tallest or even further down in the list? --Konstantin 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rose Tower is not completed yet. The tallest now is the Burj Al Arab at 321m.

Delete elavator statement

the unsourced elevator statement I think is wrong and should be deleted. I will wait for feedback since I am no expert but on TV i have heard they stop because it is structurally unsound.

Concrete quality poor?

I havent found any enginineer's sources reporting the quality of the concrete as poor. I doubt such information from structural asessment's would be released by the DPRK if they were even undertaken. It seems that the claims of poor quality might just be opinionated for the purposes of mocking the hotel or the DPRK? I doubt the DPRK would permit such shoddy materials to be used for such a massive building. If it were to collapse, the consequences would be catastrophic in many ways (whether the building was in use or not). Maybe it should be rephrased outside construction firms have claimed that the hotel has been constructed with very poor quality concrete. Also, there is no specific sourcing to suggest the concrete has worn down in just 15 years. Theres even outside proposed 'ideas' for recycling the hotel. One of these 'ideas' appears to involve turning the building into a giant plant pot, which is just silly. This building requires a full structural analysis, and a joint international venture to complete it, with an absense of politics that could ruin the project. If this were finished it could move the DPRK forwards in socio-enonomic and political terms, this is what I think anyway. I'd like to see some structural analysis sourcing, and id be very interested in seeing this finished. Sorry to digress but this seems to be the best place to discuss the hotel. Bobman999 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're suggesting the leadership of the DPRK is logical and sane. --Golbez 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Im assuming the leadership of the DPRK is logical and sane for the purposes of finishing the hotel, if the hotel can be finished off as such. Bobman999 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the claim for poor concrete should be sourced or deleted. Googling for verification just throws up blogs and Wikipedia mirrors, which is all the more reason to delete it from Wikipedia if it can't be properly sourced. Peter Ballard 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

More poor concrete quality statements appear on the page, now fixed. Bobman999 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured on Yahoo!

Just FYI, but the story behind this building is a featured article on Yahoo! today and title with the eye catching headline of "The Worst Building in the History of Mankind." While the article doesn't mention this Wiki entry, it does link to a story in Esquire here: Link --Brownings (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's getting a bit silly now with all this unverified tosh about poor quality concrete, cheap and nasty cement, bad design, bad architecture, concrete sagging etc. As far as tourists have been able to find out, it appears to be structurally sound, and pieces havent fallen off after 16 years+. Even if there was such a report by a qualified civil engineering company, im sure such evidence would not have been released, so these claims are only a suggestion, until a certified structural analysis takes place. There is not enough techical information to make engineering statements about this building. These claims have been made by outside structural engineering observers. Also, it is highly unlikely that Balfour Beatty -- a huge, well known British construction company-- would build with these so called 'poor materials', if Balfour Beatty were even involved. Maybe someone should ask Balfour Beatty for information? Politics out of civil engineering please. Bobman999 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree... why/how would any major western architectural firm even work with the N. Korean government especially since there are no diplomatic relations between N. Korea and Western European nations... How would they be able to work with or under the N. Korean government? I suggest we contact them concerning this. Maybe a statement from Balfour-Beatty will clarify things. I would imagine that if they did do some work with N. Korea, we may have a lot of pictures from the inside of the structure... They would have been leaked one way or another.Dreammaker182 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I completely read the Yahoo feature and Esquire article and neither mention the British firm. Also I would trust the Yahoo article more because it is actually from Reuters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080717/lf_nm_life/korea_north_hotel_dc;_ylt=AmUCSutXHgpgPl9ZrB5orzvXn414, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammaker182 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

82.25.110.231 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The ABC's source for the poor quality materials is Emporis. I took a look at the information that site contained on construction materials and it said nothing eluding to poor quality materials, and even if it did, users can add information to articles, so it doesn't appear reliable. If someone can find a reliable source, feel free to add that material back in. Momo Hemo (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

105 Building?

Can we get some substantiation for the claim that this name is used? After looking around on the internet I see that it is used on this page and one page obviously not created by a native speaker of English. I suspect that the inclusion of this name is simply wishful thinking on behalf of the contributor. I also suspect that contributor was attempting to mimic the 60-storey “63 building” in Seoul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.240.9 (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this name from the article, until someone provides a reliable source showing that it is a common name for the building. Thank you for catching it.
--JKeene (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Added new paragraph.

I've added a new paragraph about the structural integrity of the hotel.

Please feel free to tidy it up if it appears to be inconsistent or if it does not seem appropriate in that section. I do feel however, that the paragraph (or a substantial part of it) is useful in the article.

Regards,

Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobman999 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We appreciate your efforts to help clarify things, but there are no reliable sources for that information listed. If you can find some reliable sources that support that position, feel free to make the change. Otherwise, it's probably best if we left the quality or lack thereof of the construction materials out of the article. Momo Hemo (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Video

I found this YouTube video link in an esquire online mag. article (go figure...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r0fM31BXKk&eurl

esquire mag. article: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/DESIGN/worst-hotel-ever-012808?kw=ist

It is stated that it is unknown how the person shot it. but from the looks of the video, it looks real. I know that cellphones are banned in NK. It would be hard to sneak any kind of high quality video device into the country. I think this would be a good addition to the links because it shows the condition of the hotel in detail. You can really see the age in certain frames. Dreammaker182 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Balfour Beatty

Why is Balfour Beatty mentioned as a contractor for this project (right information column)? I highly doubt that they would be able to work under the North Korean government. Balfour Beatty is not mentioned in the body of this article and the company is not mentioned in most of the other language articles for this hotel. Dreammaker182 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite possible (though not likely due to reasons in discussions above) for such a large company as Balfour Beatty, to have been working in Pyongyang. The problem is, I cant find any sourcing for this. Also, the article doesn't provide two column sections for who the original contractors were, and who the new contractors are that have recently carried on from where Balfour Beatty allegedly left in 1992.

Bobman999 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed pending the addition of reliable sources showing that Balfour Beatty was involved.
--JKeene (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Check:

I have started a Neutrality Check for the following reasons:

1: Quotes from sources referring to Ryugyong in such ways as 'hotel of doom' 'ugliest building', 'worst looking building' etc, are irrelevant as this is still classed as unfinished. It cannot be rated against other buildings as it is uncompleted and therefore comments about its appearance (no matter who made them) are meaningless. As mentioned in various forums, an unfinished building cannot be fairly judged by appearance as its simply not a complete structure thats viable for scrutiny. Nobody called East germany's unfinished autobahns (due to the iron curtain closing) the 'worst looking motorways' did they? 'Critics' were quick to point out how awful Ryugyong looks , maybe because its in North Korea. An unfinished building like this in north america would never recieve such a label, because the media would accept that it was unfinished for whatever reasons.

2: Quotes from sources referring to 'low quality materials', 'bad construction techniques', 'badly aligned elevator shafts', all totally unfounded. Although likely that the concrete was cheap and possibly substandard aswell, such information has not been confirmed, although we could find out at a later stage as construction has now resumed.

would be happy to discuss.

Regards,

Bobman999 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the unfinished nature of the building, this particular case would be one where an exception should be made to any usual Wikipedia policy regarding aesthetic comments about unfinished projects. The building was left unfinished for 16 years. That amount of time is enough for an unfinished project to become a landmark in its own right. The exceptional incompleteness of the building is part of what makes it noteworthy, and given that comments on its current state are reasonable. Huadpe (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Attributed and cited statements of opinion aren't in themselves non-neutral. I could see adding sources praising the building, though, but my bet is the only such source is the DPRK. If I'm wrong, then, great. {{Sofixit}} and add those attributed, cited opinions as well to address balance. However, if the only pro-Ryugyong opinion is from the DPRK, then it deserves one mention.

As for whether US media are nice to unfinished or troubled US structures, your assertion has no basis. Take for example John_Hancock_Tower#Problems_with_the_building. Basically, suggesting there is bias doesn't mean there is bias; you have to demonstrate it, not assume it. There's a source for the substandard building materials, is there a better source on their quality? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its more of a case of article relevance than neutrality, as i've stated. Thank you for the link to the John Hancock Tower article. Other than the 'plywood palace' joke, there is little vocal criticism of the tower, unlike this Ryugyong Hotel page which has been lambasted by the media (not just US media), and by outside observers & engineering firms, as well as tourists; Neither of which have access to the building or to any documentation of it. By providing the link you have just shown me how US media would not make so many negative comments on their own failed structural projects, or at least how a wikipedia article would be more NPOV and factual on a US project. I never said that US media would be 'nice' to troubled or failed US projects, I just think that they would be less likely to lambast them. Whether this is true or not doesn't actually matter because it shouldnt affect a good wikipedia article anyway. Perhaps you may want to consider that the John Hanhock article is what the Ryugyong article ought to be, a demonstration of referenced facts about the building itself and not slogans (whether sourced or not). One media comment may be appropriate towards the end of the Ryugyong article. The John Hancock article should be a model for what the Ryugyong Hotel article should look like, with the only notable difference being that the 'structural problems section' would have to be listed with allegations (although likely to be true in some cases).

The problem is, as you've already said, is that there is virtually no hard evidence about the structural quality as of yet. I don't think a lack of concrete evidence (excuse the pun) about the materials quality justifies a substitution with media slogans. I assumed that the article may have been biased, even if I didn't sound like that with my previous message, otherwise I would have placed a neutrality dispute tag rather than a neutrality check tag.

Your a far more experienced wikipedian than me, so if your happy with the article in terms of POV then please feel free to remove the tag, id rather someone else remove a tag when I place one on an article anyway.

The only pro-ryugyong hotel opinions are probably from 1988-1992 from the DPRK, since then the building had officially ceased to exit, until this year when construction resumed I assume.

Thank you.

Bobman999 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! As to the claims of being substandard, any structural engineer can look at the building, inspecting the surface around the bottom windows, and substandard or not, the photographic evidence points to structural and material integrity. It is up to an expert, or the opinion of an expert to assess the validity of this assessment. I had the photos looked at by both an engneer, and a expert on concrert, and although I will NOT post the results of their assessment, they pointed out the evidence of the pictures. ( i.e. the pictures speak for themselves )

67.174.157.126 (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What it comes down to is if we have sources, and those sources are typically considered reliable, that's what we use. If there is a void of opposing POV, what to do? If 5 sources say "bad" and 1 source says "good" then both NPOV and UNDUE would lead us to reflect that proprtionally. We can't make our own assessments of the building (that's OR). We can point out -- if we can back it up from the source material or another source -- that the critics haven't actually examined the building to add proper context. But we don't have that, and we shouldn't speculate on it... so we should let the sources do the talking as much as possible. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Content

"It should be noted that a lack of a safety certicate does not necessarily mean that the structure is unsafe. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to obtain any detailed information about the structure's integrity, as most details have not been made available by the DPRK. There is no access to any surveying reports (if conducted), material specification sheets, design plans and/or structural analysis results. There are various claims circulating around outside engineering forums such as poor concrete quality, bad alignment, sagging, severe weathering and subsidence. As of yet there is virtually no proof to these claims due to the above mentioned reasons, however it seems possible that the concrete quality may be substandard due to the costs involved & the economic state of the DPRK at the time of initial construction. At the same time though, the construction work was undertaken by outside firms that have a responsibility to follow international structural standards, & considering that this was a government project, the administration would not want to take the risk of using substandard materials which could cause a serious international embarrasement should the structure fail. Many of the outside claims against the structure's quality and integrity appear to be politically motivated, but it is possible that this matter will be cleared up should the hotel be finished & tourists be allowed to stay inside."

Removed by another user due to NPOV & OR (Original Research) violations. I may use parts of this to place back into the article, or revise it first.

Comments are welcome.

Bobman999 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be pretty clear original research to me. I wouldn't add any of it back, without referencing reliable sources.
--JKeene (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Under Construction

Is this building actually under construction again - which by the way I find highly improbable - I've checked the ref and it just brings up a 404 page not found? Should the article be changed to reflect the lack of sources for the 'under construction' status change? --92.237.92.135 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

photos of ongoing construction . . . .

On 24 November 2008, photos of ongoing construction at the hotel has been released. The construction was done to install windows up to the 30th floor on 2 of the 6 sides of the hotel WHERE THE HELL ARE THOS PHOTOS??????? I WOULD REAALY LIKE TO SEE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.195.86 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

See the Koryo Tours newsletter.--GagHalfrunt (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are links to the latest construction pictures, it’s getting done fast!

http://i42.tinypic.com/2ebbvgy.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/2qnp2iu.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3230/2862020257_d6b3c5ee86_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/3110001633_92b09b2e60_b.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.22 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now part of WSP Group"

Someone added the words "Now part of WSP Group" after "Baekdu Mountain Architects & Engineers" in the infobox, together with a link to an article about WSP acquiring a British company called Charterhouse Building Services. Since there is no mention of North Korea in this article, I have deleted "Now part of WSP Group".--GagHalfrunt (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed reinserted content

The following has been removed again. "To date, the hotel has not yet been certified safe for occupancy, and it is widely reported by foreign experts and news sources to suffer from major structural flaws that render it unlikely to ever be " Teh reason is 1) no safe certification scheme exists in N.Korea so it is inappropriate to highlight it, and 2) it is know widely report that work has started again and so completion is a possibility + the words used in the article were not supported by the given citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also removed is "no photographs or information has been released regarding the interior, such as the questionable construction/engineering of the building or the degrading concrete" because 1) report what is know and what is not known, 2) the removed content is not supported by the given citation, 3) just because a developer does nto release photos, or at least ones which a contributor to Wikipedia can find, does not make in appropriate to speculate or insinuate, and 4) given citation does not exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

hey guys, look, it's the ministry of truth! 122.107.178.246 (talk)