I’m not really bothered by the gentrification of “Old Beijing”, and I don’t know how hotels get chosen for reviews in the NYT Travel section, but this seems like an odd choice.

Here’s a sample picture of the iPod-inspired design:

The 3+1Bedrooms site boasts of the “pure white interior”, a trait also found in just about every shabby apartment in Beijing.

Also, “Each room opens up onto its own courtyard of yearlong vegetation.” In the picture above, the cement-walled “courtyard” looks to be about the size of the typical Beijing apartment balcony — perhaps four feet wide and 12 feet long. The yearlong vegetation consists of a few spindly bamboo shoots and one small potted tree.

And then there’s the “cutting-edge five-star amenities”, such as WiFi, in-room dining (for those who prefer to avoid the whole “complete immersion in traditional Beijing” thing) , and “art materials”–but no TV (though they’ll give you one if you request it).

The Times review calls it a “a minimalist’s dream — more clean than cold”. It definitely is minimal, but even with central heating, it looks like it’s going to be just as painfully cold as any hutong room in Beijing’s winter.

From Ma Zhaoxu, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman: “The measures concerned are not targeted at Mexican citizens and there is no discrimination”

From Truth From Facts:  Happy Cinco de Mayo!  Are the tequilla specials still on tonight?

There is a sister site devoted to Beijing’s roads. That one seems much less interesting. What can they say besides “They’re all jammed”? I’d recommend Beijing’s traffic station instead.

Both sites are related to the folks at Beijingology.

It’s always interesting to see well-known personalities reacting to things the rest of us notice here in China. (I remember seeing a short video of South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone on a similar trip a few years back but can’t find any clips online.)

Home Inn has become my budget hotel of choice when traveling around China. I own a Home Inn member card (40 RMB), which gets me a discount of about 7.5% at any of their hotels. They have an excellent reservation system: When I call from my mobile, they have my name and other reservation information already pulled up on the computer. As soon as I hang up the phone, I get a text message with the price, reservation dates and hotel address.

The Jiaodaokou Branch in Beijing is also the place I recommend to visiting friends and family who are paying their own way and just need a clean, quiet room and nothing fancy. I’m signed up there for a company discount of 10% – anyone I make the reservation for simply shows the front desk my business card and gets the discount.

Occasionally the staff will walk over to our office and hand deliver a brochure with special offers. Today they brought me one with special “discounts” for the Olympics. Below are the various prices for a standard room (with two beds, each one somewhere between a twin and a double in size):

• Normal price: 239 RMB
• With member card: 221 RMB
• With company discount: 215 RMB

And here are the “company discount” prices around the Olympics:

• August 1-4: 448 RMB
• August 5-25: 640 RMB
• August 26-31: 448 RMB

When I asked why the “discount” prices were so much higher than the regular prices, I was told that the normal price during this period is 900 RMB.

One reason I like Home Inn is that, unlike almost all other Chinese hotels, they don’t artificially inflate their prices and force every single guest to bargain. But it looks like Olympic fever has led them to succumb to temptation and jack up their rates–then turn around and immediately offer half off to their regular customers.

I wasn’t surprised when the stories started coming out a few months back about how Beijing’s hotels weren’t filling up as quickly as expected. But Home Inns often fill up during normal times, I assumed that they would have no problems in August 2008. It was therefore was a bit surprising to get a flyer offering discounts for the entire month and for several different room types. The opening ceremonies are just three weeks away! Makes one wonder about the hordes of Chinese tourists that are expected to descend upon Beijing. Maybe they’re all going to crowd into friends’ and relatives’ apartments–or maybe they, like many foreign tourists, are simply going to stay home.

Beijing has stopped issuing multiple-entry visas, risking major inconvenience to foreigners who travel to the mainland regularly, especially on business. Hong Kong travel agents say the ban will stay in place until after the Olympic Games.

Travellers are now restricted to single- or double-entry visas valid for 30 days. Multiple-entry visas that have not expired are still valid. . . .

One travel agent who declined to be named said: “People have been asking to renew their multiple-entry visas but no one can get more than a double-entry visa. We were told this was because of the Olympics and that the ban would be lifted in September after the Games had finished.”

The restrictions will apparently be in place well after the Olympics:

Agents said they were told of the move on March 27. Hong Kong-based China-visa agency Forever Bright says on its website the ban will apply until October 17.

Visa costs are rising as well, though it’s unclear if these are temporary or permanent:

Travel agents also said the cost of single- and double-entry visas had risen.

The typical cost of a single-entry visa obtained through a travel agent for a British passport holder is now HK$850 for a single-entry visa and HK$1,050 for a double-entry one. At the end of last year, a six-month multiple-entry visa cost HK$1,080.

Australians, Canadians and most Europeans can expect to pay HK$500 for a single-entry visa and HK$600 for a double-entry one. Six-month multiple-entry visas for these nationalities previously cost about HK$450.

One would think that the Chinese government could have this news published in the China Daily at the time the policy is impemented, in order to give its own explanation of the situation and attempt to reduce the flood of complaints and negative media reports that are likely to follow in the coming months from the tens of thousands of people who will be affected. One would be wrong, of course. A China Daily site search for “visa” shows no articles in 2008 on the matter.

The study, written by an American environmental consultant, found flaws in Beijing’s “Blue Sky” system of air quality monitoring stations and noted that the city changed its method for measuring pollution in 2006. In particular, officials stopped including readings from two stations in polluted areas and began using readings in three other stations in less polluted locales…

“Irregularities in the monitoring of air quality account for all reported improvements over the last nine years,” said Steven Q. Andrews, the author of the study, in a telephone interview.

I have met Steve once or twice here in Beijing; he seems like a smart and honest guy, and I don’t doubt the veracity of his findings. What’s fascinating to me is how the debate on this topic, especially in the run-up to the Olympics, is focused on the government’s goals of “blue sky days”, the pollution index, etc.

When the pollution here gets bad, you can see it. You can smell it. So why are so many people caught up arguing over numbers with the government? Even by winning this argument, what has been proven, other than that there were a lower number of “blue sky days”? As Steve’s report shows, the numbers were likely fudged to begin with. I can’t see how the government lets pollution stop the Games, and I can’t see any real solution to the pollution problem in the coming years. Beijing alone isn’t the problem; you can find horribly dirty air in many rural areas far from big cities. China’s in trouble, and it’s going to be many years before things get better.

UPDATE: Here’s Steve’s original editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

A subject of debate for over 20 years, the Chinese government finally kicked off construction on a multi-billion dollar, multi-year project to build a high speed railway between Beijing and Shanghai. Expect to cost a whopping $21 billion, the project is scheduled for completion by 2013. Traveling at a speed of 350 km/h, the approximately 1300 km journey will be cut from the current 10 hours to about five hours.

I’m not opposed to the project, but I am curious what argument was most persuasive to the decision-makers to justify the cost. Green considerations, like reducing carbon emissions with fewer flights? Increase passenger capacity on a crowded route? It strikes me as a large amount that could perhaps be directed elsewhere.