Floor van Gils

Romanian contemporary Image and Identity

By Floor van Gils

When I decided to join the Buitex this year for the first time, I did not know what to expect. Romania also did not really appeal to me as a country to visit during the summer holidays. I had never been to a country in eastern Europe before and Romania was quite in contrast compared to my trip during the last summer, where I visited the Scandinavian countries. The ideas and conceptions I had about Romania before we went on the trip were mainly based on television and other media. I once saw a documentary about young people living in the streets of Bucharest who were orphans and addicted to sniffing glue. Also my ideas about the gipsy population in the country was negative and mainly influenced by the way they were imaged by the media. Besides the communist time and the beautiful castles in Transylvania I had not much of an idea what Romania was about. And what we as landscape architects were looking for? The theme of the Buitex this year was capitalism versus communism, but how much would there still be visible and tangible in Romania from the communist times, since the country joined the European Union in 2007? And is the landscape architecture influence by this part of the country’s history?
When we arrived at the airport in Bucharest I was overwhelmed by the heat and the new environment. Exploring the country by bus showed me the two sides, or even multiple sides of the country. The biggest contrast was the difference between the capital Bucharest with its boulevards, high grey-colored apartment blocks and in the middle of all this the overwhelming big Palatul Parlamentului (Palace of the Parliament), and the old medieval towns in Transylvania with their red roofs. Bucharest had in my opinion still the most visible traces that Ceauşescu and the communist time left behind. On the other hand there was the contrast between the extensive agricultural fields around Bucharest and people who grow their own vegetables in there garden (excepts for the big cities almost all people had their own vegetable garden near their house) .
During the trip I experiences that Romania has many different faces. This is probably related to the history of the country. As it had influences from different surrounding countries as for example Hungary and Germany. Now that Romania is no longer a communist country and is developing their economy and reinventing their cultural history again the European Union is also subsidizing many projects in the country. Not only to preserve habitats and biodiversity but also to extend the tourism sector.
On one hand the country tries to develop its economy. And European money goes for example to the National Parks in the country. I think that Romania as a tourist destination has a lot to offer because it is so divers. What we saw in the National Park was that the farmers in the area were paid to do their haying still by hand and with a horse and wagon. But why? These farmers want to survive and the money they get is more than they would make if they did not meet the conditions for the grant. But in this way the farmers cannot develop themselves. Is it only to attract tourists and show them what they want to see in Romania? Do they want to see farmers work on the land in a traditional way and ride with horse and wagon on dusty roads? Would it be less traditional is they would work with
machines? Maybe on this moment the farmers are happy because they can survive, they do not have a choice. But people want to develop and how long will you pay the farmers to do this intensive work by hand? How long will this stay economically valuable?
As we have seen during our trip the landscape architecture study in Romania still focuses a lot on horticulture and flora knowledge. I think it you cannot compare Romania with the Netherlands. Are we better because we focus more on the scientific part of landscape architecture? Maybe in one way, but Romania is a country that still has to develop on a lot of areas where we are more developed. People do not even have trust in their government and have been suppressed by the communist for a long time. In my opinion one of the important tasks for the country and for the landscape architects in Romania is to get the people involved again in participating in the planning of their surroundings and environment. Maybe foreign landscape architects can play a role in large scale projects like the Danube delta. But for the people to gain their trust again and find their Romanian identity the government and foreign professionals should not too much overwhelm the people. If it is already hard in a country as the Netherlands to get people involved and participate in the process of landscape planning how would it be in a country where people lost their faith in the government and authorities? If the Romanian people get involved in planning their own country they will identify themselves again with their environment and surroundings because it is also a thing that they created. The task for the landscape architects is to work in close contact with the people and gain their trust. So that the people can contribute to the landscape planning and express what their needs are.
In the cities we also experienced how important the public parks were. During the summer it gets really hot and the parks offer shade and a cool place to spend the day. A lot of people also live in apartment blocks and do not have a garden or any green space except for the parks. In addition the parks give color to the city which consists most of grey buildings and apartment blocks.
The country has changed a lot since the end of the communist period. And I think it will change even more the upcoming years. For landscape architects there lies a lot of work not only in the cities but also in the countryside. I hope the Romanian people will gain more trust in the government and authorities and that they will get involved in the planning van design of their surroundings and environment. As I experiences talking to some of the Romanian students. A lot of people think negatively about their country even the young people who maybe are not even in a bad situation. This is partly caused by the media which shows most of the time a negative image of the country. Before I came to Romania my conceptions were also based on this information but my view of the country has completely changed. The most striking feature for me was to see all the different sides of the country and see how much it has to offer. In general I can only be positive about this trip, the people, nature and vibes of Romania. I would have liked to visited the Danube delta but there was to time to visit this part of the country. I really enjoyed our trip to Romania and I would like to thank the Buitex for this experience. My view on Romania has completely changed in a positive way and maybe I will go back again and visit the Danube delta.