What can we learn about Romania’s…
…Landscape architecture, without an official landscape architect in a state of political transitions
This article is based on assumptions and conclusions on observations and conversations on locations in Bucharest and in parts of Transilvania.
Romaniahas in the last 2 centuries a few clear stadiums of architectural development. Transylvanian cities are characterized Austro-Hungarian architecture well reserved or rebuild.Bucharestused to have a majority of Ottoman architecture in times before 1800s. We will focus on the centre and rich part ofBucharest, where the French baroque and Art Nouveau is dominating the building architecture, build until 1900.After WWII the communist building plans were focused on French Corbusier and Soviet’s Stalinist style. These two styles are strongly referred to the dark times of communism and hated that way. The last two decadesRomaniatends to look more modern and colorful, like the city centers of western countries. Adding flowers along public streets and repainting houses in different (Caribbeanlike) colors. Sweeping the public space as clean as possible: no bottle or other garbage can be found in the most public parts of the city. This probably to escape from the grey street views of the former communist times. The extended police force keeps the streets safe at least until the sun is down (at9 p.m.). New office flats are shiny with mirroring windows and glimpsing façade materials which matches with the patchy cars around.
These 4 architecture styles have a harmonious effect next to each other. Because of the grain size from each building is comparable and the heights of buildings are not competing too roughly. This is caused by strict rules set up by city planners to (mostly not Romanian) architects. The French influence in architecture is great and visible in many architectural and cultural aspects. This could be caused by the good diplomatic relations betweenRomaniaandFrancefor the last 200 years!
Now, the old-town ofBucharestis part-by-part renovated in the last ten years. Buildings get repaired from inside out, not just the French baroque buildings, but also modern and Stalinist buildings. This shows a clear vision on valuating these less-preferred building styles. New pavement, lights and street furniture are also part of the renovation project. It seems that the new functions of the buildings is generally for public use; like bars, museums, universities, city hall, shops and banks. Offices will not be vested here, but outside at the Baneasa business centre.
The old-town renovation project showsRomania’s ability of making an integral project. It shows the great care for the visual open space of a city. But it is a pity that the most Romanians prefer the French-baroque buildings and dislike the modern, Stalinist and new-age architecture and these have less priority in renovation projects. In worst cases the people want to rebuild the former French-baroque on these sides. While these “new” styles is are symbolizingRomania’s strong adaptations of western architecture over 2 decades, especially formFrance.
Communism times may be not the chaotic, but well-organized city plans taking the best ofEurope(Paris) as an example to create even better? Building in stead of thePalaceofVersailles(for the king) the “Palace for the People” inBucharest? Although the Palace for the People is the biggest scar for the Romanians from communist times, it shows a great design-work which is of above worldwide standards of quality in: architecture, city planning and city design. Although its gigantic size, this eternal landmark fits well to the rest of the city’s infrastructure and architecture.
After communism times, it is said,Romaniadid not overthrow politics to the total capitalistic. The government is still big in property and a great employer. This is positive for trash disposal and low crime rates in large cities. Nowadays the public streets are always clean by enough workers to sweep and clean the open space. The police force is strong, which results in quite safe cities, without beggars and illegal merchants on the streets. Every salesman needs a license to sell on a certain public spot. It is law that all Romanians have a place to live, so relative little people sleep on the streets. These social aspects make the public space livable.
The Romanian authorities seem to have high ambitions to clean the picture ofRomaniaas a former communist, gypsy country. A clean image could makeRomaniainteresting for foreign investors. This ambition is also clear looking at the high expenses on the ministry of foreign affairs, where Romanian representatives are paid big wages to make contact and travel around the world.
If it is truth that Romanian politicians are visionary to make the country as clean and beautiful as possible, than there is a big chance for landscape architects to have a role re-designing public spaces. Especially those locations where many foreign travelers, businessmen and tourists are. By learning the great successes of Romanian’s (landscape) architecture, foreign architects can do a good favor designing the Romania Bella to a complete beauty.
Hi Gilles,
Altough your text is pretty interesting, but I think the most important point is that you should explain your taughts better. Let’s give some examples:
* “Romania has ….. hated that way.” paragraph 1:
first you name ‘stadiums of architectural development’ and you continue with geographical location of architecture.
Second you jump into ‘the centre and rich part of Bucharest’ which calls some questions as “where is this rich part of Bucharest?” or “When was it a Wealthy place?”
Third you state that ‘these two styles’ are referring to dark times, I think you should explain better what is being done with the architecture style.
* “After communism times ….. public space livable” paragraph 7:
You state that ‘the government is still big in property and a great employer’. Again your explanation is a not complete; you name some examples of the government being a employer which is good. But you can explain better who exactly is paying for example. Examples of the government being a employer are missing at all.
In the conclusion you should focus on summarize what you’ve wrote. Now there are some aspects showing up out of the blue such as the gypsies.
Concluding I would say that you just want to give too much information in a very short text. By focussing on some of the aspects in your essay and explain your taughts more precise, this essay can be an interesting one.