Changing the Face of a City | Systematization During Communism in Bucharest | The Civic Centre by Cristina Popescu

Changing the Face of a City Systematization During Communism in Bucharest The Civic Centre

Anda Cristina Popescu Matriculation number: 14-983-720

Elaborato Teorico Prof. Dr. Gian Paolo Torricelli AA 2016-17, MScII, sem. I

Table of Contents

Introduction

I. Bucharest | Short Urban Morphology Before of the 19th Century | The Oriental City Beginning of the 19th Century | Towards the West The Interwar Period

6 7 8

II. The Communist Regime Bucharest After the Second World War Industrialization and Systematization in Bucharest The 1977 Earthquake | A Pretext for Demolition

10 11 13

III. The Notion of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Civic Centreâ&#x20AC;? Definitions The Original Model Resonance in Romania

16 17 20

IV. The Bucharest Civic Centre The Project Approach Erasing the Past The Civic Centre | Components Dealing with the Scars

24 26 29 30

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Fig 1 Bucharest Civic Centre, 1990 Source: http://ingeniblagues.free.fr/histoires_en _images/palais_ceaucescu/palais_ceauc escu.php (consulted January 25th)

Totalitarian regimes are always a subject of fascination because of their unintuitive actions, extreme politics and drastic impact on the world. They used cities as a mirror for their power, monumental architecture and piercing boulevards as elegy of their principles, reaching outstanding scales and producing irreversible temporal and spatial discontinuities within the urban environment. However, none of the interventions made by other totalitarian regimes can match the colossal destructions caused by the communist regime, under the leadership of Nicolae CeauĹ&#x;escu, in the city of Bucharest. In this essay, we will go through Bucharestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s early stages of evolution and concentrate on the events that shaped its urban fabric and architecture, insisting on the reconstruction and restructuration that took place during communism. The first chapter consists of a chronological presentation of the transformations that took place in Bucharest until the Second World War, under various external influences and ideals, culminating with the interwar period, the most prolific cultural time known by the city. The following chapter analyses the premises for the systematization and the beginning of the communist regime with its numerous urban regulations. We will go through a gradual instauration of sovereignty at a political, social and urban scale, ending with the event of the 1977 earthquake, a crucial turning point in the fate of Bucharest. Further on, we will explore the concept of civic centre, from its beginning as a model for American cities to its influence on Romanian architectural circles during the interwar period. We will analyze early projects, generated by this idea, proposed for the city of Bucharest, that will unwillingly become a starting point for the brutal intervention during the year 1980. The last chapter focuses on the materialization of the gigantic intervention that erased a significant part of the historical city, leaving it with a deep scar until this day. We will go through all the steps from its conception as competition entries on 4

the drawing boards of numerous groups of architects, followed by subsequent drastic alterations by the ruling couple (Nicolae and Elena CeauĹ&#x;escu), hardly satisfied by the presented proposals and ending with the actual leveling of the Uranus Hill and relocation of all its inhabitants. The last part of this section is dedicated to the result of the massive intervention, its current state and the latest attempts to revitalize the area through competitions and other architectural and urban proposals. In conclusion, all evolutionary steps are brought together in order to stress the amplitude of the discontinuity produced by the ego-centred ideals of the communist leader, on a social, historical and urban level.

Bucharest | Short Urban Morphology

The capital of Romania, Bucharest, was undermined by a series of changes along its evolution as a city. Starting as a strong Orientalized town, predominantly rural, it continued to grow into an exemplary European city synchronized with the latest technologies and education, that was brutally remodeled by a rigid ideology during communism and ended up today being a metropolis layered like a palimpsest. It is a Fig 2 Aerial image of Bucharest, 2012 Source: http://ultimul-etaj.ro/ (consulted January 25th)

city that one either loves or hates due to its complexity and illegibility for the untrained eye. In order to understand Bucharest’s intricacy and the scale of the devastation that took place here during communism, which makes the subject of this paper, it is necessary to divide the latest evolution of the city into smaller phases, and provide a brief explanation of each.

Before the 19th Century | the Oriental City

Most of the information available from this period consists of inaccurate stories and sketches by foreign travelers. While the majority of buildings still standing from that time consist of churches and a thorough archeological study is lacking, it is assumed that most of the buildings destroyed by subsequent disasters (fires, floods and earthquakes1), lacking any rules or regulations regarding constructions, were rebuilt on their former location. Therefore, the first plan of Bucharest, made by major Borroczyn in 1846, serves as a relevant image for the city from that period.2

Fig 3 The Arsenal hill with Mihai Vodă Monastery, Borroczyn plan, 1846 Source: http://www.ideiurbane.ro/docubucuresti -planuri-harti-si-alte-documente/ (consulted January 4th)

The irregular aspect of the street network, the large openings between the buildings lacking a specific function as well as the typical dead-end streets, are some of the

Bucharest is divided in two parts by the river Dâmbovița. Before it’s systematization during the 19th century it was the source of many disasters that damaged the city along the years. 2 Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.30 1

precise elements of oriental influence that can be observed on the plan. The overall image was more of a rural setting rather than a European city. While most parts of the buildings were a single story tall, the shape of the churches was noticeable as they were the tallest buildings at that time.3 “Churches played an important role not only from the religious point of view, but also from the social and urbanistic one.”4 They became guidelines for the neighborhoods that formed around them, creating an unexpected geometrical pattern, an ordinate principle in the Fig 4 Bucharest, Hypothesis of territorial organization based on parorchial distribution

apparent chaotic fabric, developed concentrically as the city grows.5

Source: Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria, p.32

The positioning of the most important religious ensembles6 made use of the tallest settings in the city – monasteries Radu Vodă, Mihai Vodă and the Mitropolia are place on hills– transforming them in significant reference points.7

Beginning of the 19th Century | Towards the West The structure of byzantine influence described earlier remained until the beginning of the 19th century, when a surprising shift towards the west, specifically France, took place. This becomes evident in the customs, language and also Romanian architecture tendencies of that time.8 Fig 5 Bucharest street in 1841, etching in wood, Ch. Doussault Source: Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria, p.57

It is interesting to note that words coming from Turkish, describing urban settings, such as pazar or maidan 9, were gradually replaced by piață and stradă, of italian

Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.30-31 4 Ibid. p.31 5 Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria, p.39-40 6 In the 16th century the Turkish Empire forbids the fortification of cities in the southern region (Tara Românească). Keeping this right, the monasteries become, besides their religious function, important defensive points. (Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.31 7 Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria, p.34 8 Ibid. p.58-59 9 pazar = market (vulgar transformation of bazar; from Turkish); maidan =empty land lacking a precise function, inside or around a city (from Turkish maydan). The former is still used in the current speaking and it is a typical urban encounter for Bucharest. It is the subject of many contemporary urban intervention for revitalizing the public space. 3

origin, or neologisms such as trotuar, promenadă, splai10 from French. Besides the change in the used language, these modifications also express how the urban settings and their usage is transforming under the western influence.11

The wish to become a European capital is visible also in the urbanistic interventions that took place during this century. Starting with the systematization of the river Dâmbovița, the tracing of new boulevards marking the North-South and Est-West Fig 6 The modern city with the new main boulevards, beginning of the 19th century Source: Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria, p.60

axes of the city and continuing with punctual interventions such as new public squares, fountains, statues and public gardens. Compared to Paris where baron Haussmann changed the city through drastic demolitions and transformations, Bucharest had a lower density that allowed this type of intervention to adapt to the existing fabric.12

During this time, the centrality of the location of religious buildings that was typical for the former city, is used to place new important financial (the CEC Palace), cultural (the Romanian Athenaeum) and military buildings (the Palace of the National Military Circle). Built in a neoclassical style adopted from the west, they replaced the old churches or monasteries that preceded them. A certain secularization and Fig 7 CEC Palace, Paul Gottereau, 1900 Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/CEC_P alace (consulted January 25th)

decentralization of the city can be observed through these changes, as well as through the enhanced importance added to public space.13

The Interwar Period

The interwar period is considered to be the most prosperous interval of cultural creativity and the only time when Romania is synchronized with the latest European artistic currents.

Fig 8 The Romanian Atheneum, Albert Galleron, 1900 Source: https://romaniadacia.wordpress.com/2014 /12/29/romanian-athenaeum-ateneulroman-bucharest/ (consulted January 25th)

trottoir, promenade, esplanade (fr.) Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.35 12 Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria, p.59 13 Ibid.p.68 11

From an architectural point of view, the national identity crisis that culminated at the end of the 19th century, together with the need to express a new modernity, were shaping two different styles that became emblematic for the epoch. One of them is the Romanian national style, Neromânesc, while the other is very close to the modernism promoted by the Modern Movement. The latter is more predominant in Fig 9 ARO Building, Horia Creangă, 1930 Source: http://viabucuresti.ro/blocul-aro19291931-horia-creanga/ (consulted January 25th)

the interwar period as remarkable names such as Cincinat Sfințescu, Duiliu Marcu, George Matei Cantacuzino and Alexandru Zamfiropol made an international cultural exchange of the latest urbanistic and architectural theories of that time possible.14

Numerous urban regulations were made concerning the overall systematization of the city plan (1935 – the second Systematization Plan), building rules and alignments in height and plan (1939 – the Regulations for Constructions and Alignments), urban esthetic unity, public spaces and monuments, as well as preserving a certain image for the historical centre.15

Fig 10 Bucharest in the interbelic period Source: http://infomania2013.blogspot.ch/2014/ 09/bucurestiul-interbelic-lux-si-modavs.html (consulted January 25th)

Although for a short interval, the interwar period brought change for the city as a natural evolution, “offering it a glimpse of monumentality without deviating towards the aggressive gigantism which irreversibly marked the city during the “multilaterally developed socialism” epoch.”16

Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.39 15 Ibid. 16 “[…] reușind să confere o notă de monumentalitate orașului, dar fără să devieze spre gigantismul agresiv care a marcat ireversibil orașul în epoca „socialismului multilateral dezvoltat.” Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria, p.74 14

II.

The Communist Regime

The synchronization with the great western tendencies and ideologies that facilitated a prosperous and fast evolution of Bucharest was suddenly shut down once the communist regime began. The soviet Stalinism becomes the only accepted model for the new society from this moment on. The old system of values is altered as well as the institutions guarding them. The communist party is burying everything related to the old society in order to give birth to the new man.17 Fig 11 The damage in the centre of Bucharest after WorldWar II bombing, 1944 Source: https://romaniadacia.wordpress.com/ta g/bombardamente-bucuresti-1944/ (consulted January 25th)

During the 80’s a deadline for the year 2000 was set. By that time “approximately 7000-8000 rural centres will vanish from Romania’s map and the remaining ones will be of approximately 90-95 percent demolished and reconstructed” 18, while about 9095 percent of Bucharest’s citizens will live in new apartment buildings.

Bucharest After the Second World War The destructions left after the war were not only of a physical nature, but also economic and political. The weakened country was acutely feeling the pressure of the Soviet Union and gave in to the efforts of the communist party. During this time and until 1948, when the official establishment of the communist regime took place, Fig 12 Damage after the war, 1944

most efforts were directed towards reconstruction of the damaged buildings.

Source: https://romaniadacia.wordpress.com/ta g/bombardamente-bucuresti-1944/ (consulted January 25th)

Unfinished works started before the war are being finished while the existent urban fabric remains mainly unchanged.19

Georgescu, Vlad, Istoria românilor de la origini până în zilele noastre, 1992, Editura Humanitas, p.261 18 Giurescu, Dinu C. The Razing of Romania’s Past, 1989, International Preservation Report, p.2 19 Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.40-41 17

Industrialization and Systematization in Bucharest Between the years 1949 and 1950, Romania was going through a fast industrialization period characterized by a very large amount of the rural population transferring to the cities. This fact became a catalyst for the actions started in the next decade by the Communist Party. Their efforts concentrated on an ample housing project that was supposed to solve the housing problem caused by industrialization. Until 1970, the new apartment buildings were constructed outside of the cities, on empty lands, in suburban areas and along boulevards and important roads in the cities.20 Placed in Fig 13Housing for workers (cvartal), 1 Mai neighborhood, 1951 Source: http://sanuuitam.blogspot.ch/2013/10/a sa-cum-fost_15.html (consulted January 25th)

correlation with new industrial facilities, they were the “main criteria for urban reconstruction in Bucharest and other centres”.21

The first collective housing typology was the square block (cvartal) that included a semi-public interior courtyard. Because of their reduced height, alignment rules and architectural language, this type of building did not produce significant changes in the existing urban fabric.22

In 1948 the decision to erect the first monumental building for the new regime was taken – Casa Scânteii, soon to become the main publishing house. Its iconic image was issued frequently in the following years, accompanied by communist propaganda, becoming the symbol for a better future assured by the new power. It was the first time architecture was used as a tool of the regime in order to gain control Fig 14 Casa Scânteii (today House of the Free Press, Casa Presei Libere), 1950 Source: http://arhitectura1906.ro/2015/03/mircea-alifanti-19141999/ (consulted January 25th)

over an institution and over the society.23

Other changes made by the regime included the renaming of streets and public spaces that commemorated specific events or personalities not in accordance with the new ideology. The image and name of Stalin became very important as parks were

Giurescu, Dinu C. The Razing of Romania’s Past, 1989, International Preservation Report, p.3 Ibid. 22 Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.41 23 See Tulbure, Irina, From Casa Scânteii to Casa Poporului and Back. Architecture as an Icon of a Totalitarian Regime, Printed in Red. Architectural Writings during Communism, 2013, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu” 20 21

Fig 15 Balta Albă microdistrict, 1965

renamed after him and his statues became present in important places around the

Source: http://sanuuitam.blogspot.ch/2013/10/a sa-cum-fost_15.html (consulted January 25th)

cities.24 In 1952 the new decisions concerning Bucharest’s restructuration plan are becoming official. From now on, urban planning is a matter of the state, which becomes the only owner of property through the process of nationalization. Political will controls the evolution of the city while urban legislation becomes secondary.25

From 1960 on, the new typology of the apartment buildings becomes the microdistrict (microraion), a model taken from Moscow. Large residential complexes were built during this time at the periphery of cities. Large building blocks were framing the important streets and squares. The remaining vast surfaces after these operations were transformed in green areas or parks. There was no concern for the creation of public space, as the only areas designated for public use were formed because of the residue of space. The old urban principles based on parcellation were replaced by free urbanism ideals, as the differences between centre and periphery were being erased.26 Fig 16 Stalin's statue facing the Arch of Triumph, 1961 Source: http://sanuuitam.blogspot.ch/2013/10/a sa-cum-fost_15.html (consulted January 25th)

The restructuration that took place during the years 1950 and 1970 was mainly focused on building new housing complexes in free lands or urban areas, therefore the city centres and the urban fabric remain unaffected. However, the influence of the

new ideology brought more significant changes in the perception and use of the public space. Since the promenade was considered a bourgeoisie habit, it was forbidden for a group of more than four people to gather in public and all free-time activities were being controlled by the state for various reasons. Therefore, the public space was no longer understood as free space of the city that can be used in common, Fig 17 Military parade, 1945 Source: http://www.romaniaactualitati.ro/cronica_unui_an_23_aug ust_1944_23_august_1945-79948 (consulted January 26th)

but a place where parades and events take place in order to celebrate the totalitarian power. The small public and semi-public areas around the apartment blocks became the only available areas for social behavior.27 In the year 1974 Ceauşescu becomes the president of the Republic. From this moment on, his ego becomes prevalent in future decisions, plans and projects. Utopic proposals for remodeling the cities and villages develop more frequently while Bucharest follows the ideal of a grand metropolis. Unfortunately, the result was a complete disconnection created by the new barrier of blocks that separated the old urban fabric from the new interventions or boulevards.28

Fig 18 Damage after the earthquake, 1977

“Now, it was about to become a country of citizens, with big industries and monumental

Source: http://www.gandul.info/stiri/cutremuru l-din-4-martie-1977-37-de-ani-de-laseismul-care-a-facut-peste-1-500-demorti-inregistrare-audio-realizata-intimpul-cutremurului-galerie-fotovideo-12190514 (consulted January 26th)

constructions. Beyond the individual madness, Ceauşescu’s project also corresponded with a bigger wish to overcome the patriarchal Romania. It was a gamble with modernity, although at an extravagant stake that, in the end, led to failure”29

The 1977 Earthquake | A Pretext for Demolition On the 4th of March 1977, a 7.2 Richter magnitude earthquake stroke Romania, making 1,424 victims in Bucharest. Considered the second most powerful earthquake of the 20th century in Romania, it damaged nearly 32,900 buildings and left thousands of people without shelter. In Bucharest, 33 important buildings collapsed, mainly built during the interwar period and lacking a proper reinforced structure.30 Fig 19 Damage after the earthquake, 1977 Source: http://www.lovendal.ro/wp52/cutremu rul-din-4-martie-1977-din-romaniapovestiri-inedite-si-fotografii-inpremiera-pe-internet/ (consulted January 26th)

Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.42 28 Ibid. p.43 29 Boia, Lucian, România, ţară de frontieră a Europei, 2007, Editura Humanitas, p.124 30 http://www.wikiwand.com/en/1977_Vrancea_earthquake (consulted January 10th) 27

After the earthquake, massive efforts were concentrated on clearing the debris, repairing damaged constructions and building new structures. Although it is impressive to notice how much progress has been made by the end of the year in this field, it is necessary to acknowledge that the rush of the events and the pretext of the destructions gave the administration the chance to demolish buildings regardless of their actual damage. Numerous old buildings of an important architectural value, most of which were scarcely affected by the earthquake, were declared severely damaged and seen as an opportunity for building new apartment blocks.31 Among the demolished buildings, two important examples from Bucharest stand out Fig 20 Enei Church (1724), 1956 Source: http://rezistenta.net/2008/03/bisericaenei-prima-victima.html (consulted January 26th)

as they were listed as historical monuments. The first one is the Enei church, built in 1724. Hardly damaged by the earthquake, it was deliberately damaged by a crane working on a construction site in the vicinity. The urgent need for its restoration, stated by the advisory board of the Directorate of the National Cultural Patrimony The second important demolition, the Romanian Union of Fine Arts centre, took place in the centre of Bucharest. It was an example of neo-gothic style, built in the late 19th century by Grigore Cerchez. The building was torn down in April-May of the same year.32 â&#x20AC;&#x153;This was the beginning of the new phase in which the concept of a radical urban reconstruction became prevalent. From 1978-1980 on, up to 90 percent of the traditional architecture was gradually razed in many towns and replaced by new structures of a completely different scale and style, often in a totally changed urban setting.â&#x20AC;?33

The five-year plan issued between 1976-1980 presented demolition and reconstruction as a method for future urban operations. Private home owners were to Fig 21 Enei Church damaged during the earthquake; demolished in the following month; 1977

be relocated in new apartment blocks as tenants while their houses were demolished

Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/ro/Cutrem urul_din_1977_(Rom%C3%A2nia) (consulted January 26th)

sold to the former owner. Compensations were promised but never fully specified or

to make way for new constructions. The materials left from the demolition could be fulfilled.34

Giurescu, Dinu C. The Razing of Romaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Past, 1989, International Preservation Report, p.38 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. p.41 31 32

The future plans for a large-scale demolition in the centre of Bucharest were made public in May 1981. Prior to the operations, a thorough documentation including films, photographs and surveys was required in order to keep a record of the streets, complexes or individual buildings designated for destruction.35

All the measures and studies made during at least one decade before 1980, meant to protect the national heritage, were proven futile in front of the massive destruction that took place in the following years. The new constructions and street network Fig 22 Grigore Cerkez house (late 1800), before the earthquake Source: http://arhitectura-1906.ro/2012/04/casaarhitectului-grigore-cerkez/ (consulted January 26th)

produced a complete disconnection with the traditional urban fabric and architectural expression of the city. Old buildings were hidden behind the continuous barrier of apartment blocks in the attempt to forget the past and create a new glorious totalitarian capital.

The final and most brutal intervention during these years was to be the construction of the new Civic Centre in the heart of Bucharest, seen as “a unique epoch marking achievement, the most important project of systematization, construction and architecture ever achieved on Romania’s territory.”36 We will explore the development of the project as well as its materialization during the final chapter of this essay. Meanwhile I find it necessary to explain the notion of civic centre and how it became such an important icon for the dictatorial regime in the case of Bucharest. Fig 23 Grigore Cerkez house, demolition after the earthquake, 1977 Source: http://arhitectura-1906.ro/2012/04/casaarhitectului-grigore-cerkez/ (consulted January 26th)

35 36

Giurescu, Dinu C. The Razing of Romania’s Past, 1989, International Preservation Report, p.41 Ibid., p.47

III.

The Notion of “Civic Centre”

The concept of civic centre was born in correlation with the development of urbanism, specifically regarding the organization and extension of cities based on functional division and intercorrelation. It is concerned with the concentration of administrative functions in the centre of a city in order to make them accessible to the urban organism. It started in the United Stated and in its initial form it represented Fig 24 Ceauşescu in front of a model of the Civic Centre, 1984 Source: Tulbure, Irina, From Casa Scânteii to Casa Poporului and Back. Architecture as an Icon of a Totalitarian Regime, Printed in Red. Architectural Writings during Communism, 2013, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.88

an opportunity for the American cities to build representative architecture using the example of European cities in order to create an apparent historical background while surpassing their model.37

In Romania, the idea of civic centre started as a solution to organize the structure of all cities, regardless of their size or importance. Later on, the matter turned towards Bucharest, home for most of the specialist and professionals in connection with the international ideologies. During the interwar period, the city was in need for representative buildings in order to raise to the status of a European capital.38

Definitions On an international scale, the term of civic centre was understood in different ways, leaving space for interpretation and adaptation of its principles for specific needs. At the beginning of the twentieth century in the United States, the civic centre was defined as a monumental urban complex of classical architectural expression composed of administrative buildings and a main public space connected to a network Fig 25 The Court of Honor, the World's Columbian Exposition, 1893 Source: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museumsstatic/objectretrieval/node/225 (consulted January 26th)

of green areas and pedestrian paths traversing the city. Based on the same principles, reduced scale adaptations were made for smaller towns.39 While Americans used an elitist approach to the program, Spanish countries brought the idea closer to smaller communities. Today, the civic centre (centro civico)

represents a gathering of communal related functions, usually in the same building, where people leaving in the surrounding areas could benefit from different education, cultural or free time activities as well as organize meetings of internal organizations.40

According to the British Encyclopedia, a civic centre is a group of administrative and public utility buildings with an integrated open public space, located in a central location. The origin of the program is associated with the Greek acropolis and the Roman forum. 41 This connection implies that the establishment of a civic centre is an assembly of prestigious buildings correlated with the statement and representation Fig 26 Moran, Thomas, painting of the Administration Building, the World's Columbian Exposition, 1893

of authority, either religious or secular.42

Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/World's _Columbian_Exposition (consulted January 26th)

The Original Model The concept of civic centre started to take shape among the architects and urbanists at the beginning of the twentieth century, during the “City Beautiful” movement in the United States. The word civics was already in circulation at that time in the American conscience, through numerous educational programs and associations that sought to improve the quality of urban and rural life while reinforcing the spirit of community.43 An important part for the promotion of the movement’s principles was played by the

Fig 27 Ellicott, Andrew, 1792 revision of L'Enfant's plan of 1791–1792 for the "Federal City" later Washington City, District of Columbia Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pierre_ Charles_L'Enfant (consulted January 26th)

World’s Columbian Exposition (known also as the Chicago World Fare), in 1893. A group of architects under the leadership of Daniel Burnham, trained under the influence of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, used their knowledge to create what came to be one of the earliest organized approach to city planning. The “White City”, with its 14 buildings and green areas, became an example of architectural expression,

Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.88 41 https://www.britannica.com/technology/civic-centre (consulted January 15th) 42 Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.88 43 Ibid. 40

a monumental neo-classicism, urban cohesion and order, for the next decades of planning in the United States.44 One of the examples that shaped Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impression of an ideal city centre was the McMillan plan for the centre of Washington DC, in 1901-1902. The commission coordinated by Daniel Burnham proposed a renewal of Pierre Lâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Enfantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan of the city, focusing on the green area connecting the White House with the Capitol building. Since the original plan had the French monumental urbanism as its main source of inspiration, the group organized a preliminary tour through Europe for a more comprehensive study of cities and search for inspiration. The Parisian boulevards and gardens became of central interest and had a great influence on the conception of the plan. The final result contained a sequence of administrative Fig 29 The Washington Monument Gardens, part of the McMillan plan, never realized, 1901 Fig 28 (right) The National Mall, the main element of the McMillan plan, 1901 Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/McMilla n_Plan (consulted January 26th)

monumental buildings surrounding the Capitol square and forming a frame together with the existent constructions. Continuing on the axis towards the west, a large esplanade with four arteries was leading to the Washington Monument and bordered on both sides by important cultural and education buildings. The neo-classic appearance adopted for the proposed buildings was justified as a continuity for the expression used in the past by the founding fathers in the design of the Capitol.45

44 45

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/citybeautiful/city.html (consulted January 15th) http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/citybeautiful/plan.html (consulted January 15th)

Fig 31 Burnham, Daniel, Detail of the Civic Centre, Plan of Chicago, 1909

The second example, one of the most important projects that gave the start to modern urban planning, was started in 1906 by Daniel Burnham together with Edward

Fig 30 (right) Burnham, Daniel, Perspective of the Civic Centre, Plan of Chicago, 1909 Source: Burnham, Daniel H., Bennett, Edward H., Plan of Chicago, 1908, Commercial Club of Chicago, p.210-211

Bennett. The plan of Chicago was published in 1909, containing a comprehensive new strategy for the city with exemplary drawings, together with a thorough analysis of city planning throughout the world in the course of history. The major points of the plan were the development of the Lake Front, a systematic approach to streets and highways, improvement of railway and harbor, a system of green areas and parks and a cultural, administrative and civic centre “so related as to give coherence and unity to the city.”46 Even though only some parts of it were realized, the plan became a milestone for the discipline of urban planning throughout the world.

In 1929, after the visionary images offered by the Washington and Chicago proposals became known worldwide, the model of the civic centre became evident in the reconstruction of American cities, among them Cleveland, Denver, Milwaukee, Los Angeles and Baltimore.47

Burnham, Daniel H., Bennett, Edward H., Plan of Chicago, 1908, Commercial Club of Chicago, p.121 47 Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.90

In Europe, the matter of the civic centre and the restructuring of American cities was debated in a series of articles, between 1910-1912, part of “The Town Planning Review”, led by Patrick Abercrombie. He believed that the idea of the “Civic Centre” was already embedded in the majority of the old cities evolution and a current approach in English towns (public buildings surrounding a central square). Nevertheless, the American strategy became an example for European cities and contributed greatly to the development of urban planning.48

Resonance in Romania Although aware of the restructuration taking place in the American cities, especially the case of Chicago, the Romanian specialists community was not drawn into the concept of civic centre from the beginning. The term could be easily misunderstood as most of the translations used the word civil and made room for the double interpretation of the notion, either in a moral way or in relation to citizenship.

In 1927, the specific terminology of civic centre (centru civic) appears for the first time in the Romanian language, in a technical work related to the law of territorial organization from 1925. This law was demanding all cities for a systematization plan in a limited time of four years. Because Romania lacked the necessary means to fulfill the requirements at that time, general directions concerning the methods of urban planning were given to mayors by Cincinat Sfinţescu, the pioneer of Romanian urbanism49, together with his associate. One of the matters discussed was a list of required public buildings and their placement in the cities as a part of future civic centres. Words such as main centres, secondary centres and public squares were used to describe the intervention.50

Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.90 49 See http://www.sfintescu.ro/en/cincinat-sfintescu/ (consulted January 21st) 50 Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.91 48

The notion of civic centre receives a definition in the Romanian language by Cincinat Sfinţescu in 1930. It is described as a “prestigious intervention of the state, meant to materialize the idea of authority through an ensemble of institutions with administrative, cultural and non-governmental functions.”51 It is notable that this definition is limited to a precise urban perimeter with specific components, while, in the case of Washington, the idea of civic was addressing the scale of the city as a whole in its complexity and gave the centre a status of national symbol.52

After the absorbance of the concept among the professionals, the terminology started to circulate on a wider range, usually in connection with the restructuration of the Romanian state.

The first concrete example is the diploma project of Alexandru Zamfiropol, soon to Fig 33 Zamfiropol, Alexandru, Une Cité du pétrole, 1930

become a well-known name among urbanism professionals. As a graduate of the University of Paris, Institute of Urbanism, he proposed a civic centre for a city located

Fig 32 (right) Perspective

in an area of petroleum extraction in Prahova Valley, Romania. His Cité du pétrole Source: Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.94

was structured on two perpendicular main axes, north-south and east-west, at whose intersection was the civic centre – a series of correlated public spaces with a monumental appearance. From here, diagonal arteries were traced in order to ensure the connection with the rest of the city. Although not located in the geometrical centre

of the plan, the civic centre was interrelated with the main streets and formed areas of interest in the constructed mass. After the publication of his project and his professional affirmation, Zamfiropol proposed a plan for Bucharest following the same principles of order – the two main axes with the civic centre at their intersection. Despite his insistence during the debates for the official plan of the capital, the plan was not taken into consideration. In 1935, he published a critique on the official plan, arguing the lack of a representative civic centre.53 Fig 34 Zamfiropol, Alexandru, Systematization proposal for Bucharest, 1934 Source: Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.94

The official commission in charge of the plan of Bucharest, among which Duiliu Marcu and G. M. Cantacuzino, had a different approach to the notion of civic centre. They identified eight main squares in Bucharest, forming a network of public spaces representative for the identity of the city as a capital. Around these focal points, they proposed regional centres containing administrative, cultural and utility buildings, as well as a compact commercial area and parks. While Zamfiropol’s project was aiming to concentrate on a single focal point, Marcu and Cantacuzino sought to decentralize the system and create a hierarchy of poles inside the organism of the city.54

An important promoter of the concept of civic centre, especially for the city of Bucharest, was Cincinat Sfinţescu. He developed numerous studies and solutions in this direction, applying them for the capital and other Romanian cities. Among these, he proposed two possible locations for the civic centre in Bucharest. The first one was the hill of the Arsenal55, where he positioned a boulevard in order to enhance the importance of the natural element and suggested a future development of a “museum centre (military, archeological, historical or ethnographical etc.); either an administrative centre, by constructing numerous ministries; or even a civic centre with the meaning they use in the United States.”56 The second anticipated site was Brătianu square (today 21st of December), where the prevalence of open space would

Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.93 54 Ibid.p.93-94 55 Described in the previous chapters of this essay as a strategic location in Bucharest, used for representative buildings such as the Arsenal and the Radu Vodă monastery. Cincinat Sfinţescu used this location before, in 1926, for his proposal of the Patriarchal Cathedral. In the 1980’s, the hill will be leveled by Ceauşescu during the development of the Civic Centre project. 56 Sfinţescu, Cincinat, Urbanismul, no. 11-12, 1932, p.395 53

Fig 36 Sfinşescu, Cincinat, proposal for the civic centre on the Arsenal Hill, 1932 Source: Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.98 Fig 35 (right) Sfinşescu, Cincinat, proposal for the Patriarchal Cathedral on the Arsenal Hill, 1926 Source: https://armyuser.blogspot.ch/2010/06/c olina-arsenalului.html (consulted January 28th)

have permitted the construction of important buildings that would have transformed the area into a civic centre close to the American model.

In 1938, since systematization plans for all rural areas were requested by law, Cincinat Sfinţescu turns towards the study of countryside life and settlements. The model village of the future was to include no less than four main centres concentrating all dependencies needed for an ideal rural life. Although the directions were very ambitious at a time when war was striking in Europe, a few villages, among which Mehedinţi, Dolj and Corbeni, were restructured in a similar way. In most cases, the multitude of functions was condensed in a single building. Another approach was made by the architect Ilie Teodorescu in his proposals for the towns of Teleorman, Giurgiu and Olteniţa. Here he presents two related squares bordered by colonnades and marked by vertical accents – monuments or churches.57 Fig 37 Teodorescu, Ilie, proposal for a civic centre in the toen of Călugăreni, 1938 Source: Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.102

After the war, the notion of civic centre was left aside for a longer period, despite the significant central interventions suffered by many important cities. It was brought again intro attention at the beginning of the 1970’s and applied in many fast-growing cities, culminating with the atrocious intervention that razed the centre of Bucharest.58

IV.

The Bucharest Civic Centre

The idea of a civic centre started to take shape in Ceauşescu’s mind after the earthquake in 1977. Some debates argue that his visit to North Korea during the same year might also have had an influence on his decisions. The leader’s ego defied the logic of the city’s evolution and geography, the need of his people and basic common sense through his radical actions. He demolished an important part of the historical Fig 38 Watts W., drawing of the Mihai Vodă Monastery on the hill, 1794 Source: http://bucharestunknown.blogspot.ch/20 09/11/povestea-manastirii-mihaivoda.html (consulted January 28th)

city and completely leveled a hill in order to build a megalomaniac civic centre composed of Casa Republicii and Victoria Socialismului Boulevard (today the Palace of the Parliament and Unirii Boulevard). As there was no specific aim for this intervention, his intention was rather to “celebrate the glorious times of socialism, the golden era of Ceauşescu and Ceauşescu himself.”59

The Project Approach

During an official summary of the earthquake aftermath initiatives, Ceauşescu expressed, for the first time, his wish for a political-administrative centre in Bucharest. The location chosen was the south-west cornice of the river Dâmboviţa, between the hill of the Arsenal and Unirii square, with the argument that the area was proven to be the safest from a seismic point of view.60 He was also influenced in this matter by former projects proposed here during 1925-1960 for the Patriarchal Church, Fig 39 Proposal for the University Centre, 1950 Source: http://www.ideiurbane.ro/dambovitaintre-opera-si-eroilor/ (consulted January 28th)

a University Centre and a Civic Centre, as well as the earlier interventions for the systematization of the river.61

Later that year, the challenge of transforming the centre of Bucharest was formulated as a national competition with willingly vague requests and without an adequate professional jury to assess the submissions. As beneficiary and leader of the state, 59

Tulbure, Irina, From Casa Scânteii to Casa Poporului and Back. Architecture as an Icon of a Totalitarian Regime, Printed in Red. Architectural Writings during Communism, 2013, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.86 60 Panaitescu, Alexandru, De la Casa Scânteii la Casa Poporului. Patru decenii de arhitectura în București 1945-1989, 2012, Editura Simetria, p.202 61 Tulbure, Irina, From Casa Scânteii to Casa Poporului and Back. Architecture as an Icon of a Totalitarian Regime, Printed in Red. Architectural Writings during Communism, 2013, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.87-88

Ceauşescu was in charge of the analysis and selection of the proposed projects for the new civic centre. A rough list of institutions was specified to be included in the participating projects: the headquarters and central committee of the Communist Party, the state council, the republic’s presidency, the government and the ministerial headquarters.62 All of these were to be included in a monumental complex located in the specified location.

Seventeen groups of architects participated, five of whom were part of the Ion Mincu Institute of Architecture, under the leadership of university professors, and the rest from important planning institutions throughout the country. The first stage of the competition was related to urbanism and it requested the positioning of the institutions in the designated area.

During this phase that lasted until 1979,

numerous official presentations were made and eleven of the groups taking part were disqualified.

During the following two years, the second phase of the competition required proposals for Casa Republicii. Detailed interactive models, with construction details and interior decoration, were presented by the remaining six teams.64 As the participants retired successively, it became evident that the leading couple, Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu, was not in search of qualified solutions and competent Fig 40 Proposals for Casa Republicii, 1982 Source: http://www.bucurestiivechisinoi.ro/201 4/11/cum-ar-fi-putut-arata-casapoporului-daca-ceausescu-accepta-altepropuneri/ (consulted January 28th)

professionals but of someone malleable enough to execute their absurd demands.

After five years of countless remakes and alterations of the presented material, the last remaining group, led by Anca Petrescu, a 28 year old graduate of the Architecture Institute, was designated in charge of the project’s execution. Approximately 300

Panaitescu, Alexandru, De la Casa Scânteii la Casa Poporului. Patru decenii de arhitectura în București 1945-1989, 2012, Editura Simetria, p.202-211 63 http://jurnalul.ro/scinteia/special/sambata-la-ora-12-00-venea-ceausescu-la-casa-republicii506920.html (consulted January 21st) Interview with Anca Petrescu, architect in charge of the Casa Republicii project 64 Ibid.

architects were involved in the construction of Casa Republicii, all following strict orders and short deadlines.65

In the following years, the Ceauşescu couple had a direct implication in the planning and construction process of the building. Their lack of knowledge and taste is Fig 41Victoria Socialismului Boulevard in construction; in the background Casa Republicii, 1987

reflected in the resulted construction with its preposterous size, unbalanced proportion and eclectic architectural expression.

Source: http://rezistenta.net/2010/09/page/2 (consulted January 28th)

Erasing the Past The demolition started in 1984, in a central area limited by the river Dâmboviţa in the north, George Coşbuc boulevard and Calea Rahovei in the east, Sabinelor Street in the south and Izvor Street and 13 Septembrie boulevard in the west.66 “Everything was leveled to the ground: mansions, villas, one and two-story houses almost all surrounded by gardens, small constructions of three or four apartments, public buildings, churches, historical monuments (the Mihai Vodă Church and a bell tower were moved in 1986 and are the only monuments to have survived the razing), statues and a whole highly characteristic for Romania’s architectural heritage, the Uranus Hill, which for centuries had been one of the city’s landmarks.”67

In the following years, the area of demolition grew including Unirii Square, Calea Călăraşi, Berzei and Văcăreşti neighborhood. Historian Dinu Giurescu compiled a list of all the demolished and translocated monuments during those years.68 In Bucharest 20 churches and monasteries were torn down, while other 8 translocated69 behind the curtain of apartment block boarding the boulevards. A number of Fig 42 Vartanian, Dan, demolition of Uranus neighborhood, 1984 Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/danvarta nian/albums/72157594166834095/with/ 263138481/ (consulted January 28th)

approximately 40 000 people were evacuated under military surveillance. In most cases, the evacuation took place in less than 24 hours, during which few belongings

Panaitescu, Alexandru, De la Casa Scânteii la Casa Poporului. Patru decenii de arhitectura în București 1945-1989, 2012, Editura Simetria, p.212 66 Giurescu, Dinu C. The Razing of Romania’s Past, Analele Sighet 10: Anii 1973-1989: Cronica unui sfârşit de sistem, 2003, Fundaţia Academia Civică 67 Ibid.p.47-48 68 Ibid.p.49-50 69 Leahu, Gheorghe, Martor al demolării Bucureştilor, 1989, International Preservation Report, p.47

had time to be loaded in trucks, while the rest were confiscated. Small one or two room apartments were given to the people, corresponding to the number of the family members. Transitioning from garden houses passed on for generations, they saw themselves becoming tenants in these new unfinished standard apartments and receiving zero compensation for their loss.70

On the hill of the arsenal, where Casa Republicii was later built, was the location of Uranus neighborhood, a Jewish district demolished entirely. The size of the affected Fig 43 Moving of Schitul Maicilor Church; Mihai Vodă and the bell tower (right), 1984 Source: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016 /dec/14/bucharest-moved-churchessafety-communist-romania (consulted January 28th) Fig 44 (next page) Harhoiu, Dana, plan of the historical centre, Bucharest; the demolished area for the building of the Civic Centre in red Source: Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria, p.14

area is equal to the city of Venice. Apart from the social importance (a diverse strong community) and its seismic resistance proven after the 1977 earthquake, the neighborhood had a symbolic value for the city. The monastery Mihai Vodă, founded by Alexandru II Mircea in 1568–1577, stood on the highest point in Bucharest for centuries becoming an important reference point.71

The destruction of the traditional fabric of the city was a loss on an architectural and urbanistic level, but also a symbolic disconnection. The symbol of totalitarianism was brutally inserted in the heart of the old city, canceling its old values and its memory.72

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJ2yTSAN1s&t=318s, Documentary Veneţia din suflete (consulted January 4th) 71 Ibid. 72 Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”, p.44 70

The Civic Centre | Components Casa Republicii became the dominant element in the massive intervention proposed during the competition. However, it is necessary to specify the rest of the Civic Centre components, many of which remain unfinished up to this day, in order to form a comprehensive image on its complexity. Fig 45 Victoria Socialismului boulevard, 1987 Source: http://funnyblog.ro/bucurestiul-in-anii1960-1980/ (consulted January 28th)

The Victoria Socialismului boulevard represented the main compositional axis of the proposal, from east to west connecting Alba Iulia square with Constituţiei square, adjacent to Casa Republicii. Its purpose was to enhance and celebrate the monumentality of the development’s main piece. Building after the model of the Parisian boulevard Champs-Élysées, Ceauşescu’s wish was to surpass its example’s dimensions in length and width. The resulting boulevard was 3.5 kilometers long and 92 meters wide, with a row of monumental fountains in the centre and various types of vegetation on the sides. Along this axis, a wall of apartment buildings was built, destined for the communist elite society at that time. This chain extends towards Casa Republicii and forms an arch surrounding Constituţiei Square, a space designed as the main area for ceremonies and events. Behind these constructions, Ceauşescu hid

Fig 46 Model of Victoria Socialismului Boulevard, 1984 Source: http://rezistenta.net/2011/02/arhitectura -si-putere.html (consulted January 28th)

the surviving part of the old city and the translated churches form the Arsenal hill, leaving only a few passage ways for pedestrians - small openings in the massive wall.

Many other important buildings were intended to border Victoria Socialimului boulevard, most of which remained unfinished until this day. Among these the House of Science and Technology (today House of the Academy), the National Library (finished in 2011), the National Museum and the Radio House.

Subject to many urban competition and debates, Unirii Square was another important piece of the Civic Centre intervention. Located in the centre of Victoria Socialismului Fig 47 Unirii Square, 1987 Source: http://www.costingheorghe.ro/thenow/p iata-unirii-bucuresti/ (consulted January 28th)

Boulevard, it is marked by the construction of the Unirea Shop, a massive building with a pseudo-classical façade, a central park, and perimetric apartment blocks. On the north side buildings from the old fabric of Bucharest still stand.

Casa Republicii, with its plan “in the shape of an immense fortress, marked in its corners by volumes reminding of bastions, has the dimensions of 236.10 per 227.30 meters, a height of 94.60 meters, an imprint surface of 44 245 square meters, about 400 000 square meters of total surface and a volume of more than 2.5 million cubic meters, a little more than the pyramid of Keops.”73

Its construction started in 1984 and was entirely built of material produced in Romania (the only exception being the interior wooden doors). The building contains a total of 1100 rooms out of which only 400 are currently in use, hosting three Fig 48 Casa Republicii construction site, 1987 Source: http://rezistenta.net/2010/09/page/2 (consulted January 28th)

museums, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.74 Ceauşescu’s Civic Centre was one of the most brutal interventions any totalitarian regime could bring upon a city. Because his ambition was beyond physical possibilities, most of the projects started during his leadership are still lying unfinished and abandoned. Although he was never able to see his dream fulfilled – to have a city that echoes his power and glory, his imprint on Bucharest will reflect for many generations to come the greediness, lack of culture and megalomania of an extreme and irrational leader.

Dealing with the Scars Following the tumultuous events of 1989, the urbanistic problems raised by the Civic Centre became an important matter in professional and social circles. Casa Republicii, since then known as Casa Poporului (House of the People), was seen as a powerful totalitarian symbol that needed to be transformed, replaced or destroyed. It became the subject of many project proposals, most of which were unrealistic.75 Fig 49 The National Library, 1989 Source: Panaitescu, Alexandru, Concursul Bucureşti 2000: O şansă ratată, Bucureştiul meu drag. Memoria vizuală a Bucureştiului no.31, 2014, Asociaţia Bucureştiul meu drag, p.118

The idea of a competition took shape in 1990, after the evaluation of the city and its state after the massive central intervention. It was seen as an opportunity to find 73

Panaitescu, Alexandru, De la Casa Scânteii la Casa Poporului. Patru decenii de arhitectura în București 1945-1989, 2012, Editura Simetria, p.212 74 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Palace_of_the_Parliament (consulted January 23rd) 75 Panaitescu, Alexandru, Concursul Bucureşti 2000: O şansă ratată, Bucureştiul meu drag. Memoria vizuală a Bucureştiului no.31, 2014, Asociaţia Bucureştiul meu drag, p.112

competent answers and urbanistic solutions, but also as a therapy for the unprecedented shock.

Supported by the Union of Architects and its president

Alexandru Beldiman, the initiative was supposed to raise awareness of political and administrative institutions on the urgent matter.76 Fig 50 The National Library, 2012 Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F ile:Biblioteca_Nationala_1.jpg (consulted January 28th)

In 1995 the competition became official under the name of Bucureşti 2000. It requested urbanistic solutions for an area of about 485 hectares, the location of the communist Civic Centre. Under the management of Kenneth Frampton, the international jury united 13 important names in the field of architecture and urban planning. 656 teams from 45 different counties participated in the first phase of the competition. 15 projects were selected as finalists and the process ended in 1996 with the German winning team composed of Meinhard von Gerkan and Joachim Zais. The proposal aimed to diminish the imposing presence of Casa Poporului by intensifying the urban structure around it and placing a business district of tall buildings in its vicinity. Another important aspect of the solution was the integration of the radical socialist boulevards in the old network of streets.77

The competition was considered a great success because of the high enthusiasm, number of participants and quality of the solutions proposed. However, the political and economic authorities needed for the implementation of the chosen solution lacked interest in the matter and discarded the initiative as being unfounded and Fig 51Syaa Architecture Office, public space, 2013 Source: http://www.syaa.ro/portfolio/parcizvor/ (consulted January 28th)

unrealistic. Another impediment was the juridical uncertainty of the vast abandoned urban surfaces after the end of the regime. None of the solutions proposed during the competition were taken into further consideration. Punctual interventions were made later on, to continue working on previous construction sites such as the National Library or Junior Shop (today the Bucharest Court of Law), without taking into consideration the impact on the urban scale. Likewise, the ambitious project for

Panaitescu, Alexandru, Concursul Bucureşti 2000: O şansă ratată, Bucureştiul meu drag. Memoria vizuală a Bucureştiului no.31, 2014, Asociaţia Bucureştiul meu drag, p.113 77 Ibid. p.116 76

Catedrala Mântuirii Neamului is currently under construction in the open field next to Casa Poporului.78

Other small initiatives were made in the past decade. Among them a proposal for Izvor park, an open area adjacent to Casa Poporului that is rarely used. The old network of streets from the former Uranus neighborhood was to form the alleys of a new park, while every building demolished would have been marked by a tree. A subterranean memorial with a small museum dedicated to the memory of the area was part of the proposal.79

Projects and ideas are still being developed, but none seem to capture the interest of investors or local authorities. The Civic Centre continues to exist in its unfinished state as foreign enclave in the heart of the city. The immense vacant lots or abandoned shops at the ground floor of the buildings, the empty wide sidewalks or unused parks and the constant memory of an oppressive regime don’t seem to be good enough reasons for today’s society to take action. Fig 52 Arh. Meinhard von Gerkan, Joachim Zais, first prize Bucureşti 2000 competition, 1995 Source: Panaitescu, Alexandru, Concursul Bucureşti 2000: O şansă ratată, Bucureştiul meu drag. Memoria vizuală a Bucureştiului no.31, 2014, Asociaţia Bucureştiul meu drag, p.117

Panaitescu, Alexandru, Concursul Bucureşti 2000: O şansă ratată, Bucureştiul meu drag. Memoria vizuală a Bucureştiului no.31, 2014, Asociaţia Bucureştiul meu drag, p.113-115 79 Ibid. 78

Conclusion

Bucharest is a city shaped by foreign influences, rulers wishing for a modern city, visionaries using it as experimental ground and tyrants blinded by power. During the early stages of its evolution, it passed rapidly from the oriental influence to the occidental, reaching its glory during the interwar period. The short synchronicity with the rest of Europe was cut short by the communist regime. Fast industrialization and growth of the population gave birth to the apartment blocks that occupy most of the city until today. The first years of communism brought a rigorous political, economic and urban organization throughout the country, with many building programs and initiatives that gave immediate answers to urgent problems.

The earthquake that hit Bucharest in 1977 gave Ceauşescu an alibi for the destructions that followed. Regardless of their actual damage, important buildings were torn down to make way for new dwelling developments. As president of the Republic, Ceauşescu begun to develop a cult of personality and sought a new way of expressing his power and the glory of his age. Thus, the vision of a Civic Centre was starting to take shape.

In the aftermath of the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893, the concept of civic centre had a rapid evolution, culminating with the plan for Washington and Chicago. It became a model for the American cities and propagated its influence in Europe. In Romania, the notion had a slower inception, and was used briefly during the interwar period. After a long disappearance from the urban planning scene, it returned during the last years of communism as expression for Ceauşescu’s Golden Age.

After five years of careful planning, the Civic Centre was ready to be materialized. Ceauşescu demolished an area equal to the size of Venice in order to achieve his dream. A whole neighborhood was razed from Bucharest’s historical centre and its 33

population moved in apartment blocks. The intervention was still under construction during the revolution of 1989. CeauĹ&#x;escu could not see his Civic Centre finished.

After the revolution, great initiatives were taken to repair the damage made to the city. Since the enthusiasm of the professionals was not shared with the political and economic authorities, the projects did not leave the drawing boards. No organized changes were made until this day, leaving the city in a constant instability.

In the past, the discipline of urban planning was able to mobilize its experts, unite international personalities and achieve remarkable results. Today, it seems that the matter faded in the background. Groups of specialists act in separate and small communities and lack the necessary support in order to materialize their studies and theories, leaving Bucharest an uncoherent segregated city.

Bibliography

1. Boia, Lucian, România, ţară de frontieră a Europei, 2007, Editura Humanitas 2. Burnham, Daniel H., Bennett, Edward H., Plan of Chicago, 1908, Commercial Club of Chicago 3. Georgescu, Vlad, Istoria românilor de la origini până în zilele noastre, 1992, Editura Humanitas 4. Giurescu, Dinu C. The Razing of Romania’s Past, 1989, International Preservation Report 5. Harhoiu, Dana, București, un oraș între Orient si Occident, 1997, Editura Simetria 6. Leahu, Gheorghe, Martor al demolării Bucureştilor, 1989, International Preservation Report 7. Panaitescu, Alexandru, Concursul Bucureşti 2000: O şansă ratată, Bucureştiul meu drag. Memoria vizuală a Bucureştiului no.31, 2014, Asociaţia Bucureştiul meu drag 8. Panaitescu, Alexandru, De la Casa Scânteii la Casa Poporului. Patru decenii de arhitectura în București 1945-1989, 2012, Editura Simetria 9. Răuţă, Radu-Alex, „Centrul civic”: origini și receptarea în cercurile profesionale românești înainte de al doilea război mondial, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu” 10. Sebestyen, Monica, Spațiul public bucureștean - momente și schițe tipologice, Acum Dosare Bucureștene – Spațiul public și reinserția sociala a proiectului artistic și arhitectural, 2010, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu” 11. Sfinţescu, Cincinat, Urbanismul, no. 11-12, 1932 12. Tulbure, Irina, From Casa Scânteii to Casa Poporului and Back. Architecture as an Icon of a Totalitarian Regime, Printed in Red. Architectural Writings during Communism, 2013, Editura Universitară „Ion Mincu”

13. Video Documentary Veneţia din suflete, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJ2yTSAN1s&t=318s,(consulted January 4th) 14. Website Wikipedia 1977 Vrancea Earthquake, http://www.wikiwand.com/en/1977_Vrancea_earthquake (consulted January 10th) 15. Website British Encyclopedia, https://www.britannica.com/technology/civic-centre (consulted January 15th) 16. Website University of Virginia, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/citybeautiful/city.html (consulted January 15th) 17. Website Cincinat Sfinţescu, http://www.sfintescu.ro/en/cincinat-sfintescu/ (consulted January 21st) 18. Website Interview Anca Petrescu, http://jurnalul.ro/scinteia/special/sambata-la-ora-12-00-venea-ceausescu-lacasa-republicii-506920.html (consulted January 21st) 19. Website Wikipedia Palace of the Parliament, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Palace_of_the_Parliament (consulted January 23rd)

I, Anda Cristina Popescu, state that this paper is original and complies with the rules of copyright.

Anda Cristina Popescu,

I, Anda Cristina Popescu, state that this paper is original and complies with the rules of copyright.

Anda Cristina Popescu,