Between Europe and the East – draft on architectural landscape of Bucharest

Wojciech Januszewski

doi:10.5277/arc120112

Abstract

Bucharest – the capital city and the most important center of industry and services in Romania – is in many respects an exceptional city compared to other Central European metropolises. The article presents an outline of the spatial layer structure of the town which is formed by the particular stylistic groups such as a native style, ‘small Paris’, modernism, socialist realism and modern times.

Keywords:
bucharest
urban-space
modernism

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

This is how Ferdinand Lassale – the 19

century

socialist activist – described Bucharest and its social

inequities in his writings from Romania. This comment

seems correct also in regards to the spatial plan of the

capital city. What distinguishes that city is the excep-

tional diversity of its architectural elements. Bucharest’s

architecture is a melting pot of contrasts of scale,

shapes, style and function (Fig. 1). The city’s architec-

tural forms are grandiose. The local characteristic fea-

tures are spectacular and they include eccentric forms

and abundance of details. The architects of Bucharest

always wanted to create something exceptional. The

most daring attempts were not only typical of eminent

masters, but a standard of architectural designs. [...]

Bucharest drew without any qualms from all sources

and adopted all patterns only to astonish and show

diversity – wrote the Romanian architect, Marian Celac

[1, p. 14].

The origin of this special surrealism lies in the spe-

cific Romanian culture developed as a result of mixture

of the motifs of the East and the West over the centuries.

Bucharest’s urban plan and architecture demonstrate

a myriad of directions which formed under the influ-

ence of Western European ideas. On the other hand, the

picturesque disorder of Bucharest and the magnificence

Wojciech Januszewski*

Between Europe and the East

– draft on architectural landscape of Bucharest

Bucharest – the capital city and the most important

center of industry and services in Romania – is in many

respects an exceptional city compared to other Central

European metropolises. One of the most interesting

aspects of Bucharest is its architecture and the land-

scape created by it. Its beauty defies conventional

aesthetic criteria, creating a special genius loci. This

paper presents an outline description of this extraordi-

nary landscape and the factors which affected its devel-

opment.

* Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning, Kielce University of

Technology.

Introduction

“Savage hotchpotch”

Fig. 1. Neo-Romanian style, modernism and eclecticism in architecture

RI3LDĠD5RPăQDSKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O6W\OQHRUXPXĔVNLPRGHUQL]PLHNOHNW\]PZ]DEXGRZLH3LDĠD

5RPăQDIRW:-DQXV]HZVNL

DOI: 10.5277/arc120112

118 :RMFLHFK-DQXV]HZVNL

The original Romanian architecture is an account of

the complex historical process which shaped the culture

of Romania.

In this respect 106 AD is an important turning point

when the area of Romania, inhabited at that time by Indo-

(XURSHDQWULEHV7KUDFLDQE\RULJLQ±*HWDHDQG'DFLDQV

– was conquered by Emperor Trajan. Consequently,

5RPDQLD ZDV LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH :HVWHUQ FXOWXUH ,Q

around the 9

century, after the period of the Barbarian

Invasions, the lands by the Danube became part of the

Bulgarian state and the Thraco-Roman people inhabiting

that area were converted to Eastern Christianity and sub-

MHFWHGWRWKHLQIOXHQFHRIWKH%\]DQWLQHFXOWXUH

In the 14

century, two independent Romanian princi-

SDOLWLHV ZHUH IRXQGHG 0ROGDYLD DQG :DOODFKLD ,Q WKH

century, after the fall of Constantinople, they fought

DJDLQVW7XUNVEXWORVWDQGDFFHSWHGWKHVX]HUDLQW\RIWKH

Ottoman Empire. The first mention of Bucharest dates

back from that time (1459). Until the middle of the 19

FHQWXU\WKHFLW\ZDVWKHFDSLWDORI:DOODFKLDDQGWKHVHDW

of hospodars (local rulers) [2].

The peak development of the Romanian national style

is associated with the reign of Constantin Brâncoveanu

(1654–1714) who became famous as an excellent politi-

cal leader and patron of the arts. Consequently, that style

is often termed the Brâncovenesc style. A number of

buildings in the Brâncovenesc style have been preserved

in their original form – especially orthodox churches and

monasteries from the 17

–18

century scattered over the

area of the center of Bucharest (Fig. 3).

At the beginning of the 20

century, after a period of

XQFULWLFDO IDVFLQDWLRQ ZLWK WKH :HVWHUQ(XURSHDQ SDWWHUQV

these buildings inspired the architects who wished to express

the national ideas (Fig. 4). One of the most prominent repre-

of architectural forms resemble the spirit of the

Levantine cities (Fig. 2). The specific natural features

of the city also affect its special landscape. An increased

seismic activity of that area results in a faster technical

degradation of the city structures. The buildings which

were damaged, or the ones which did not meet the

growing needs, were replaced with bigger or more

imposing ones – erected in line with currently fashion-

able stylistic conventions.

Despite the complexity of the architectural land-

VFDSH RI WKH FLW\ LW LV SRVVLEOH WR DQDO\]H DQG V\V-

WHPDWL]H LW ,Q WKH VHHPLQJO\ FKDRWLF DUFKLWHFWXUH RI

the city, there can be distinguished a few main “lay-

HUV´ VXFK DV LQGLJHQRXV VW\OH DUFKLWHFWXUH RI WKH

³/LWWOH3DULV´PRGHUQLVPDQGVRFLDOLVWUHDOLVP7KLV

division is rather stylistic than chronological in its

character because these layers often overlapped and

mixed in time, creating hybrid forms or they reap-

SHDUHGDV³QHRVW\OHV´

)LJ.UHW]XOHVFX2UWKRGR[&KXUFK±LQWKH5HYROXWLRQ

6TXDUHSKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O&HUNLHZ.UHW]XOHVFX±QDSODFX5HZROXFML

(fot. :-DQXV]HZVNL)

Indigenous style

)LJ'LYHUVL¿HGDUFKLWHFWXUHRI%XFKDUHVW

FHQWHUSKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O=UyĪQLFRZDQD]DEXGRZDĞUyGPLHĞFLD%XNDUHV]WX

IRW:-DQXV]HZVNL

Fig. 4. Town Hall in Bucharest (1906–1910) designed in the Neo-

Romanian style by Petre Antonescu (photo: :-DQXV]HZVNL)

,O5DWXV]Z%XNDUHV]FLH±]DSURMHNWRZDQ\ZVW\OX

QHRUXPXĔVNLPSU]H]DUFK3HWUH$QWRQHVFXIRW:-DQXV]HZVNL)

%HWZHHQ(XURSHDQGWKH(DVW±GUDIWRQDUFKLWHFWXUDOODQGVFDSHRI%XFKDUHVW 119

sentatives of that group was Ion Mincu (1852–1912) who

first designed a series of public buildings, townhouses and

other Neo-Romanian houses.

The Brâncovenesc style and its Neo-Romanian interpre-

tation use artistic motifs of various origin. That architecture

features the Renaissance harmony of elements, rhythmic

articulation and frequent repetition of arcaded loggias and

SRUWLFRV7KH%\]DQWLQHPRWLIVDUHYLVLEOHLQWKHIRUPVRI

full arches, short columns – sometimes with spiral twisted

shafts – and abundant floral decorations of archivolts and

IULH]HV6RPH,VODPLFPRWLIVVXFKDV0RRULVKDUFKHVDQG

stone ornamented openwork in balustrades are also used.

The style’s characteristic feature adopted from the Medieval

5RPDQLDQDUFKLWHFWXUHLVLWV³GHIHQVLYHQHVV´DVWDEOHPDLQ

body of the building, strengthened base course and the pres-

ence of oriels and towers. However, the most characteristic

element is the steep roof with overhanging eaves [5].

The indigenous style has numerous variations which

vary depending on the moment of origin and the archi-

tect’s ingenuity. Apart from academic examples of the

Neo-Romanian school, the indigenous elements were

introduced selectively into eclectic architecture and even

modern designs from the 1930s (Fig. 5).

Architecture of the “Little Paris”

The turning point in the growth of the city was the incor-

SRUDWLRQRI:DOORFKLDZLWK0ROGRYDLQDQGWKHQWKH

emergence of the Kingdom of Romania in 1881 with its

capital in Bucharest. Romania broke free from the political

influence of Turkey. The second half of the 19

century

ZDVWKHSHULRGZKHQ5RPDQLDZLGHO\RSHQHGWR:HVWHUQ

Europe. This is when the European patterns were adopted

LQPDQ\DVSHFWVRIOLIH7KHUHODWLQL]DWLRQRIWKHODQJXDJH

consisting in replacing the words with Slavic, Hungarian,

and Turkish origin with the words borrowed directly from

Italian or French, was symbolically significant and it was

supported by the authorities [2].

Consequently, it is not surprising that the expansion of

%XFKDUHVWWULJJHUHGE\WKHQHFHVVDU\PRGHUQL]DWLRQRIWKH

capital city, followed the then popular French patterns.

6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH SODQVPDGH E\ *HRUJHV+DXVVPDQQ IRU

Paris were applied. The design included broad avenues

JRLQJQRUWKVRXWK1%DOFHVFXDQG&%UăWLDQXERXOHYDUG

and east-west (Regina Elisabeta and Carol I boulevard)

FURVVLQJDWWKH³JUDQGLQWHUVHFWLRQ´JUDQGHFURLVHHDWWKH

8QLYHUVLW\6TXDUH3LDĠD8QLYHUVLWăĠLL>@)LJ

Over the last two decades of the 19

century,

a number of representative buildings of public utility and

government administration were erected in the area of the

Fig. 5. In the foreground, Neo-Romanian city house; in the back-

ground, modern building with details inspired by indigenous style

SKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O1DSLHUZV]\PSODQLHGRPPLHMVNLZVW\OXQHRUXPXĔVNLPZJáĊEL

EXG\QHNPRGHUQLVW\F]Q\]GHWDOHPLQVSLURZDQ\PVW\OHPURG]LP\P

(fot. :-DQXV]HZVNL)

)LJ(FOHFWLFDUFKLWHFWXUHRI3LDĠD8QLYHUVLWăĠLL

SKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O(NOHNW\F]QD]DEXGRZD3LDĠD8QLYHUVLWăĠLL

(fot. :-DQXV]HZVNL)

Fig. 7. City house with rich decorations from the period of the “Little

3DULV´SKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O'RPPLHMVNLRERJDWHMGHNRUDFML]RNUHVXÄPDáHJR3DU\ĪD´

(fot. :-DQXV]HZVNL)

120 Wojciech Januszewski

new center. They were designed by Romanian architects

educated in Ècole des Beaux Arts in Paris and often by

French designers themselves.

The buildings from that period are monumental and

they feature sophisticated details as well as impeccable

workmanship. The style of the new buildings was cosmo-

politan and generally followed the trends popular then in

French architecture. The dominant conventions included

neo-classicism, eclecticism, and French neo-renaissance

as well as Art Nouveau around 1900.

The expansion of the city, which was carried out on

a grand scale, followed the idea of transforming Bucharest

into “Little Paris.” The fashion for imported architecture

affected not only huge public investments but also indi-

vidual buildings such as palaces of aristocracy and rich

bourgeoisie, townhouses and city houses [6] (Fig. 7).

Modernism

The next stage of the city’s rapid growth was the period

between the wars when Bucharest was the capital of so called

Great Romania which significantly expanded to include new

territories. A new literary and art movement inspired by the

ideas of European avant-garde played an important role in the

cultural life at that time. Its advocates gathered around

Contimporanul – a magazine published between 1924 and

1934. It was a forum for the young generation of designers

who adopted the ideas of architecture of the Bauhaus, Le

Corbusier or de Stijl. Hundreds of new buildings in the

Fig. 8. Modern architecture of Bulevardul Magheru – ARO insurance

building from 1929 – designed by Horia Creanga

(photo: W. Januszewski)

Il. 8. Modernistyczna zabudowa Bulevardul Magheru – budynek

towarzystwa ubezpieczeniowego z 1929 r. – arch. Horia Creanga

(fot. W. Januszewski)

Fig. 9. Coexistence of modernism and eclecticism

(photo: W. Januszewski)

,O:VSyáLVWQLHQLHPRGHUQL]PXLHNOHNW\]PX

(fot. W. Januszewski)

Fig. 10. Examples of modern houses in Bucharest

(photo: W. Januszewski)

,O3U]\NáDG\PRGHUQLVW\F]Q\FKGRPyZZ%XNDUHV]FLH

(fot. W. Januszewski)

Fig. 11. Modern body of the building and historicizing detail

(photo: W. Januszewski)

,O0RGHUQLVW\F]QDEU\áDLKLVWRU\]XMąF\GHWDO

(fot. W. Januszewski)

%HWZHHQ(XURSHDQGWKH(DVW±GUDIWRQDUFKLWHFWXUDOODQGVFDSHRI%XFKDUHVW 121

International style, including monument office buildings, resi-

dential buildings and houses, were designed in Bucharest

especially in the middle of the 1930s, when, after the great

crisis, the building investments became the best means to save

the capital [4] (Fig. 8, 9).

Despite the fact that the Romanian modernism was an

imported idea, the avant-garde architecture of Bucharest is

extraordinary on the European scale and its modern designs

are remarkable. It is surprising how easily the interwar soci-

ety adopted the completely new style of architecture. On the

other hand, the activities of the state in respect of social hous-

ing – so typical of modern ideas – were insufficient. The new

style was mainly applied in private building. Modernism was

perceived separately from its original, social principles and

consequently it was only a kind of fashionable modern cos-

tume (Fig. 10, 11).

That is why the specific features of Bucharest avant-

garde focus on the external form of the buildings.

Architects freely and skillfully used all resources of mod-

ern formal means. New architecture used asymmetrical

FRPSRVLWLRQ KRUL]RQWDO UK\WKPV EDQG DQG URXQG ZLQ-

dows, loggias and balconies, brise-soleil, ship balus-

trades, rounded corners resembling the designs by Erich

Mendelsohn, etc. The minimalist solutions were not

popular – on the contrary – the buildings were composed

of many sections and they had a lot of details (cornices,

frames, etc.) [3].

This way modernism of the capital city falls in line

with the long tradition of extravert and decorative

architecture of Bucharest. Frequently, this continuity

can be perceived literally when the functional archi-

WHFWXUH LQFOXGHV SRLQWHG DUFKHV %\]DQWLQH FROXPQV

or pseudo-Moorish bars as well as warm colors.

These surprising deviations from stylistic purity tes-

tify best to the uniqueness of the Romanian avant-

garde (Fig. 11).

The modern movement ended with the outbreak of the

6HFRQG :RUOG :DU ZKLFK UHVXOWHG LQ WKH VXEVWDQWLDO

destruction of the city. After 1947, Romania became

a Socialist Republic. New authorities considered avant-

garde bourgeois formalism and it was doomed to artistic

void. Instead, there was a return of the spirit of neo-clas-

sicism. It did return but in a distorted form.

This is when socialist realism began, which was also

known in other countries of so called Eastern Bloc. The

temporary turn towards so called socialist modernism in

the 1960s–1970s did not stop an urban catastrophe. The

huge earthquake in 1977, which did a lot of damage in the

historic fabric of Bucharest, became a pretext for party

GHFLVLRQPDNHUVOHGE\1LFRODH&HDXúHVFXWRLPSOHPHQW

the plans to remodel the capital city and turn it into a

propaganda flagship of socialist Romania. In 1980, the

FOHDQLQJRIWKHDUHDIRUWKH³QHZVRFLDOLVWFLW\´ZKLFKZDV

planned on the south side of the existing city center by the

'kPERYLĠD5LYHULQWKHDUHDRIWKHROGHVWPHGLHYDOSDUW

of Bucharest began. In order to execute that undertaking

the area of about 7 km

of the city, that is about 1/3 of the

area of the city center, was leveled. About 40 000 resi-

dents were relocated. The old street network, the hum-

PRFN\ODQGVFDSHDGR]HQRUVRRIRUWKRGR[FKXUFKHVDQG

monasteries as well as numerous other valuable, historic

buildings were completely destroyed [1].

The plan of the new design was based on extremely sim-

plified layout. It had two main elements: the “People’s

+RXVH´DQGWKH³$YHQXHRI9LFWRU\RI6RFLDOLVP´)LJ

The construction of the People’s House – one of the big-

gest buildings in the world, which was built in the years

1984–1989 according to the plans prepared by a team of

a few hundred architects – required a lot of effort. The com-

SOH[ZKLFKZDVEXLOWUHPLQGHGWKH%DE\ORQLDQ]LNNXUDWLQLWV

SURSRUWLRQVDQG9HUVDLOOHVLQLWVDUFKLWHFWXUH7KHVFDOHDQG

grandeur of the structure defies all classification.

7KH³$YHQXHRI9LFWRU\RI6RFLDOLVP´LVDILYHNLORP-

HWHUORQJD[LV D IHZ GR]HQ PHWHUV ORQJHU ± ZKLFK ZDV

a source of its builders’ pride – than the Avenue des

Champs-Élysées in Paris. A number of government and

apartment buildings were designed with rows of trees and

tens of fountains along the sides of the Avenue. The

monumental Unirii Square with commodity warehouses

was located in the area where the Avenue crosses the

existing south-north axis.

The schematic and monumental architecture of these

buildings is a combination of socialist realism, a sort of

Ricardo Bofill’s European post-modernism and the style

of official building in North Korea, with which the dicta-

tor maintained close relations (Fig. 13).

New Socialist City

Fig. 12. The Palace of the Parliament (former People’s House) at the

FORVLQJRIWKHYLHZLQJD[LVSKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O%U\áD3DáDFX3DUODPHQWXGDZQLHM'RPX/XGRZHJRQD

]DPNQLĊFLXRVLIRW:-DQXV]HZVNL)

122 :RMFLHFK-DQXV]HZVNL

&HDXúHVFX¶VDFWLYLWLHVUHVXOWHGLQLUUHYHUVLEOHFKDQJ-

es in the face of Bucharest. The diverse historic land-

scape of the city was replaced with a monotonous and

RYHUVL]HG XUEDQ GHVLJQ 7KH RQO\ UHPDLQV RI WKH

destroyed district are its historic orthodox churches

and monasteries which for ideological reasons were

blocked by new buildings or hidden inside the quarters

(Fig. 14).

)LJ9LHZRIIRUPHU³6RFLDOLVW&LW\´

SKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O:LGRNGDZQHJRÄ0LDVWD6RFMDOLVW\F]QHJR´

(fot. :-DQXV]HZVNL)

Fig. 14. Historic Orthodox Church hidden among socialist architecture

DURXQG3LDWD8QLULLSKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O=DE\WNRZDFHUNLHZXNU\WDZĞUyGVRFMDOLVW\F]QHM]DEXGRZ\

w okolicy Piata Uniri (fot. :-DQXV]HZVNL)

The present

In December 1989, Bucharest became an arena of

EORRG\FODVKHVDVDUHVXOWRIZKLFKWKH1LFRODH&HDXúHVFX¶V

dictatorship was overthrown. The revolution stopped the

building program of the regime in its prime. The con-

struction of the People’s House was not fully completed.

7KHEXLOGLQJVIURP&HDXúHVFX¶VWLPHKDYHUHPDLQHGXVH-

less and unfinished in Bucharest until today.

Romania adopted the market economy. The People’s

House – currently the Palace of the Parliament – became

tourist attraction and former commodity warehouses were

)LJ&RQWURYHUVLDOLQYHVWPHQWVE\WKH&DWKROLF&DWKHGUDODQG$UPHQLDQ&KXUFKSKRWR:-DQXV]HZVNL

,O.RQWURZHUV\MQHLQZHVW\FMHSU]\.DWHGU]H.DWROLFNLHML.RĞFLHOH2UPLDĔVNLPIRW:-DQXV]HZVNL)

%HWZHHQ(XURSHDQGWKH(DVW±GUDIWRQDUFKLWHFWXUDOODQGVFDSHRI%XFKDUHVW 123

converted into shopping centers. The huge walls of the

IRUPHU ³VRFLDOLVW FLW\´ DUH FRYHUHG WRGD\ ZLWK PRWOH\

advertising banners.

Today’s Bucharest suffers from a lot of problems con-

nected with the maintenance of its heritage. Its existing

urban fabric, which demonstrates high architectural

value, often deteriorates because of neglect of conserva-

tion work or intentional devastation.

The city lacks an effective space planning policy. The

face of the capital city is heavily affected by powerful

investors who force construction of more and more high-

rise buildings, usually with no regard to their surround-

ings. Public opinion was on many occasions appalled at

suggested locations of commercial architecture. In 2008,

street protests were held during the debate on the shape of

one of the most symbolic places in Bucharest – Revolution

Square in the vicinity of the Royal Palace. The construc-

tion of skyscrapers right next to such temples as the

Catholic Cathedral or by the historic Armenian Church

caused huge scandals (Fig. 15). Paradoxically, free mar-

ket today – just like socialism in the past – causes the

degradation of historic sites and devastation of the cul-

tural landscape of Bucharest.

Contrasts have always been the defining elements of

Bucharest’s urban landscape and its unique character.

However, diversity does not mean complete lack of any

principles. The architecture of the capital city of Romania

had impassable limits – the limits of human scale – and

because of those limits the streets and squares of old

Bucharest offer true public spaces. However, since the

second half of the 20

century, this natural border has

EHHQEUHDFKHGPRUHDQGPRUHRIWHQ*ODVVVN\VFUDSHUV

just like socialist boulevards, are the most evident exam-

ples of that violation. New architecture also breaks the

limits of schematism beyond which form becomes cliché.

The architecture of glass boxes whose presence in

Bucharest has become universal today does not match the

artistic value of the interwar modernism. Maybe the con-

temporary builders of Bucharest should learn more from

their great predecessors.

[1] Celac M., Carabela O., Marcu-Lapadat M., %XFKDUHVW±DUFKLWHFWXUH

and modernity, Simetria, Bucuresti 2005, p. 14.

[2] Demel J., +LVWRULD 5XPXQLL =DNáDG 1DURGRZ\ LP 2VVROLĔVNLFK ±

:\GDZQLFWZR:URFáDZSS±

[3] Machedon L., Scoffham E., 5RPDQLDQPRGHUQLVP7KHDUFKLWHFWXUH

of Bucharest 1920–, MIT Press, Cambridge 1999, pp. 10–31.

>@2JLĔVNL 7 +LODULRSROLV 6FKD\HU L LQQL, August 18, 2008 [accessed:

December 12, 2010], http://schayer.blox.pl/2008/08/Hilaropolis.html.

[5] Stanculescu F., $UKLWHFWXUD3RSXODUD5RPLQHDVVD5HJLXQHD%XFXUHVWL,

Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti 1958, pp. 3–50.

[6] Tudor O., ,QWHUEHOOXP%XFKDUHVW9LFWRULD$YHQXH, Noi Media Print,

Buchuresti 2009, pp. 2–15.

References

0LĊG]\(XURSąD:VFKRGHP±V]NLFRNUDMREUD]LHDUFKLWHNWRQLF]Q\P%XNDUHV]WX

.UDMREUD]PLHMVNLUXPXĔVNLHMVWROLF\VWDQRZLV]F]HJyOQLHLQWHUH-

VXMąFH]MDZLVNRZDVSHNFLHXUEDQLVW\NLLIRUPDUFKLWHNWRQLF]Q\FKQD

WOHZLHONLFKPHWURSROLL(XURS\ĝURGNRZHML3RáXGQLRZHM2U\JLQDOQD

NRPSR]\FMD SU]HVWU]HQQD MHVW ]DSLVHP VSHF\ILF]Q\FK XZDUXQNRZDĔ

NXOWXURZ\FKKLVWRU\F]Q\FKLQDWXUDOQ\FK:DUW\NXOHSU]HGVWDZLRQR

]DU\V ZDUVWZRZHM VWUXNWXU\ SU]HVWU]HQQHM PLDVWD WZRU]RQHM SU]H]

SRV]F]HJyOQHJUXS\VW\OLVW\F]QHVW\OURG]LP\ÄPDá\3DU\Ī´PRGHU-

QL]PVRFUHDOL]PLZVSyáF]HVQRĞü

Key words: Bucharest, urban space, modernism 6áRZDNOXF]RZH%XNDUHV]WSU]HVWU]HĔPLHMVNDPRGHUQL]P

Translated by

7DGHXV]6]DáDPDFKD

Drawn by Mateusz Olczyk