L he most common cliché regarding Bucharest in archi-tecture books or city guides is the definition of the Ro-

manian capital as “A city between East and West.” Yet thecliché contains has some truth. Bucharest is not a typicalof east or west. Instead, it combed influences from bothworlds. To understand the city’s intricacies and paradox-es it’s vital to understanding the circumstances thatbrought both of these world together in a single urban en-vironment.

Experts say the city has an Eastern urban structure thatover time was tinged with Western ingredients, shiftingthe city’s balance from the East to West beginning in theearly 19th century. In truth, Bucharest’s geographical po-sition has always seen the city oscillate between the two

areas of influence, attempting to carve out its own iden-tity and spatial expression. This phenomenon continuestoday, as the city has moved from socialism to capitalismover the last two decades.

Located outside the southern Carpathians, in the coun-try’s southeast, Bucharest was founded in 1459, a fewyears after a fundamental historical event, the fall of Con-stantinople and the rise of the Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman rule in southeastern Europe had a significantimpact on the development of Bucharest in urban termssince the Turks were forbidden from building fortifica-tions in its main cities, which influenced the subsequentdevelopment of Bucharest and explains its sober expan-sion and the absence of a clearly defined center.

During the 17th century the city became the capital ofWalachia (‘Tara Româneascã’), among the most importantRomanian regions. Later, in the context of nationalistmovements that began in the mid-19th century, it becamethe capital of Romania. With the collapse of the Ottoman

with requisite nostalgia and melancholy, among thosewriting about the city’s development. But the remarkablesocial and cultural openness to the West endured, open-ing up even further in the period between the two worldwars when Bucharest began to host the interaction ofFrench, Italian and German culture, an aspect of growthand transformation that is well represented in the archi-tecture of the time. All the structures created in that pe-riod can be considered an important legacy. They gavecharacter to a certain kind of society and mentality thatis now very difficult to find and identify.

The second half 20th century produced extraordinarychanges. A city that had been totally to Western societyand cultural influences was tilted east, like the rest of thecountry, toward the mores of the Soviet Union. Later, un-der the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu (1964-1989),Bucharest entered a phase of near-total isolation. Buteven this isolated phase, in which the regime came aheadof all else, brought with it important if not extraordinarytransformation.

Empire and its government structure, Romanian regionsbegan opening up toward the values of Western civiliza-tion, embracing the French culture in particular.

Beginning in the mid-19th century that influence effec-tively “colonized” the whole capital without needing aphysical connection to France, a fact made possible bythe many intellectuals, artists and architects Romanianswho had gone to France for the their training and educa-tion and later returned to the city, carrying the Francoph-one development with them. Wide boulevards and eclec-tic architecture, clearly developed under French influ-ence, began to conjure up an idyllic city that at the startof the 20th century was often referred to as “little Paris.”

This is another cliché, which is often applied to the ear-ly years of urban transformation and still often comes up,

T

pieces, gargantuan Communist-era buildings,

and 21st century malls. text and photos by Oana Tiganea

Bucharestand the Capitalist RushRomania’s capital, like many of its Eastern European counterparts, has endured and interpreted the rush

to privatize and rebuild. The result is a vibrant capital that includes 19th century architectural master-

EAST . ROMANIA

21number 40 . february 201220 east . europe and asia strategies

FACING PAGE The vast Parliament House, the ex-Casa poporului,

erected by President Nicolae Ceausescu in the 1980s.

BELOW Inside the Ateneul roman, a structure built

in the late 19th century by French architect Albert Galleron.

LEFT Historic Bucharest.

CENTER Arcul de triumph, the Arch of Triumph,

built in 1936 and seen from Kiseleff Avenue in north Bucharest.

RIGHT The Patriarhia romana,

headquarters of the Romanian Orthodox Church,

was erected in the 1600s.

shopping centers built in the city, including theBucharest Mall, and in the suburbs (the Baneasa Shop-ping City is a good example of the latter). The develop-ment of Western-style malls coupled with the obsessionpost-socialist societies apply to private ownership hasproduced a progressive social abandonment of publicspaces. New Romanian society is more oriented to pri-vate life, treating one-time commons, or public spaces, asirrelevant ingredients in the context of a 21st centurylifestyle. Even newer structures are usually designedbased on individual needs, based on an owner’s privatepriorities, ignoring integration with public spaces andeven eliminating visual links through the installation ofwalls and gates for reasons of security and privacy.

The center of Bucharest is still dominated by the Ceaus-escu’s urban impositions, most built in the late 1980s.

His legacy is imposing and had to ignore. The People’sHouse, now known as the Palace of Parliament, the sec-ond-largest administrative building in the world in termsof size, as well as the widest and heaviest, now houses boththe Romanian Parliament and the Museum of Contempo-rary Art (the structure contains 1,100 rooms and 12 sto-ries). The presence of parliament is predictable, since themassive edifice was built for political purposes (Ceauses-cu intended the palace to be his personal residence andthat of the government). But presence of the museum is a

permanently influenced by fluctuations in the real estatemarket. In Bucharest, the control real estate became tan-tamount to control over political and economic life. As aresult, post-socialist cities gradually came to be managedunder capitalist economic rules.

What’s left of the Bucharest old town has been trans-formed into the city’s dining island. Many structures havebeen refurbished and revived into the mainstream of day-to-day urban life. In the meantime, residential buildingshave gradually vanished, mostly replaced by tourist fa-cilities intended to give the city a more European lookand generate greater economic profits. The new head-quarters of multinational companies, whose architectur-al look is impersonal and out of context, have become im-portant landmarks on the map of Bucharest. They havebecome strategic points in the center of the city and insurrounding areas, giving a new dimension to the capi-tal’s economic life.

The city’s social life has moved from public spaces to

23number 40 . february 2012

wards, new legislative measures focused on differentiat-ing between property, whether urban, rural or land locat-ed in forests. In theory, the laws were enacted to benefitof all those who had been defrauded by the nationaliza-tion process of 1948. In practice, however, things hadchanged during the years of Communist rule. Much ofconfiscated property had been transformed. The city hadbeen expanded and exploited, with new structures builton land that was once privately owned. Hundreds ofhomes and plots had been demolished or revamped.

This situation gave rise to a new set of legal issues andnew criteria, particularly with regard to ownership of ur-ban areas. Yet the massive changes endured by once-pri-vate property in the Communist years did little to slowdown the privatization process. The first capitalistdecade saw constant movement as real estate speculationboomed.

The transition to capitalism occurred at about samespeed the Communist transformation following WorldWar II. The process won’t be considered completed untilall property is privatized. The openness to the forces ofthe global economy, which the rapid privatizationprocess brought to the forefront, and which produced aslew of new economic opportunities, also resulted in arather chaotic approach toward urban space. With theprivatization of large state enterprises, and even portionsof the country’s national heritage, urban spaces became

Ceausescu was determined to build a new civic centerthat would stand as a superlative emblem reflection of to-talitarian regime. His urban plan literally wiped out threequarters of the city’s historic center, eliminating entireswathes of architecture and canceling parts of the city’surban continuum.

After the fall of the Communist regime in 1989, Bucha-rest, and Romania as a whole, moved from complete

isolation to a complete reopening to the West, once againembracing not only its economic principles but also thoseof social and cultural reform. As quickly as possible, thecity and the country sought to cover over the gulf causedby its 45 years under communism.

With this goal in mind, among the first steps was theprivatization of all property that had previously beenown by the state (this move would have extreme conse-quences Romania’s post-socialist society and economy).The first free and democratic Romanian constitutioncharacterized the right to private property as fundamen-tal, a right that no government authority could ever break.This approach toward private property had a profoundimpact on the post-socialist urban transformation of Ro-mania, and on Bucharest in particular.

All the property nationalized in 1948 was gradually re-assigned to the original owners throughout the 1990s,usually after complicated legal processes. From 1995 on-

22 east . europe and asia strategies

public better understand what urban inheritance means,so that the city better reflects the informed wishes of a freeand democratic society. .SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Celac Mariana, Carabela Octavian, Marcu-Lepadat Marius, “Bucha-

rest, architecture and modernity,” Simetria - Artcub, Bucarest 2009

(Third Edition).

Chelcea Liviu, “Bucurestiul post-industrial. Memorie, dezindu-

strializare si regenerare urbana,” Polirom, Bucarest 2008.

Cinà Giuseppe, “Bucharest, From Village to Metropolis. Urban Iden-

tity and New Tendencies,” Capitel, Bucarest 2010.

Harhoiu Dana, “Bucarest, une ville entre Orient et Occident,” Sime-

tria - l’Union des architects des Roumanie et Artcub, 1997.

Ionescu Grigore, “Histoire de l’architecture en Roumanie. De la pre-

histoire a nos jours,” Editions de l’Academie de la Republique So-

cialiste de Roumanie, Bucarest 1972.

“Architectura,” magazine of the Architectural Romanian Union.

“Zeppelin,” a magazine that deals not only with artichecture but

acts as a clearing house for archictural ideas.

25number 40 . february 2012

FACING PAGE

A typical Communist-era structure from the mid-1950s period.

ABOVE Splaiul independentei, the capital’s riverfront avenue.

24 east . europe and asia strategies

welcome surprise because it acknowledges the impor-tance of national heritage, at least in certain aspects of it.Bucharest has several parallel realities that coexist bothwithin and outside the city’s boundaries. They often standside-by-side in the political center, which was created tosymbolize Communist magnificence, and in historic ar-eas. But what most characterizes city are still the greatneighborhoods built long before 1989. Large concretebuildings used as apartments characterize the city’s resi-dential areas. These have an entirely different feel from thebuildings located in the city center, which is marked bythe privatization process and capitalist priorities.

After 1989, residents who occupied apartments pre-viously assigned to them by the state were given an

opportunity to buy them. Most of these apartments werebuilt from poor quality material, with an emphasis of pre-

cast concrete, leaving minimal habitable space. The res-idential areas of Bucharest that date back to the Commu-nist period are now characterized by a multitude of pri-vate apartments concentrated within the same housingblock. It is particularly interesting to see Bucharest resi-dents have begun focusing on ownership of a single per-sonal property, an apartment, namely, while conferringless importance on the more general concept of commu-nity that was once applicable to the whole building.

Since the 1990s, some residential areas have begun wit-nessing a series of piecemeal, usually individual effortsto alter the facades of large housing complexes, projectsusually undertaken by residents seeking to expand theirliving area. Some have closed off terraces and balconies,based on their own aesthetic priorities. Others have re-painted portions of facades. Still others have replaced oldwindows with newer models. The result of this pre-dictable meddling has been to mar the original design ofthe façade, all but erasing the builder’s original intention.This 1990s phenomenon has literally transformed the ap-pearance of Bucharest.

The city itself has also boomed. Official 2010 estimatesplaced the city’s population at 1,94 million. Since the ur-ban area extends past the city proper, the overall popula-tion is pegged at two million. Satellite towns around thecity would give the proposed metropolitan area a popu-lation of 2.3 million. Even today, Bucharest is the sixth-largest city in the European Union.

Local policies enacted over the last five years have es-tablished new restructuring norms that could see the ren-ovation of some of these facades, giving them richer col-ors. But there’s no assurance the reworking will be in har-mony with the general urban environment. MostBucharest neighborhoods are still dominated by largegray housing blocks, striking for the sense of sadness anddecrepitude they suggest.

The freedom of expression and creation that accompa-nied the advent of capitalism has brought with it aprocess of rediscovery of the city’s urban identity. Theprogress of Bucharest’s architecture inspired not only theWest but also the world as a whole, helping to sum up theimpact of entire movements as well as creating interest-ing examples of high-quality architecture.

But the tendency to “build big,” inherited from theCommunist past, has been perpetuated by today’s politi-cal leaders. Local authorities are consistently proposing

the building of new large-scale structures, in some casesmarkedly similar to those erected under communism.These only increase Bucharest’s already pronounced ir-regularity of scale.

In addition to the recent trend of adding modern wingsand façades to historic buildings (a prominent exampleis the Bucharest Architects’ Association Building, a mod-ern glass-and-steel construction built inside a historic s-tone façade), a significant number of office buildings areunder construction, particularly in the northern and east-ern parts of the city.

New proposals to build wide car byways once againcome at the expense of older structures, neglecting theidea of historical context in urban development. Car traf-fic is encouraged (every day, there are more than one mil-lion vehicles traveling within the city limits), whilepedestrians shunted away from the core of the city’s ur-ban space.

Some local architects, artists and historians, embrac-ing a sense of civics and revivalism, have managed toblock the construction of some of the more drastic proj-ects, saving a few key historical structures from sure dem-olition. They’ve also managed to save some of the city’sparks and public spaces. These kinds of citizen efforts,which have grown in recent years, aim to highlight andpreserve the complexity of the city. They aim to make the