STUDIAUBBGEOGRAPHIA,LVIII,2,2013,pp.99‐110(RECOMMENDEDCITATION)

THELANDSCAPEMORPHOLOGYOFCLUJ‐NAPOCARESIDENTIALNEIGHBOURHOODS

S.O.DEAC1,I.A.IRIMUŞ2,B.N.PĂCURAR3

ABSTRACT.‐TheLandscapeMorphologyofCluj‐NapocaResidentialNeighbourhoods.ThestudyathandsetitssightsonCluj‐Napocaurbanterritory,especiallyitsbuilt‐upareaestablishedthroughtheGeneralUrbanPlan.ItanalysesCluj‐Napocahousingareas,whichcomprise the city’s residential neighbourhoods and presents their territorial positionwithin the city, their main spatial characteristics, themain historical events from theirevolutionand theirurbanisticorganizationpattern.Furthermore, itportrays thecurrentsituation of the neighbourhoods’ landscape morphology and the opportunities fortheir rehabilitation and landscape reconstruction.Themain goal of the paper is themorphologicalevaluationofCluj‐Napocaneigbourhood landscapeasacomponentof theinhabitants’qualityoflife.Agreatemphasiswasputonthewayinwhichthesegreathousingensemblesassumed,integratedandcapitalizedthenaturalpotentialoftheirarea.In order to do so,we used data from cartographic and topographic sources, geological,geomorphological, historical data, information from the future General Urban Plan andfromscientific literature.Theresults indicatethat,withsomeexceptions, there isapoorlandscape and urban comfort quality in Cluj‐Napoca residential areas. The advantagesofferedbythenaturalframeworkwereinmostcasesneglectedandevenannihilated.Thenewresidentialareasdamagedthecitybywastingthenaturalpotential.Fromnowon,theabilitytoplantheseareascanonlybesummedupasmanagementaspects.Keywords: Cluj‐Napoca, landscape, General Urban Plan, Grigorescu neighbourhood,Mănăşturneighbourhood,Gheorghenineighbourhood.

1.INTRODUCTIONTheemergenceanddevelopmentoftheCityofCluj‐NapocaisbasedonaDacian

settlement,Napoca(orNapuca),whichkeptandincreaseditseconomicandstrategicroleduringRomanrule(startingwith220AD,whenitbecameaRoman“colonia”andwasnamedAureliaNapoca). Itssubsequentdevelopment is tightlyconnectedto thecomplexityofthephysical‐geographicalconditions,andtotheeconomic,politicalandculturalfactors.

Its location, at the confluence of threemainwaterways, SomeşuMic River,Nadăş and Chinteni streams, the presence of the northern hills (Lombului, SfântuGheorghe),ofthesouthernhills(Făget)andofthemiddleridgeofHoia–CetăţuiaHill,withanorthernandsouthernslopeaspect,awardsthecityamorphologicaldiversity,aqualitywhichhasbeenpoorlycapitalizedsofar.1ClujCountyCouncil,400094,Cluj‐Napoca,Romania,email:simomircea@yahoo.com2Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,FacultyofGeography,Cluj‐Napoca,email:irimus@geografie.ubbcluj.ro3ClujCountyCouncil,400094,Cluj‐Napoca,România,email:pacurarbogdan@ymail.com

S.O.DEAC,I.A.IRIMUŞ,B.N.PĂCURAR

100

Thecity’sresidentialareascreatedbefore1989neighbourareasofcollectiveandindividualhousingbuiltinthelast10years.ThetraditionalhousingareasofCluj‐Napocaemergedduringthecommunisterainordertosatisfytheincreasingdemandfor housing during the industrialization period, and were located in places free ofconstructions,atthecity’soutskirts,ontherelativelyflatterrainsofthemeadowsandterraces of SomeşuMic Valley. Thus the following neighbourhoodsmaterialized, inchronologicalorder:Grigorescu,Gheorghieni,Mănăştur,Mărăşti,AurelVlaicu,andZorilor(MitreaV.,MaximDanciuI.,2009).

Thenewmunicipalhousingareasappearedandexpandedduringthe2005‐2010economicboom,outofaneedtochangethehousinglifestyleofthecommunistera.Therewasaneedtoabandonthecityasatraditionalhousingareaandreplaceitwithitsoutskirts,situatedinthesurroundingnaturalareasofthecity,orevenfurther,in theadjacentperiurbancommunes.This tendencywasspeculatedby thenouveauriche, who built housing and then sold them without caring about the lack of anyfacilities,includingaccessroads,electricity,gas,waterandsewage, telecommunicationsorotherspecificendowments(greenareas,retailandservices).Theinvestorsdidnotevenplantodevelopthesefacilities.Theyexploitedtothefullthetractsof landthattheyownedbybuildinghousingunitswithoutanycorrelationwiththeneighbouringareas.Thusincoherenturbanformsemerged,servedbypoorlyestablishedconnections,andwithalifestyleonthelimitbetweenurbanandrural.

ThemainaimofthisresearchisthemorphologicalevaluationofthelandscapeofCluj‐Napocaresidentialareas,whichwillbeattainedinthefollowingmanner:

‐thepresentationofCluj‐Napocageologicalstructure;‐thelocationanddemarcationofresidentialareaswithinthecity;‐theidentificationofthemorphologicalmaincharacteristics;‐theindicationofmajorhistoricalmomentsintheiremergenceandevolution;‐thepresentationoftheplanningandlandscapeorganisation;‐theidentificationoffutureperspectives.2.MATERIALANDMETHODSTheurban landscape isdefinedby thecity’s features,modelsandstructure,

includinginthiscasethebiologicalcomponent,thephysicalenvironmentandthemanmadeelements.Intermsofitsstructure,thecityistheresultofacontinuousstratificationofmajorpoliticalprojectsandminorindividualprojects,thatfolloweachotherintimeandoverlapinspace(IoanaTudora,2009).IoanaTudoraconsidersthattheurbanlandscape“formsastratifiedmemoryofallthesocialgroupsthatusedspaceovertime”(IoanaTudora,2009).

Inordertoattaintheobjectivesoftheabovementionedresearch,weusedthefollowingmethodsandtechniques:

‐fromthespecialisedbibliography(geologicalmaps),weextractedinformationregardingthegeologicalstructureofCluj‐Napocaterrainandwedescribedthegeologyofthestudiedarea;

THELANDSCAPEMORPHOLOGYOFCLUJ‐NAPOCARESIDENTIALNEIGHBOURHOODS

101

‐inordertolocateanddemarcateCluj‐Napocaresidentialareas,weusedthecitystreetmap,uptodatesatelliteimagery,topographicmaps,thefiscaldelineationof thecity’sneighbourhoodsandthegeneralurbanplanofCluj‐Napoca(thecurrentplanandtheonetobecompleted);

‐ the main characteristics of Cluj‐Napoca residential areas were identifiedthroughfieldresearchandconsultingthespecialisedreferences;

‐thecrucialhistoricalmomentsintheevolutionofeachareawereidentifiedbyconsultingthedocumentsofthetime,scientificpapersandphotographicdocuments; ‐ the identificationof theplanningand landscapeorganisationwasmadebystudyingthegeneralurbanplan(thecurrentplanandtheonetobecompleted),thelegislationandthroughfieldwork.

3.RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONSIntheevaluationofthemorphological landscape,thegeologicalstructureof

theterritoryandthemainlandformtypesarecrucial.ThebedrockoftheCityofCluj‐Napocaismadeofthefollowingtypesofdeposits:

Paleogene(LateEocene,Oligocene)alongthevalleysofSomeşuMic,NadăşandCăpuşandNeogene (Early andMiddleMiocene),while the superficial deposits aremainlyQuaternary(PleistoceneandHolocene)(C.Baciu,S.Filipescu,2002)

On Cluj‐Napoca territory the following genetic landform types have beenuncovered(Stoian,2011): thestructurallandformsarerepresentedbythestructuralsurfacesdominatedhere

andtherebyerosioninselbergs,themostrepresentativebeingCetăţuiaHill.Fromageotechnicalpointofview,theseareassuitableforbuildings,avoidinghowevertheescarpmentfacesduetotheirsusceptibilitytogravitationalprocesses;

the sculptural landforms include two erosion levels and prequaternary erosionsurfacesfoundonthenorthernslopeofFeleacuHill(situatedataltitudesof600–650mand450–550m).ThetwosurfacesaremainlyshapedintheSarmatiansands of Feleacu Hill and are affected by gully erosion, ravines, torrents, andsuperficiallandslides.Takingintoaccounttheirgeologicalstructure,composedofbrittledeposits(Sarmatiansands,clays,marl),thereisaslightgeomorphologicalvulnerability. These processes currently affect built‐up areas in Bună Ziua andZorilor,aswellasthenewhousingestablishmentsinFăget;

the denudation landforms include the morphology caused by the action of thesemipermanentwaterflowonslopes,mainlyonthenorthernslopesofFeleacuHill;

thefluviallandformsincludethevalleycorridorandtheterracesofSomeşulMicRiver.As thenatural context is subjected to a typeofhumanactivity, inour case,

habitation,itleadstospecificurbanforms.Thedelineationoffunctionalareaswithinacityistheoperationinwhichthe

cityisdividedintocertainzonesaccordingtothedominantactivityofeachzone.Thelegal document throughwhich this operation is enacted is the city’s general urbanplan,anextremelyimportantstrategicproject,establishedforaperiodofutmost10years.Themainactivitieswithinthecity,whichrepresentthemaincriteriumforthe

S.O.DEAC,I.A.IRIMUŞ,B.N.PĂCURAR

102

delineationof functionalareas,areset inthe legal frameworkthateverygeneralurbanplanmust obideby and canbe classified as follows (MethodologicalGuide,MLPAT,1999):industrialandstorageactivity,agriculturalactivities,housing,communicationandtransports,greenandsportareas,communalmanagement,edilitaryworks,services,specialdestination,other(agriculturallandwiththebuiltuparea,landsoccupiedbyforests,waters,idleland).

Fig.1.Intheforeground–thelandonwhichGrigorescuneighbourhoodwilllaterbebuilt;inthebackground‐CalvariaChurchandtheareacurrentlyoccupiedby

Mănășturneighbourhood.Dateofphotounknown.(Source:SebastianMogaCollection,"VechiulCluj"Association)

Wegrouped the residential areasofCluj‐Napocaaccording to their location

relatedtoSomeşulMicRiver,themainaxisinthecity’shistoricalandspatialevolution,acorridoralongwhichmostofthecirculationisorganizedandtheareathroughwhichthe connectionbetween the city’s residentialneighbourhoods is realized.Therefore, ontheleftbanksofSomeșulMic(fig.1),onecanfindtheolderGrigorescuarea,situatedontheriverfloodplain,atthebaseoftheSomeşulMic‐Nadăşwatershed,thenGruia,locatedon the eastern andnorthern slopesof the abovementionedwatershed, andDâmbuRotund–Iris,locatedalongtheNadăşcorridor,onitsleftbanks,inthelowersectorofLomb‐SteluţaHillsouthernslope.NewhousingareascanbefoundinWestGrigorescu–extensionsofEremiaGrigorescu–Donath,ValeaSeacăStreet–DâmbulRotund,Lomb–Steluţaareas,OaşuluiStreet.

Ontherightbanksoftheriver,aswellasonthenorthernslopeofFeleacuHill,onecanidentifythefollowingneighbourhoods(fromwesttoeast):Mănăştur‐Plopilor,Zorilor,AndreiMureşanu,Gheorghieni,Mărăşti,AurelVlaicu,Someşeni(thelasttwosituated on the lower terraces of SomeșulMic),with “expansions” towards FeleacuHill,asnewhousingareas,muchmoreextendedthaninthenorthernpartofthecity:ValeaGârbăului, SouthCâmpului, Făget, SouthZorilor, Europa, BunăZiua,Borhanci,Becaş,SouthAlexandruVaida‐VoevodandSopor‐Budunuş.

THELANDSCAPEMORPHOLOGYOFCLUJ‐NAPOCARESIDENTIALNEIGHBOURHOODS

103

In the following pages,wewill analyze themorphology of the landscapeofthese areas, emphasizing their location within the city, the main morphologicalcharacteristics, a short history of their development, their urbanistic and landscapeorganizationandtheplansfortheirfuture.

3.1.TheneighbourhoodsontheleftbanksofSomeșulMicGrigorescu neighbourhood is situated in the western part of the city, along

Donath,GeneralEremiaGrigorescu,AlexandruVlahuţă,FântâneleandOctavianGogastreets.Thegeneralaspectofthemorphologyisgivenbytheflatareasituatedonthefirst terrace (relative altitude of 2 – 6m) of SomeşulMic. Thenatural environmentoffersconditionsforagoodhabitationinthisarea.TheextensionsonthesouthfacingslopesofCetăţuia–Hoiawatershedaresporadiccomparedtothetotalareatraditionallycoveredby theneigbourhood.Thehousing establishment is composedof individualhousesbuiltunderdifficultgeotechnicalconditions,onasteepescarpmentface,withslopesexceeding20˚nearCetăţuia–HoiaHill,mostlyunsuitableforconstructions.

The neighbourhoodwas built during 1960‐1962 (fig. 2) and represents thefirst attempt to create a functional residential area in Cluj‐Napoca, being plannedaccording to the standards of the time. Itwas structured into three complexes andsufferedslightdensifications.Thecurrentimageofthisneigbourhoodhasitsrootsin1937,whentheareawassubjectedtoanurbanizationprojectwhichcreatedthemainstreetsandagoodbuilt‐uparea(accordingtoMitreaV.,Maxim‐DanciuI.,2009).

ThelegendoftheshepherdnamedDonath,whosavedthecityfromtheTurks,isalsoconnectedtotheplacenowcalled“TheTurk’sCut”.Thisisalsotheoriginoftheoldnameofthearea,Donath.In1960,thenameofDonathwasreplacedwiththatofEremiaGrigorescu.Today,theeasternsectoroftheneigbourhoodisdominatedbysinglefamilyhouses,whilethewesternpartbycollectivehousing.Grigorescuisabeautifulresidentialareawithhousesaswell aswithblocksof flats, plentyof greenareas, playgrounds forchildrenandlowlevelsofnoisepollution.ThebanksofSomeşulMicRiverwereconvertedinthisareaintogreenspacesandrecreationalareas.

Fig.2.Grigorescuneighbourhoodinthe1960`s(Source:SebastianMogaCollection,"VechiulCluj"Association)

The architecture of many housessituatedhereisareminiscentoftheoldcity. For example, “Tătaru House” wasbuiltin1921,bytheItalianarchitectGioPonti, being one of the most expensivevillas in the city. Close to Grigorescuneigbourhoodone can findHoiaForest,which hosts the open air section of theTransylvanianMuseumof Ethnography.All these advantages, as well as itsinteresting history and beauty, makeGrigorescu neighbourhood the perfectresidentialarea.

S.O.DEAC,I.A.IRIMUŞ,B.N.PĂCURAR

104

Gruianeighbourhoodlayseast‐northeasttotheabovementionedneigbourhood,betweenHoreaStreettotheeast,HoiaForesttothewest,andtherailwaytothenorth.

Themorphologycomprisesthefifth(60‐75m)andthefourth(30‐45m)terracesandgenerallystableslopesbetween2and5degrees(sporadically)andmostlybetween5and 15 degrees, facing east and north. The area also contains sliding processes, someravenesandgullies,andPleistocenelandslidewaves.Housingispredominantlyindividualinnature,capitalizingthesitewhichoffersabeautifulviewofthecity.Onedisadvantagefor the landscape of this area is the extension of “Dr. Constantin Rădulescu” footballstadium,asitewhich leadstomajor functionalshortcomingsduetothe lackofparkingspacesandbyblockingtrafficduringimportantvenues.

DâmbulRotund‐Irisneighbourhoodissituatedinthenorthwesternpartofthecity,betweentherailwaytothesouth,OaşuluiStreet–ChintăuValleytotheeast,andPopeştiValleytothewest.Themorphologicalcharacteristicsarethesouthfacingslopes,between2‐5degreesand5 ‐15degrees,exceeding15degrees insomesmallareas.TheslopesofLombHillhost fragmentsof the fourth(30–45m), fifth(60–75m),sixth(100–110m)andseventh(125–140m)terracesofSomeşulMicandNadăşrivers,but the neighbourhood is situated on the fourth and fifth terraces. In this area, thetributariesof the twomainvalleys sank, creating secondarywatersheds that end instructural precipices. The features of the isolated watersheds repeat the generalphysiognomy of themain watershed, leading to a specific aspect called round hills(“dâmburirotunde”inRomanian)bythelocals.Thesetributarieshaveshort,gradualstreams,withhighslopesaffectedbylandslides.Suchphenomenaposeagreatthreattotheconstructionssituatedthere(T.Morariu,I.Mac,1969),alongsidegravitationalprocesses,somerecentslidesandcreep(S.Poszet,2011).

Thisisanareadominatedbyindividualhouseholds.Inthelastfewyears,theneighbourhoodheavilyexpandednorthwards, thenewconstructions “attacking” theslopesofLomb‐SteluţaHill.Oneaspectthatinducessomedysfunctionsisthefactthatthe new streets have been constructed along the slopes, transforming them intotorrents during heavy rains, which flow into Maramureşului, Giordano Bruno, andPartizanilorstreets,wherethesewagesystemcannotcopewiththeflowofwater.

There are almost no recreation and sports facilities or green areas, thehabitationborderingtherural,withitscharacteristicwayoflife.

3.2.TheneighbourhoodsontherightbanksofSomeşulMicMănăştur‐Plopilor neighbourhood is situated between Someşul Mic to the

north,GârbăuluiValley to thewest,MănăşturForest to thesouth, the right slopeofPopiiValleytotheeast.Itsmorphologyismadeofafloodplainareatothenorthandslopesfacingnortheast,hostingintheirprofilesfragmentsfromallseventerracesofSomeşulMicRiver,theareabeinglocatedonthefirstfiveterraces.Geomorphologicalprocessesaremissing.TheneighbourhoodhasahistorythathascoincidedtimeandtimeagainwithCalvariaChurch(fig.3)andbeginsinthe11thcentury. At that time,around theBenedictinechurchofCalvariaandtheeponymoushill, the village of Mănăștur was established, inhabited by farmers that served theconvent.Thenameofthehillandofthecurrentareacomesformthewordmonastery.

THELANDSCAPEMORPHOLOGYOFCLUJ‐NAPOCARESIDENTIALNEIGHBOURHOODS

105

In1895,theconvent’svillagewasintegratedinCluj,whilein1965thehousesweredemolishedtomakeroomforanewresidentialareafortheworkingclassaccordingtotheplansofNorthKoreanplanners.

The actual construction began in 1971, but the neigbourhood continued to be“improved”andextendeduntil1989.Fromthestart,ithasbeenaresidentialarealackingin facilities andgreenareas,buthada recorddensityof466 inhabitants/ha (MitreaV.,MaximDanciuI.,2009).Beingheavilypopulatedarea,withahighconstructiondensity,itwasconnectedtotheeasternindustrialareaofthecitythroughatramline.

Fig.3.AerialviewofCalvariaChurchduringthe1950s(Source:SebastianMogaCollection,

"VechiulCluj"Association)

SituatedbetweenGovora,GheorgheDima,andMovilestreets,Mănăşturcemeteryisalsoinadequatefromalandscapepointofview,asitcoversalargeareaandoffersadistressing view. This area requires a massive aforestation in order to subdue itsdisturbingimage.

Theneighgbourhoodwasthesubjectofanurbanrehabilitationstudy,drawnup by the Planwerk company (E. Pănescu, 2011),which proposed the creation of asecond predominantly pedestrian network of circulation. At the intersection of thetwonetworks,several tractsof landwere identifiedforthemissingfunctions:markets,shops,recreationareas,parkinglots.Moreover,adiagonalconnectionwasproposedasanewgreenaxis,whichwouldalsoconnecttheneigbourhoodwithFăgetforest.

Zorilorneighbourhoodwasin1989theresidentialareaofCluj‐Napocalocatedatthehighestaltitude(465m),abovethetemperatureinversionlayerthatoccursinwinter, which meant major benefits in terms of urban comfort. It has a beautifulfeather shape, and the streetsweredesigned in suchamanner that they follow theterrain configuration. It is situatedbetweenGheorgheDima,GeorgeBacovia, EugenIonesco,andCaleaTurziistreets.Themorphologyischaracterisedbythepresenceof

After 1990, the area extendedsouth, anddevelopedawide rangeof services and trade. Being abedroomcommunitythathosteda population of roughly 68000people (Dana Vais, 2006), theneighbourhoodisoneofthelargestinthecountryandthelargestinthecity.With the exception of Plopilor(which benefits from a sportsparkwith restricted access), theneighbourhoodhasadeficitingreenareas (only 5.31 sqm/inhabitant),publicplacesforrestandrecreation,playgrounds,andparkinglots.

S.O.DEAC,I.A.IRIMUŞ,B.N.PĂCURAR

106

terraces(thesixth‐100‐110mrelativealtitude)andbytheexistenceofnorthfacingslopesof5to15degrees.Theseslopesfullyintegratedinthebuiltupareaaretemporarystabilized,coveredbyshallowdepositscurrentlyaffectedbycreep.NorthZorilorbeganitsconstruction in1979,whileSouthZorilor ‐Europa isstillexpanding,developingon theseventhterrace(125–140m)andonthesurroundingnorthfacingslope.SouthZorilorsomewhat lacks green spaces and recreational areas, but North Zorilor has aneighbourhoodfocalpoint,acentre(theturnaroundandthesquaresituatedattheendPasteur street) and also rather extended green areas ‐ “AlexandruBorza”BotanicalGarden,thenewlyestablished“IuliuProdan”Park,partsofthemaincemetery,etc.

Thesouthernpartof theneighbourhoodwentthroughaprocessof“urbanisticchaos”.Theaccesstowardsdowntownishamperedbytheterrainconfigurationandbytheabruptstreets:CaleaTurzii,Republicii,PasteurandPăstoruluistreets.TheZorilor–MănăşturroadconnectionwasplannedtoensureapropercirculationspeedeventhoughthewesternslopeofPopiiValleyisextremelysteep.

OneofCluj‐NapocabestresidentialareasisAndreiMureşanu,situatedinthesouthern part of the city, between Constatin Brâncuşi, Fagului, Becaş, Calea Turziistreets, and the intersection between Observatorului Street and Calea Turzii. Themorphologyischaracterisedbytheexistenceofalargefragmentofthefourthterrace(30–45m),measuringsometimes800minwidth,withoutactivegeomorphologicalprocesses. The habitation is primarily individual, with villas and houses of greatarchitectural value,with true examples of stylish living, and streets that ascend theslopesofFeleacuHill.Itisagenuinegarden‐city,createdthroughamajormobilisationof the local authorities during the interwarperiod. Themunicipality acquired the entiretractofland,plannedandreplottedthearea,drew the street layout, inserted all thenecessaryfacilitiesandfinallyresoldtheplots,whichwere laterbuilt up. Some researchersconsider absolutely necessary to declare theneighbourhoodaprotectedarea(E.Pănescu,2009).Southofhere,climbingthesteepmiddlesector of the northern slope of Feleacu Hill,onecanfindtheresidentialareanamedBunăZiua, currently under development, on bothsidesoftheeponymousstreet,withachaotic,incoherentstructure.

Gheorghienineighbourhoodwasbuiltonlandsoccupiedbysemiurbanhouseswithlargeplotsofland,andorchardsofvegetablegardens. It is currently located betweenConstantin Brâncuşi, Nicolae Titulescu streets,SlănicalleyandAlexandruVaida‐Voevodstreet.Thethird(20–24m)andfourthterraces(30–45)arepresent,connectedbyslopes.Theselands are suitable for construction, with no

Fig.4. Gheorghienineighbourhood–immediatelyafterconstruction

(Source:SebastianMogaCollection,"VechiulCluj"Association)

THELANDSCAPEMORPHOLOGYOFCLUJ‐NAPOCARESIDENTIALNEIGHBOURHOODS

107

geomorphologicalprocessesandslopesbelow2degrees.Between1964–1965,twomicrodistrictswerebuilt(IandII,consideredbyspecialistsasthebestimplementedurbanistic plans, according to a study of “Arhitectura”Magazine, 1979, in Pănescu,2012,aswecanseeinfig.4),followedin1969bytwomore‐thethirdandthefourth‐SouthAlvernamicrodistricts.

Theprinciplesthatgovernedtheplanwerethoseoffunctionalisturbanism,thefacilities being distributed equally and hierarchically, offering kindergartens, schools,markets,healthcarecentresandpolinuclei–Mercur,Diana,andHermes.Southoftheneighbourhood,anextensiveparkwasplanned,established in1970,butreducedasseveral collective housing units were finished in 1995. The eastern part of theneighbourhoodisdominatedbycollectivehousing(blocksofflats),whilethewesternpartbyindividualhousingalongstreetsthatradiatetowardsthemiddlesectorofFeleacuHill.

Mărăştineighbourhoodwasbuiltinseveralstagesbetween1976and1996.Itissituatedintheeasternpartofthecity,betweentherailwaytothenorthandTraianMoşoiu,Semenicului,Coasteistreetstothesouth,onthefirstandsecondterracesofSomeşulMicRiver,onaflatmorphologywherecompactionphenomenaoccuredonalargescale.Itsconstructionpartiallyignoredtheprinciplesofurbancomfort,mainlyin terms of facilities and green spaces, focusing instead on the collective livingquarters required at the time. Continuous fronts with first floors for services andretail predominate, with little recreation and parking spaces. The cohabitation ofcollectivehousingandsinglefamilyhousesledtoadensityofjust264inhabitants/ha(V.Mitrea,2009)andatotalpopulationof53500people(DanaVais,2006).

Mărăştiwas built due to the need of housing for the increasing number ofworkersoftheHeavyMachineryfactory.AlsocalledtheLowerTown,itusedtobeanareaofhouses,anextensionofthecitycentre.

TheinhabitantsofoldMărăştiservedthecentre,byprovidingfreshfoods,aswell as labor and several services. The current location of 1st May Square was theplaceofresidenceformanyworkers,whiletheareasurroundingSt.PeterChurchandDorobanţilorwaswherethefarmerslived,theso‐called“hostezeni”(fig.5)

Fig.5.DorobanțilorStreet(Source:SebastianMogaCollection,"VechiulCluj"Association)

S.O.DEAC,I.A.IRIMUŞ,B.N.PĂCURAR

108

At theendof the19th centuryand thebeginningof the20th century,Hostatneighbourhoodwasaresidentialareawithahighdegreeofqualitativeemancipation.That is why some specialists (L. Popa, 2011) consider the creation of the newneighbourhood“oneofthemostunfortunateurbanisticdecisionsofthelastcentury”.Today,itisanareawithahighdegreeofairpollutionduetoheavytraffic.

AurelVlaicu istheeasternextensionofMărăştineighbourhood,coveringthetoppartofthesecondterrace,intensivelymodifiedbyhumanintervention,andapartof the floodplain terrace.The connection slopesbetween the two terracesare steepand contain green areas (Expo Transilvania) or are part of the new constructions(“OctavianGoga”CountyLibrary–NokiaBuildingarea).Itiscomposedoftwoensemblesdivided by Aurel Vlaicu street, continued by Traian Vuia Avenue. In 1992, it had adensityof250inhabitants/ha(MitreaV.,2009).Itwasbuiltasanewresidentialareaofthecitywithouttakingintoconsiderationthefunctionalistprinciplesofthe1960s.

TheareacontainsastringofsmalllakescreatedbythemasscompactionofriverdepositsfoundinthefloodplainofSomeşulMicRiver,withintercalatedgreenareasthatareaffectedbyconstructionsfromalldirections.Anyfutureimprovementprojectisdoomedtofailduetothelackofspaceasthebuildingspushtilltheedgeofthelakes.Theareaisalostopportunity to establish new green areaswithin the city. Therewere several amazingprojects for a neighbourhood garden in the southern part of the area (on the currentlocationofACEfactory)andalsoforÎntreLacurigarden,buttheynevercametofruition.

Moreover,thereisnoneighbourhoodcentre,thisfunctionbeingpoorlyprovidedby IuliusMall.The landsof thisarea, thatwereoccupiedbefore1989,didnotcomeinto the attention of investors after the thresholdmoments of 1989‐1990,with thesingleexceptionofTeodorMihalistreet.

Heavyvehicletrafficandespeciallythelowflyingairplanesraisethenoisepollutionlevelstorecordhighs.TheareaissituatedclosetoCluj‐NapocaInternationalAirport,whichiscurrentlybuildinga3500mrunway,meaningthatnoiselevelswillcontinuetorise.

Someşenineighbourhood (fig. 6) is the product of including the villagewithsamenameinthecityperimeter.

Fig.6.Someşeni,Someşfalău,Szamosfalva,Mikelsdorf.Thesettlementwasfirstattestedin1280.TheGermannameofthesettlement(mentionedonthemapofJohannesHonterus)comesfromthenameofMikolafamily.Untilthe20thcentury,itneighbouredthecityofCluj‐Napoca.Inthebackground,St.ElisabethRoman‐CatholicChurch(16thcentury)(Source:Sebastian

MogaCollection,"VechiulCluj"Association)

THELANDSCAPEMORPHOLOGYOFCLUJ‐NAPOCARESIDENTIALNEIGHBOURHOODS

109

ItislocatedonafragmentfromthetopofthesecondterraceandontheSomeşulMicRiverfloodplain,wheresome10mthickfillingscausethe instabilityofbuildingfoundationsduetocompaction.Theareastillkeepsitsruralcharacteristics,dominatedbyindividualhousing,withgardensandevenanimalshelters.

3.3.Thenew residentialareas are former agricultural lands,whichwere

not included in the city’s development policies in terms of street network andinfrastructure.Intermsofterrainconfiguration,theselandsarequitedifficulttobuildon, having steep slopes, numerous geomorphological processes, and challengingfoundationrequirements.Suchlandshavebeentheobjectofpoornotaryprocedureswhichledtotheemergenceof“anad‐hocurbanfabric(fig.7)andanamalgamationofweird,heterogenous,conflictualurbanforms,eachresultingarchitecturalcomplex…lacking any assembly, association and urbanistic adaptation relation with thesurroundings,withtheareaorwiththecity”(L.Popa,2011).

Fig.7.HabitationunitonCâmpuluiStreet(left)andapartmentbuildingsinFăgetForest(right)(http://ziuadecj.realitatea.net,accessedon24.04.2013)

The legislation allowed for deviant urban plans (ZUP‐DUP) to legalise this

typeofconstructions.Theterrainlandscapevalencesareforestsoragricultural landsetforrecreationoragricultureandcompriseCluj‐Napocagreenbelt(PopaL.,2011),alongwaterways, tributariesofSomeșulMic,withbeautifulviewsof thecityand itssurrounding areas. These advantages were annihilated by the shrill nature of theisolatedconstructions,withexaggeratedheight levelsorby the rowsofhouses thatarenotintegratedintoacoherenturbanbody.

4.CONCLUSIONSThelargecollectiveresidentialareasareconsidered(DanaVais,2006)themost

visibleheritageofthecommunistera.Theyareandwillbeforaverylongtimeanessentialpartoftheurbanlandscape,adefiningframeworkofurbanculture.Duetothefactthatcurrently they constitute private property, the landscape rehabilitation processes, as apartofthelargerrehabilitationpolicies,willhavetowait,astheseplansareimpossibletobeputintoeffectrightnow.Therefore,thefutureoftheseneighbourhoodsisdifficulttoforesee,fromallpointsofview,notonlyfromalandscapeperspective.

S.O.DEAC,I.A.IRIMUŞ,B.N.PĂCURAR

110

Regardingthenewresidentialareas,theywillundergoamassiveurbanisationprocess stipulated in the upcoming General Urban Plan (GUP Cluj‐Napoca, 2009).Theseplanningendeavoursare,inourview,significanturabnandlandscaperehabilitationactionsthatmustbeimmediatelyimplementedinCluj‐Napoca,thusinsuringaproperplanningdirectionforthiscity.

REFERENCES 1. Baciu.C,FilipescuS.(2002),“StructuraGeologică”înCristea,V.;Baciu,C.;Gafta,D.“Municipiul

ClujNapocaşizonaperiurbană.Studiiambientale”.Edit.Accent,ClujNapoca,p.25–36.2. Irimuş, I.A., Petrea, D., Rusu, I., Corpade, A., (2010),Vulnerabilitatea spaţiului clujean la

proceselegeomorfologicecontemporane.StudiaUBBGeographia,Cluj‐Napoca.3. Mitrea,V,MaximDanciuI.,(2009)Cluj‐Napoca,unoraşînmişcare,Tribuna,Cluj‐Napoca.4. MorariuT.,PascuŞt.(1957),Consideraţiigeografico‐istoriceasupraetapelordedezvoltare

aoraşuluiCluj,inStudiaUBBGeographia,Cluj‐Napoca.5. Morariu.T.,Mac,I.,(1969)RegionareageomorfologicăateritoriuluioraşuluiClujNapocaşi

împrejurimilor,StudiaUBBGeographia,Cluj‐Napoca.6. PănescuE.(2009),„Urbanismulclujean, lipsuri şirealizări” în„Cluj‐Napoca înproiecte,50

deani1960–2010”(2012),coordonatorVirgilPănescu,albumpublicatsubegidaUniuniiArhitecţilordinRomânia,pag595.

7. Pănescu,V. ‐ coordinator (2012),Cluj‐Napoca înproiecte,50deani1960–2010, album,UniuneaArhitecţilordinRomânia.

8. PopaL.(2011),„Clujulsubvremuridefebrilitateimobiliară”în„Cluj‐Napocaînproiecte,50deani1960–2010”(2012),coordonatorVirgilPănescu,albumpublicatsubegidaUniuniiArhitecţilordinRomânia,pag.427.

9. Poszet,S.L.,(2011).StudiudegeomorfologieaplicatăînzonaurbanăCluj‐Napoca,Tezădedoctorat.FacultateadeGeografie,UBB,Cluj‐Napoca.

10. StoianL.C.,(2011),„ImpactulantropicasupracalităţiimediuluiînmunicipiulCluj‐Napoca”,Tezădedoctorat,UniversitateaBabeş–Bolyai,Cluj‐Napoca,FacultateadeGeografie.

11. Tudora, Ioana (2009),Teoria peisajului. Definirea interdisciplinară a peisajului, USAMVBucureşti.

12. VaisDana(2006),„Spatiulurbaninpost‐socialism:Cluj”în„Cluj‐Napocaînproiecte,50deani 1960 – 2010”(2012), coordonator Virgil Pănescu, album publicat sub egida UniuniiArhitecţilordinRomânia,pag.422.

13. ***PlanUrbanisticGeneralalMunicipiuluiCluj‐Napoca,MemoriuGeneral(2009),proiectantgeneralUniversitateaTehnicăCluj‐Napoca,vol.MemoriuGeneral,pag.109.

14. ***ActualizarePlanUrbanisticGeneralCluj‐Napoca,Studiude fundamentarepentru protecţiamediului,capitolul“Geografie,morfologie,hidrologie,climatologie,studiiregionale”(2009),elaboratorUniversitatea Babeş – Bolyai Cluj‐Napoca, director de contract prof. univ. dr.VasileSurd.

15. ***Ghidul privindmetodologia de elaborare şi conţinutul – cadru al planului urbanisticgeneral,reglementaretehnică,indicativGP038/99aprobatprinOrdinulMLPATnr.13N/1999.

16. ***ColecţiadefotografiiSebastianMoga,AsociaţiaVechiulCluj,Cluj‐Napoca