by Karina Kreja (PL)

After the falling of Ceausescu regime Romania became a democratic country. The country faces many economical and political problems now-a-day, but the biggest of them is process of changing man's mentality. There is many factors influencing on the speed of the process. Among them architecture seems to be one of the most important. The danger of architecture is caused by its resistance to changes. Romanians will have to live in the block of flats and work in the plants built in previous 40 years for next 20 or more. It makes them still exposed to indoctrination, although they can deny so. The process of absorption of capitalistic ideas is much slower in socialistic surrounding. No wander - how to believe in new slogans when they stay in opposition to almost everything what is visible in Romania?

By what architectural means soc-realism implied new way of thinking? What are an effects of it and what is a forecast? I will try to find an answers.

1. Socialism

Soc-realism was a style specific not only for Romania, but Ceausescu regime left a special mark on it. His ambition was to fulfil invented in Moscow sentence concerning art:

"National in form, socialistic in contents"

As the all of "New Speak " slogans this one means something completely different than it seems to mean. The straightforward explanation of it is that everything in architecture is possible under only one condition: it must be recognisable as soc-realistic. But what does it means? First of all: materials. The most favourite of them was a concrete as a symbol of extended possibilities (in opposition to brick): easy to form and its perfect combination with steel brought a new solution of building. Prefabrication was a way to creation new world. Second: monumentalism in style. As an every empire style in the human history. Typical means to express it: collumnads and infinitive axes.

2. Habitation

Districts of habitation had mushroomed since late fifties, always in close connection with plants region, where living in the district people were suppose to work. Idea of block of flats, highly skilled inside and surrounded by green gardens was not new. It had its roots in XIXth century utopia of building global happiness. New district were expected to bring a new quality of living, much better than the one available in overcrowded working districts of big cities. It was the way to stop pathology of the city destroyed by industry.

Modernism offered wide and sunny flats in a big "habitation plants" - block of flats, supplied with water, central heating, sevage system and electricity.

Socialism overtook all those ideas and turned them into reality on the enormous, never before seen scale. In the late sixties and beginning of seventies millions of people received living standards which one generation before was available only for the richest class of society. But it turned out that this beautiful theory has almost nothing in common with reality. People were unhappy living in the prefabricated block of flats because they do not feel their identity with a place. Putting people in typical flats caused the feeling of total lack of importance - there was no personality, no individual needs, but the number in statistics.

Architects have redefined social space - place of local activity meeting with neighbours. To build closed, separated from outside world yards was against of health postulate according to which every flat had to have an equal access to sun and open view. Without social space (although it was said that there is one!) people have lost possibility of social control and contacts. Just two steps behind the front door of a flat everyone became anonymous - in the big block including hundreds of flats it is impossible to know everyone, especially when the only moment of contact is when you pass by a person. It led to the new pathology of life.

So felt down the idea of short communication between a place of work and home. In socialism ones got a flat was forever. There was no possibility of exchanging them. People had to go for hours in purpose to get to the place of work by means of public transport.

Global result is even worse. Prefabricated block of flats do not bring any context of the place they grew: the same building like in the capitol might be find in the mountain town, in completely different surrounding. District of buildings instead of positive gives indifferent impression, space between blocks in place of familiar became hostile and devastated. Always windy they give an impression of abandoned city. A street in traditional meaning stopped to exist and became a way of communication only.

3. Industrial Architecture

Industrial architecture was suppose to glorify system as the full expression of socialistic idea - leadership of working class. Every available to projectants means were involved in this process. Normally impressive by the size buildings of factories have been changed into monuments of work - they became bigger, more consolidated and higher than before. The importance of place of work was stressed by urban means : sometimes the greatest factory of the city close the view of the main street to be a visit card of the town. Overhuman scale of it gave feeling of proud for people working there and indeed - they felt so! It was suppose to be a demonstration of working class power - just look how strong we are! A perfect idea of constant indoctrination. Like a subway in Moscow - plants in Romania became a sort of palaces for crowds. Usually modern in form, sometimes they were dressed in semi-historic, soc-realistic decorations (Scinteii, Bucuresti)

4. Buildings of social destination

In opposition to block of flats and industry, architecture of the objects predestined to commerce, sport, offices etc. is more various and interesting. In this objects Romanian architects showed they real creativity. Unique in form, they are still very representative and "morally young" - useful and acceptable for people. From modernism they took an idea of beauty by simplicity of form, which does not mean banal. A final result of harmony is not unusual. If only ideas of soc-realism are not curiously stressed they fit to the total picture. Flying curved roofs of sports halls and exhibition pavilions give us information about technique Romanians architects disposed (what a pity that it was only occasionally!). The best works shows how creative and sensitive they are.

5. Urbanisation

Accepting ideas of Modernism, Soc-realism overtook an idea formulated by Le Corbusieur in the beginning of XXth century:

"We must built in the open"

Which means that every building is independent from surrounding architectural context. Result of it was a lack of structure: accept a very centre of a town there was no connection between neighbouring buildings, very often there was a lot of space left. So was in the living districts. Every block is like an island of materia surrounded by empty space. There is no real streets in a living district: there are the ways for cars and different for people, but the structure they built has not a value of the street. So it lost a traditional character, giving communication aspect well solved instead.

In the regime times there was no real value for lands. It was the will of the dictator what ruled economy and develop of infrastructure. Buildings were built were Ceausescu ordered to do that. Result was very often horrifying like a huge post-modern hotel built in the middle of historical structure, putted there in completely senseless way (hotel "Carpati" in Brasov) or a very famous Sciantii in Budapest, reminding Versailles.

6. Final conclusion - post soc-realism?

There is no doubt that Romanian architects can easily accept a new situation they face up now. They have already improved their imagination. Of course there is a lot of challenges they have to face like respecting a real value of money, accepting of a free market system. But they have a lot to offer for future investors: very fresh and enthusiastic way of creation (despite all!), different than the West-European one. I hope that they will manage to avoid a trap all the central European architects felt in: second-hand postmodernism, pretentious and indigestible in many cases. It would be great to find a resistance for this somewhere in the previous eastern block. I think that Romanians people are quite predestined for it: they are very proud of their culture and independent in thinking - at least the Romanian people I had a pleasure to meet!

last update: 11 JUL 2002 by Ralph