| |
As the capital of Romania, Bucharest can be also considered the primary source of the country’s modern architecture, beginning in the second half of the 19th century and continuing throughout the 20th century. Like other major European capitals, the search to define an emblematic national character for Bucharest’s architecture developed in relationship to historical precedents as well as the contemporary milieu.
The 19th century represented a period of major change for Bucharest in both political and cultural realms. The first half of the century encouraged Western European values of culture and civilization, thus announcing a massive import of several architectural currents—mainly neoclassicism and Romanticism—that progressively changed the Oriental aspect of the city. In 1859, as the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia unified, Bucharest became the capital of the new state of Romania and, in 1878, after the country won its independence from the Ottoman Empire, the capital of the kingdom of Romania. This gain in political prestige was reflected in the architectural field by an important campaign of building monumental official institutions and luxury residencies, all inspired by the French eclecticism of the École des Beaux-Arts. French influence, dispersed through the work of French architects or Romanians trained at the École, became so considerable that the city was nicknamed “Little Paris.” Urban planning followed the same way of modernization by assimilating the French model, as it happened for the creation of a series of boulevards inspired by Baron von Haussmann’s Parisian model. Parallel to the spread of foreign currents, the first Romanian architects attempted to create a style based on a national expression in Bucharest, interpreting the rich heritage of historic and folk tradition.
As the majority of Romanian architects studied at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, even after the foundation of the School of Architecture in Bucharest in 1892, their production mirrored the French aesthetic (primarily the historical revivalism and academicism of Beaux-Arts or the neobaroque). Among the most important public buildings designed according to the French method were the Palace of the Chamber of Deputies (1907) and the Military Circle (1912), both by Dimitrie Maimarolu, and the Palace of the Bourse (1911) by Stefan Burcus. However, the magnificence of the French influence was reflected mostly in the sumptuous compositions of private dwellings, such as those designed by Ion D. Berindey (1871–1928) and Petre Antonescu (1873–1965).
In contrast, the development of a “national” style emerged as a reaction against the omnipresent foreign stylistic models. Its aesthetics exalted the local tradition, interpreting major examples from the Wallachian architecture of the 18th century (considered as the most representative) and assimilating the craftsmanship and ornamentation of the folk architecture. The first buildings to incorporate a Romanian-based style were private homes, designed in tribute to a historicist vision rather than the modern International Style. The General National Exposition in 1906, celebrating 40 years of the reign of King Carol I, brought the official consecration of what could be called an indigenous Romanian style of architecture. Its picturesque character made it increasingly popular for residential architecture, but it also developed a monumental dimension, suitable for the public programs, such as the Institute of Geology (1906) by Victor Stefanescu, the Ministry of Public Works (1910) and the Bank Marmorosch-Blank (1912), both by Petre Antonescu, the School of Architecture (1912–26) by Grigore Cerchez, and the Museum of National Art (1912–38) by Nicolae Ghika-Budesti.
The creation of greater Romania after World War I by the unification of the ancient kingdom with Transylvania, Bessarabia, and Bukovina initiated a flourishing period for the country that fully benefited its capital as well. Bucharest developed into the most vibrant economic and cultural center of Romania and doubled in population. The “national” style became the official architecture for all architectural programs, from administrative buildings to social housing designed by architects such as Antonescu, Paul Smarandescu, and Static Ciortan.
Economic prosperity and a governmental legislation that encouraged construction transformed Bucharest into a huge building site. The penetration of new architectural ideas and modernist architecture was favored by several institutions and particularly among intellectual circles with shared progressive or avant-garde views. Modernist architecture never achieved an official status, but nevertheless it became the emblem of post-World War II dynamism. In fact, the first important modernist building, the ARO building (1929–31), was designed by Horia Creanga for such an institution: the insurance company Asigurarea Româneasca (ARO). Other important public buildings developed the potential of modernism, including those designed by Duliu Marcu, Rudolf Fraenkel, and Arghir Culina. On the other hand, the language of modern architecture—reductive geometries based on the grid, the elimination of ornamentation and historical references, the adaptation of technological materials such as steel and glass—was adopted largely in the housing programs by Horia Creanga, Ion Boceanu, Duliu Marcu, Tiberiu Niga, Octav Doicescu, and many others. Modernism was consecrated as a consumer architecture, and its various typologies of habitation, from the apartment buildings or villas to social housing, spread all over the city and to its suburbs. Several compact areas of the city were newly created during the 1930s, such as the central boulevards Take Ionescu and Bratianu and the marginal district Vatra Luminoasa, renovations that generated a completely new urban image. Among the industrial buildings, which were situated mainly at the periphery of the city, included the Malaxa Industries building (1930–40) by Creanga. Despite the austerity of the Creanga’s modernist vocabulary, he reached a remarkable expressive force that remained unequaled in the production of the industrial architecture.
Modernist architecture also shaped the national style, the latter of which adopted the former’s principles of formal simplicity and monumentality, developing a new expression and thus avoiding a certain regression induced by second-rate production. Modernism was embraced mainly by the young architects, such as Doicescu, Henriette Delavrancea- Gibory, and Constantin Iotzu.
By the end of the 1930s, the increased authoritarian politics of King Carol II, who declared his personal dictatorship in 1938, resulted in the promotion of a nostalgic classicism, common in the whole of Europe of the time. Frequently called “the style Carol II,” this tendency became the symbol of the official architecture, and it found in Duiliu Marcu, architect of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1937–44), its most accomplished exponent.
The installation of the Communist regime brought, among other consequences, “The Socialist Reconstruction” of Bucharest, an ideological and architectural movement that conferred a “suitable” image upon the city as a new socialist capital; this period extended from 1952 to 1989. However, although they almost always ignored precedent, the interventions on the urban fabric did not radically modify the central area of the city until the last years of the Communist regime. The sole important intervention of the early years was that of the complex of buildings (1959–60), by Horia Maicu and collective, erected in the Palace Square, which also included the former royal palace, reconverted into the National Museum of Art. The 1950s were marked, more than anywhere else in the country, by the coexistence of Stalinist architecture with rationalism, actually a continuation of the interwar architecture. The classicist formalism of the Casa Scîntei (The House of the Spark, 1950–51, Horia Maicu, Ludovic Staadecker, M.Alifanti, and N.Badescu), of the Romanian Opera House (1952–53, Doicescu), and of the housing program (the districts of Vatra Luminoasa and Bucurestii Noi) was contemporaneous— and sometimes executed by the same architects—with works that displayed the strong and authentic rationalism of the 1930s to 1940s, such as the Baneasa Airport (1948; M.Alifanti, N.Badescu, A.Damina, and P. Macovei), the Pediatric Hospital “Emilia Irza” (1950; Gr. Ionescu), the Pavilion H of the Expositional Center (1953; A. Damian), and the Palace of the National Broadcasting (1960; T.Ricci, L.Garcia, and M.Ricci).
The 1960s and early 1970s brought an opening toward Western European culture, including architecture. At the same time, this period was one of intensive construction activity. Housing was built, mainly in the peripheral districts of Balta Alba, Drumul Taberei, and Berceni. However, the most interesting architecture of these years were the functionalist public buildings, such as the State Circus (1960; N.Porumbescu), the Dorobanti Hotel (1974; V.Nitulescu, P.Vraciu, and Al. Beldiman), and the campus of the Polytechnic Institute (1962–72; Doicescu and collective).
After a violent earthquake in the city in 1977, the idea of a socialist capital was invigorated with the building of the Civic Center, which was of national importance and was intended to solidify architecture’s relationship to political totalitarianism and nationalism. This huge architectural complex, which was not yet completed in 1989, was situated at the limit of the historic center and was erected on a massively demolished area (about 500 hectares). During these years, the Bucharest architecture and particularly that of the Civic Center and the House of the Republic abandoned the previous principles of rationalism and functionalism in favor of a style that responded to the new ideological orientation.
The 1990s focused on the restoration of the area destroyed in the 1970s and 1980s and on the erection of the Civic Center. The international architectural contest “Bucharest 2000” (1995–96), organized by the Union of Romanian Architects, showed—particularly through the designers of the winning project (Meinhard von Gerkan and Joachim Zais, Germany)—viable solutions for articulating this area with the traditional urban fabric of the city and possibilities for synchronizing Bucharest architecture with contemporary European experiences.
CARMEN POPESCU AND NICOLAE LASCU
Sennott R.S. Encyclopedia of twentieth century architecture, Vol.1 (A-F). Fitzroy Dearborn., 2005. |
