| 
 Urban Renewal in Romania
by Violeta Puscasu 
 Key words: renewal, change,
          typological reorganization.  
 AbstractThe urban renewal drives theoretically a preliminary conceptual
          clarification: renewal versus change.  Temporally and
          phenomenologically the renewal is marked by paradigms and political
          influences. The article Urban Renewal in Romania propose not only a
          radiography of the renewal stages superposed to the major moments of
          urban change in Romania, with a closer look to the post-Communist
          period ,but also a drawing of  urban system perspectives in the
          new context of sustainable development. The division into periods of the evolution of the Romanian urban
          phenomenon is based on a sum of elements - physical, morphostructural,
          legislative and informational environment - which contribute to the
          shaping of a certain level of renewal, subsequently marked by a
          typological reorganization. The complexity of the urban growth makes,
          however, this typology, in the shape of socio-demo-urbanistic
          classifications, captures correctly the morphostructural
          classification of Romania towns. The supporting landmarks of any renewal are elements which are
          immediately visible or with ulterior effects on the strategy of
          spatial reorganization of a region, but not only necessarily positive. The way of new urban renewal paradigm applied in Romania are
          functionality and sustainability to small urban area and
          reconstruction and reintegration to the big urban area. A focus on the relationship between general and particular aspects
          of great urban axes in the future being in subject for the decisions
          makers are sintetically presented. 
 Dr. Violeta PuscasuUniversity "Dunarea de Jos"
 47, Domnaesca street
 Galati 6200
 ROMANIA
 Tel. +40 3646 0467
 Fax. + 40 3646 1353
 E-mail: vpuscasu@fsea.ugal.ro
 or v_puscasu@hotmail.com
 
 
          Urban Renewal in Romania1. INTRODUCTION The urban renewal is a concept which entered the
          specialized literature after 1990, at the same time with other new
          concepts, with or without a previous correspondent in Romania. In one way or another, every stage, temporally and
          phenomenologically delimited, is a period of renewal as compared to
          the previous background, not necessarily correlated to the positive. 2. RENEWAL VERSUS CHANGEThe urban renewal as a trend in planning and
          organizing the urban territory has a few defining constant elements
          and, obviously, at least a paradigm and at the same time a reference
          point which set it on a certain ideologic-pragmatical level and which
          differentiate it as for the aspect of aims. From our horizon of information, a conceptual
          discussion on the theme renewal versus change takes place only in the
          ivory tower of the consecrated capacities while those who dispose of
          the power of acting upon the material context appeal to conjunctural
          solutions, avoiding the profound thoroughgoing study of those
          uncomfortable themes pertaining to the present. We personally believe that in Romania took place
          and continue to occur at the same time renewal and change, the
          specific differences referring to the morphostructural physical
          environment of cities, the legislative background, the informational
          and registration system, the property, the financing etc. It is well known that the group of the European
          countries in transition, although still facing common characteristics
          and recommendations, react with different speed, disponibility and
          comprehension to the urban change/renewal. Further on we shall take a closer look at Romania’s
          specific elements in the process of urban renewal for a more proper
          integration into the European urban landscape. 3. EVOLUTIVE CONDITIONSThe 20th century brings into the Romanian urbanism
          three major moments: 
            
              the urbanism of the first half of the 20th
              century, where one can notice the coexistence, at the level of the
              forms, of an influenced urbanism – Bucharest seen as
              "the little Paris" and a local urbanism, with
              mixt urban plans and forms.
              the urbanism of the Communist period,
              manifested at least under three forms, judging by its effects: -
              juxtaposition
              infiltration
              replacement / implant.
              this state of facts constitutes at the present
              the context of relation of the urban renewal which is a process
              previous to the political changes.
              the "post- Decembrist urbanism", of
              the last ten years, which is totally and wrongly assimilated to a
              new era of renewal. The truth is that the insufficient lapse of
              time does not allow us to raise some aspects not fully clarified
              to the rank of tendency. In the same note of distinction between renewal and
          major change one can identify a sum of successive waves of renewal,
          produced in the context of major stages of change (Figure 1). In the juxtaposed urbanism, realized through the
          joining of the new structures to the traditional ones, two centres
          have often resulted, almost two different towns within the same built
          perimeter. We refer to what is commonly known as "downtown"
          / the new centre, respectively "midtown" / the old centre.
          This is the best situation, in which the salvation of valuable
          architectural sites – mostly mediaeval – was possible, as it
          happened in some cities from the centre and the West of Romania –
          Sibiu, Sighişoara, Braşov. The phenomenon is similar to
          those from the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany etc. The infiltrated urban may be considered, as opposed
          to the previous category, the most disastrous form of "urban
          renewal". Under the motto of "blending the new with the
          old" and of the "radical urban renewal", but also under
          the sign of an acute scarcity of construction materials – not to
          mention the scarcity of inspiration, too! – balanced urban
          compositions were destroyed, through demolition or isolation. Most cities and towns have lost their identity and
          local colour after the process of "territory and locality
          systematization", a process with major deficiences in relation to
          the preliminary evaluation which resulted in pshycological and social
          lacks of poise in addition to the rest of the shortcomings of this
          action (Abraham 1991). One of the identifying elements of the urbanism of
          the Communist period, shaped by a malignant infiltration, is the
          "tower-type block of flats", which used to hide slums, old
          buildings and surviving churches. The second defining element is the
          faulty functional zoning presenting industrial zones in the centre and
          reduced recreational sectors or green lungs. The third manifestation of the urbanism of the
          Communist period consists of the urban implant. In spaces without
          urban vocation towns or urban structures were founded, which later on
          proved their frailty. But this aspect is connected especially to the
          macroterritorial urban analysis and to the systems of settlements that
          make the object of distinct studies (Ianoş,
          1987). 4. WAVES OF RENEWALIn keeping with the proportion and the results
          obtained, one can distinguish a number of stages of renewal,
          categorically superposed or diluted into the local trends and false
          renewals. 5. RENEWAL AND CHANGE AFTER 1990The transformation of the town as a whole and of
          its internal structures after 1990 is the effect of a deeply changed
          juridical system. Most of the norms and institutions which mark out,
          directly or indirectly, the activity and the processes of urbanism and
          territorial planning are new. 
            
              |  | Renewal of the relations urban-rural/Modernism
 |  
            
              |  | Architecture dominated by simple lines |  
            
              |  | Replacement of construction materials |  
            
              | Change I | Change II | Change III |  
            
              | Elements of characterization |  
            
              |   | 
                  
                    predominance of State property
                    functional zoning
                    coexistence of the actual urbanism and
                    the conventional one
                    architecture dominated by simple lines,
                    lacking any aesthetic
                    system of settlements with un-balanced
                    regional texture |   |  Fig.1 Because their classification according to the
          object of settlement is difficult to make for the simple fact that
          some of them have only a reduced influence, we sometimes did not even
          directly made our option for a chronological display of the most
          representative ones: 
            
              Law 50/1991 regarding the authorization for
              executing the construction and some measures concerning the making
              of dwellings.
              the Government’s Decision regarding the
              organization and the functionning of the Ministery of Public
              Workings and Territorial Planning.
              Law of the Survey and of Real Estate
              Advertising (7/1996)
              Law of the Dwelling (114/1996)
              the Methodology of noticing the urbanism
              documentations and the touristic resorts
              the General Urbanism Regulations (552/1996) On a different area of interests, the privatization
          and the retrocession of some real estate and land properties, have
          determined an increase of normative documents which have changed the
          citizen’s quality and attitude towards property and have stimulated
          at the same time his/her initiative. Most notable are the Law of Land Funds (18/1991)
          and the Law of Free Initiative which had an immediate impact, direct
          and frequently negative on the urban landscape. In this case, what
          should have been a renewal was in fact a transformation of the already
          plain and harsh physiognomy of the urban landscape into a mixture of
          shapes and styles, of volumes and heights. The temporal disparity between the adopting of the
          laws have allowed in numerous cases an accentuated deterioration of
          some spaces, ranging from the proliferation of the inaesthetic
          provisory constructions such as booths and stalls to the degradation
          of lands and forests. However, what really represents a change and a
          renewal at the same time is the paradigm which governs the urban
          policy and acts. Although Romania finds herself in full process of
          searching her own ways of materializing the urban renewal, the
          acquired paradigm is the European one – the lasting urbanism. The future of urban renewal in Romania appears more
          in terms of desiderata and imperatives politically conditionned and
          less as a mechanism actioned by the community’s decision. REFERENCESGusti G., 1974, Forme
          noi de aşezare, 210p., Bucharest, Technical Publishing
          House. Ianoş I., 1992, Stabilitate şi
          instabilitate în sistemele geografice, 80p., Terra, 1-2. Ianoş I., Tălângă Cr., 1993, Impactul
          prăbuşirii regimului totalitar comunist asupra sistemului
          urban românesc, 313p., The Annals of the
          University, Bucharest, XLII. Commission of the European Communities, 1990, Green
          Paper on the Urban Environment, Brussels, Commission of the European
          Communities. 
 Biographical
          noteVioleta Puşcaşu is Doctor in Geography
          since 1998, Lecturer at University "Dunărea de Jos"
          from Galatzi, author of three books and more papers and articles
          presented in national and international congresses. Member of A.E.S.O.P., N.I.S.P.A. cee, Romanian
          Society of Geography. 
 Violeta PuscasuUniversity "Dunarea de Jos"
 E-mail: vpuscasu@fsea.ugal.ro
 or v_puscasu@hotmail.com
 27 March 2000
     |