Again Edgar Quinet 6

But on closer inspection, the ground floor immediately strikes us by the nobility of its materials and the preciousness of its "accessories", while on the opposite side of the narrow street we can see the weighted monumentality of a classical facade interpreted in a modern and refined manner.

It is, in fact, a representative example of the architectural culture of the late inter-war period, in particular of the synthesis between Art Deco aesthetics and monumental classicism, typical of the period.

However, by comparing the historical plans with the current cadastral plan, it can be assumed that today's building is a remodeling or reconstruction of an older building with a somewhat similar footprint. Incidentally, in the central area of Bucharest, many buildings, especially from the sec. In the center of Bucharest's central core, in particular in the 20th century, they are built on the foundations, cellars or the resistance structure of earlier buildings, and their 'modern' facades and volumes are adapted to the traditional planimetric types of the urban vernacular.

What information does a brief foray into the history of the area and the street provide? Section

between Calea Victoriei and Academiei

first appears in Major

Pappasoglu's plans of 1870-1875, under the name of New Street. The small street crossed the old estate of the grand vizier Slătineanu, where a theater ("Old Theater"

on Academiei Street) and the famous "Momolo" or "Slătineanu" ballroom, with a bistro and confectioner's on the ground floor, which were located in the Slătineanu houses on the Mogoșoaiei Bridge, bought by the Capșa brothers in 1868. Until the end of the 19th century, the two fronts of the new street complement each other, while the more important surrounding arteries keep their open plan.

In the 1895-1899 plan of the Army Geographical Institute and in the 1911 cadastral plan, the current plot at no. 6, which has the same shape as today, is occupied by a U-shaped building, with a plan layout typical of the 19th century urban vernacular in Bucharest: a compact body arranged in a row and occupying the entire width of the lot, articulated with two perpendicular bars at the back, plus annexes at the back of the lot. The building, with ground and first floors, can also be seen in aerial photographs taken in 1927 by the Compagnie Aérienne Française.

While stylistically the current six-storey building is undeniably affiliated to the classicizing aesthetics of the 1930s, the footprint on the cadastral plan reveals obvious reminiscences of earlier periods (which makes field and archival research necessary): the same compact body facing the street, slightly more developed in depth and articulated on the west side of the plot with a single, narrower and shorter secondary body. In addition to the two, which could be built on the outline of part of the old building, there is another narrow body at the back of the plot, in place of the annexes.

The new building, benefiting from its location in an active area of institutions and businesses, was conceived from the outset as an office building - as confirmed by the 1934 Official City Guide, which lists the Albina Bank and the Kodak Company at 6 Edgard (sic!) Quinet. The association of the two offices could explain the dissymmetrical compositional scheme of the façade, which probably corresponds to the spatial-functional needs of the interior: the two entrances, differentiated in terms of importance, arranged laterally on the ground floor, lead to the upper levels, with their different sizes and treatment, to the beams framing the central motif. In addition, the figurative decorations of the right portal - beehives and bees - explicitly signal the identity of one of the building's occupants.

Returning then to the façade, which fits perfectly into the continuous street frontage but stands out as a plastic treatment, the jovial monumentality it displays is striking - unostentatious, yet elegant and even sophisticated. The synthesis of these attributes is due to a skillful fusion of the classical language, preferred at the time for public buildings with a representational function, and the Art Deco aesthetic, favored for office and apartment buildings, hotels and commercial spaces, and entertainment and leisure programs.

The recovery of the classical paradigm in the 1930s has a double explanation. On the one hand, the entire post-BelleÉpoque period was characterized by a classicizing spirit (summed up by Jean Cocteau in the formula retour à l'ordre), which appeared as a legitimate reaction to the formal excesses of late academicism and the "1900" styles, but also to the provocative experiments of the avant-garde. On the other hand, the generalized crisis of the inter-war period was reflected aesthetically in an appeal to the morality, rigor and austerity evoked by classical values, and politically and economically in a tendency to strengthen the authority of the state, materialized in the monumental architecture of public institutions, whether they belonged to dictatorial or democratic regimes. The recourse to academic classicism, accompanied in the visual arts by a propagandistic realism, expresses the need for a concrete [self-]representation, intelligible to the broad masses, of state power and the order it imposes on society - hence the generic term "social realism" for this highly ideologized culture.

The solemn discourse of monumental classicism, however, is often tempered by the aestheticizing and stenographic "mutedness" of Art Deco language, turning into a stylistic expression that we can call "deco classicism". The two terms are not contradictory: as a soft hypostasis of inter-war modernism, the deco phenomenon promoted tolerance - even reverence - for tradition, as well as communicativeness and the primacy of immediate aesthetic pleasure over abstract principles, which explains the success it enjoyed at the time. Moreover, Art Deco aesthetics, with its optimistic and ponderously modern tone, frequently interferes with social realism, even prevailing through specific ornamental processes.

In the case of the facade in 6 Edgar Quinet Street, although at first glance the classical language predominates in the variant of modern inter-war classicism, the general tendency is Art Deco, mainly due to the characteristic manner of interpreting the classical repertoire.

The compositional scheme of the facades is based on the classic horizontal tripartition - the ground floor treated as a plinth, the main register (consisting of the five storeys) and the canopy register, here minimal, represented by a simple profiled cornice. The horizontal partition, accentuated by the presence of the canopy, is articulated with the Palladian motif of the central recessed portico (based on the Roman Pantheon), represented here by the three central arches supported by colossal pilasters with stylized Corinthian capitals. On the last two levels, the central field is occupied by two registers of arched windows, separated by short pilasters with stylized Ionic capitals. The recessed plane of the facade is clad with travertine on the ground floor, rhythmed by caryatids, while the rest of the surface is rigorously ordered by the stereotomic grid of decorative joints, which emphasizes the central decrocated motif.

However, the classical language is interpreted in the decorative-ludic key of Art Deco aesthetics: the colossal order is flattened and loses its sculpturality in favour of geometric graphics, which is particularly noticeable in the treatment of the capitals; the plastic force of the caryatids (in the fragments preserved), also flattened, is moderated by stylizing and modelling the forms in synthetic planes, and the ordering grid of the joints becomes a true ornamental pattern, which emphasizes the graphic at the expense of the tectonic.

The decorative fittings of the two entrances, which combine abstract ornaments such as the spiral (stylization of the vrej), the wavy line, the festoon and the octagon; the portal flanked by vertical quarter-cylindrical elements, treated in horizontal bands with alternating textures (marble and travertine) and fine carved details, are typical elements of the deco language; the decorative medallions with symbolic representations of the progress of society, whose optimistic rhetoric is in the vein of social realism (in this case, three repeating models illustrating Industry, Agriculture and Commerce through established motifs - the cogwheel, the sheds and chimney, the wheat sheaf, together with the classic caduceus); the decorative lettering inspired by advertising graphics and, last but not least, the modern motif of the continuous canopy with integrated lighting.

Inside, the publicly accessible spaces have undergone substantial changes following successive renovations, but still retain some delightful Art Deco details, such as the wrought-iron handrails of the staircase or the simplified capital of a half-cylinder in the entrance hall.

The "dialect" on the borderline between Art Deco and monumental classicism, illustrated by the building in question, can also be found in other fine buildings in Bucharest built during the reign of Charles II (the building at 5 Splaiul Independenței, arch. Nicolae Cucu, or the current headquarters of the Ministry of Justice, arch. Constantin Iotzu). The same formula was successfully adopted for many public buildings realized in Transylvania during the same period, with the rhetorical intention of expressing the prestige and strength of the reunited Romania, while maintaining a cordial and communicative touch (e.g.: works by George Cristinel in Sibiu and Cluj or by Victor Smighelschi in Satu-Mare and Blaj).

The above will be as many arguments in favor of classifying the building at 6 rue Edgar Quinet as a historic monument (recently requested by the Urban Observatory of the UAR through an emergency classification procedure), in the hope that it will not share the unfortunate fate of so many heritage buildings, mutilated or demolished under the inconsistent pretext of progress and modernization.

However, upon closer inspection, the ground floor surprises us by the nobleness of the materials and their precious "accessories"; on the opposite side of the street we notice the discrete monumentality of a façade in the classical style, interpreted in a modern and refined manner.

It is, in fact, a representative illustration of the architectural culture of the late inter-war period, namely that era of synthesis between the Art Deco aesthetics and monumental classicism.

However, by comparing the historical plans with the current cadastral plan, one may assume that today's edifice is a remodeling or a reconstruction of an older building, with a somewhat similar footprint. In fact, the central area of Bucharest boasts many buildings, especially from the XXth century, constructed on the foundations, cellars or load bearing structure of previous buildings, and their "modern" façades and volumetry are adjusted to the traditional planimetric types of urban vernacular architecture.

What information does a brief research of the area and the street's history provide? The section between Calea Victoriei and Academiei street is featured for the first time in the plans drafted by major Pappasoglu between1870 and 1875, under the name Strada Nouă. The small section pierced the old domain of great vornic1 Slătineanu, where functioned, as early as 1830, a theater ("Teatrul vechi" in Academiei St.) and the famous "Momolo" or "Slătineanu" ball room, with a pub and a confectioner's shop on the ground floor, arranged in the very houses owned by the Slătineanu family, looking onto Mogoșoaiei Bridge, and later purchased by the Capșa brothers in 1868. By the end of the 19th century, the two fronts of the new street came to complete one another, while the more important arteries around them kept their open regime.

In the Plan of the Geographical Institute of the Army, drafted between 1895 and 1899, and the cadastral plan of 1911, the current plot located at No. 6, which already evinces the same form as today, is taken up by a U-shaped building with a planimetry characteristic of Bucharest urban vernacular architecture dating from the early XIXth century: a compact block arranged along the alignment and taking up the entire width of the plot, articulated with two perpendicular bars at the rear, to which the appurtenances are added, at the rear part of the plot. The building, with a ground floor and an upper floor, can also be seen in the aerial photographs taken in 1927 by Compagnie Aérienne Française.

If stylistically the current six-storey building undeniably pertains to the classicizing aesthetics of the 1930s, the footprint in the cadastral plan betrays the obvious traces of previous periods (which calls for archive, as well as field research): the same compact block facing the street, slightly more developed in depth and articulated on the west side of the plot, with only one secondary block, narrower and shorter. The two, which could have been erected along the outline of part of the old building, are joined by another narrow block at the rear of the plot, in the place of the appurtenances.

The new building, benefiting from its location in an active city area strewn with institutions and business premises, was conceived from the start as an office building - as confirmed by the 1934 Official City Guide which featured, opposite the address Edgard (sic!) Quinet No. 6, Albina Bank, as well as the Kodak Society. The association of these two headquarters could account for the asymmetrical compositional scheme of the façade, probably corresponding to the spatial-functional needs of the interior: the two access ways, with varying degrees of importance, arranged on the ground floor, lead to bays on the upper floors, also varying in terms of dimension and treatment, which frame the central motif. Additionally, the figurative decoration of the portal on the right - beehives and bees - explicitly states the identity of one of the building's occupants.

Returning to the façade which perfectly fits in the continuous street front, while standing out on account of its plastic treatment, one can note its cheerful monumentality, devoid of ostentation, but also elegant and even sophisticated. All these characteristics have merged successfully because of a clever fusion between the classical language, preferred at the time for public buildings with representation functions, and the Art Deco aesthetic, favored for office buildings and apartments, for hotels and commercial premises, for entertainment and recreational establishments.

The recovery of the classical paradigm in the 1930s has a double explanation. On the one hand, the entire post-BelleÉpoque period was characterized by a classicizing trend (summarized by Jean Cocteau in the formula retour à l'ordre), which appeared as a legitimate reaction to the formal excesses committed by late academicism and the "1900" styles, as well as to the challenging experiments proposed by the avant-garde. On the other hand, the generalized crisis manifest in the inter-war period was translated aesthetically in the appeal to the morals, rigorousness and austerity evoked by classical values, and from a political-economic standpoint, in the tendency to strengthen the authority of the state, materialized in the monumental architecture of public institutions, whether they belonged to dictatorial or democratic regimes. The embracing of academic classicism, accompanied in plastic arts by a propagandistic kind of realism, expressed the need for concrete [self]representation, intelligible for the large masses, of the State Power and of the order imposed by it on society - hence the generic name "social realism" given to this intensely ideological culture.

The solemn discourse of monumental classicism is often well mitigated by the sthenic, aestheticizing "background noise" of Art Deco language, turning towards a stylistic expression that we can call "deco classicism". The two terms of the phrase are not contradictory: as a soft facet of inter-war modernism, the deco phenomenon promotes tolerance, even reverence, for tradition, in addition to communicativeness and the primacy of immediate aesthetic pleasure over abstract principles, which explains the success it enjoyed at the time. In fact, Art Deco aesthetics, by its optimistic, moderately modern tonality, frequently interfered with social realism, and sometimes gained the upper hand, by means of specific ornamental procedures.

In the case of the facade of the 6 Edgar Quinet house, although at first glance one might think that the classical language, in its inter-war modern classicism modern version, prevails, the general tendency is Art Deco, mainly due to the characteristic interpretation of classical repertoire.

The compositional scheme of the façades is based on the classic horizontal tripartition - the ground floor treated as a pedestal, the main register (consisting of the five floors) and the register of the coping, here minimal, represented by a simple profiled cornice. The horizontal partition, emphasized by the entrance covering, is articulated with the Palladian-inspired motif of the central detached portico (actually based on the model of the Roman pantheon), here represented by the jutty of the three central arcades supported by colossal pillars with stylized Corinthian capitals. On the uppermost two floors, the central field is taken up by two arched windows separated by short pilasters with Ionic capitals, also stylized. The receding plan of the façade is plated with travertine at ground floor level, and rhythmically decorated with caryatids, while the rest of the surface is rigorously ordered by the stereotomic grid of the decorative joints, which highlights the central detached motif.

However, classical language is interpreted in the decorative-ludic key of Art Deco aesthetic: the colossal dimension is flattened and loses its sculptural quality in favour of a geometrically ordered graphism especially to be seen in the treatment applied to capitals; the plastic force of the caryatids (in the preserved fragments), also flattened, is moderated by the stylization and modeling of forms in synthetic planes, and the ordering network of the joints becomes a genuine ornamental pattern, which emphasizes the graphic dimension to the detriment of the tectonic.

As elements specific to the art deco language, we can list the decorative iron work at the two entrances, which combine abstract ornaments such as the spiral (a stylization of the creeping stalk), the undulating line, the festoon and the octagon; the portal flanked by vertical elements enclosed in cylinder quarters, treated in horizontal stripes with alternating structures (marble and travertine) and fine sculpted details; the decorative medallions with symbolic representations relating to the progress of society, whose optimistic rhetoric pertains to social realism (in this case, the three recurrent models illustrating Industry, Agriculture and Trade by means of established motifs - the cogwheel, the sheds and the chimney, the sheaf of wheat, next to the classical caduceum); the decorative writing inspired by advertising graphics and, last but not least, the modern motif of the continuous entrance cover with integrated lighting.

Inside, the spaces accessible to the public underwent substantial changes following successive renovations, but still preserve several delightful Art Deco details, such as the wrought iron railings of the stairways or the simplified capital of a semi-column in the entrance lobby.

The border "dialect" between Art Deco and monumental classicism, illustrated by the building at issue, can also be seen at other prestigious Bucharest buildings, built during the reign of Carol the IInd (the building at 5 Splaiul Independenței, designed by architect Nicolae Cucu, or at the current headquarters of the Ministry of Justice, by architect Constantin Iotzu). The same formula had been successfully adopted at numerous public edifices constructed in Transylvania during the same period, with the rhetoric intention of expressing the prestige and force of unified Romania, while preserving a cordial, communicative note (for instance, works signed by George Cristinel in Sibiu and Cluj or by Victor Smighelschi at Satu-Mare and Blaj).

The above observations will prove to be just as many arguments in favor of classifying the building at 6 Edgar Quinet as historical monument (recently requested by the Urban Observatory of UAR by means of the emergency classification procedure), in the hope that it will not undergo the unhappy destiny of so many heritage buildings, mutilated or demolished under the unsubstantiated pretext of progress and modernization.