Bucharest: a postmodern city?

In the face of such a term "suitcase" - consistent, moreover, with the relativist, hierarchical and systemicist essence of the movement - I will dwell on what I consider revealing for the topic at hand.

HETEROGENEITY, DIVERSITY,^MIXTITY5

Bucharest, built in most of its fabric between the end of the 19th century and the present day, bears different stylistic marks: old religious architecture; eclecticism (cult - monumental or popular - local); national school (in its different variants); inter-war modern architecture; attempts at: gothic, Moorish, art deco; the rubedenii of Stalinist baroque; "socialist" architecture; contemporary architecture - all coexisting in a happy "concordant discord"^.6

In many cases we are dealing with a mixedness in contiguity. We can cite from a long list: Calea Victoriei, the boulevards of the northern axis, Dacia Boulevard and a large neighboring area, streets named after capitals and those named after aviators, etc.

The quality of these tissue fragments is undeniable. In an (extremely abrupt) analysis of the causes of their success we could note: the relevance of the regulations of the time; the professionalism and conscientiousness of the architects, the nature, objectives and

behavior of the commissioners; the strength of certain codes and adherence to them.

I can already hear the question: has Bucharest, then, been in postmodernism for more than a century, even if only partially?

If we accept that postmodernism is not only a historical moment and its deliberate product, but also an attitude (such as "baroque", "classical", "romantic") or the "natural" result of a combination of factors - the answer can only be positive.

Exceptional? By their historical nature, cities aggregate different cultural-artistic interventions. So, a common generic situation, but nuances of color can lead to considerable qualitative differences. Rather rare are the cases where particular historical situations have left such a strong imprint that the totality fades in favor of this pre-eminence. Half a millennium ago, the Florentines created, in the space of a few decades, an urban model (albe albeit a limited one) that continues to fascinate people everywhere.

Is not being bequeathed to such a model (or to the boulevards of Paris, Manhattan, Brazil) worth pushing us to seek or recreate, at all costs, comparable situations? No!

Postmodernism - with its excessive enthusiasms, its great theoretical approximations and confusions, its inconsistent architectural experiments - perhaps has the merit of freeing us from certain complexes, of freeing us from an infertile pensée unique.

Arhitectura a dus a crâncenă bătătălie pentru a fi "conștiință", quando ce ce aștep oamenii, în primul rând, de la ea sunt "trăiri".

Trăiesc astfel, de câte ori sunt la București, farmecul plimbărilor pe străzi care permit, în fiecare moment, întâlirea cu una bună arhitectură sau descoperirea unor încântătoare atmosfere^.7

There is much to be done, but this is perhaps the real legacy. It is in advanced precariousness. Let's not let it disappear.

The character of Bucharest depends on it!

⁴ Charles Jencks - LE LANGUAGE DE L'ARCHITECTURE POST-MODERNE, Academy Editions, London, 1979, pg. 129, trans. N.L.

⁵ Jane Jacobs - THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES, Ramdom House, 1961

⁶ Serlio, 1584 - BOOK SEVENTH, pg. 168

⁷ Silvia Colfescu - "Câteva străduțe bucureștene: un microcosmos", ARHITECTURA, nr. 2/2011, pg. 43-49

Faced with such a "portmanteau" term - one that is otherwise in keeping with the relativist essence of the movement, which rejects hierarchies and the idea of a system - I shall focus on what I think is relevant to the subject under discussion.

Heterogeneity, Diversity,^Assortment5

Bucharest, whose built fabric dates mainly from the period between the late nineteenth century and the present day, bears the stamp of varying styles: old religious architecture; eclecticism (monumental/religious and local/traditional); the national school (in its various forms); modern inter-war architecture; attempts at Gothic, Moorish, and Art Deco architecture; relatives of the Stalinist baroque; "socialist architecture"; and contemporary architecture, all of which co-exist within a felicitous "discordia concordante."⁶

In many cases, what we have is a contiguous assortment. We may cite a long list, which would include Calea Victoriei, the northern boulevards, Dacia Boulevard, a broad outlying area, the streets named after capital cities, and the streets named after famous aviators.

The quality of these patches of the urban fabric is undeniable. A very cursory analysis of the reasons for this quality would include pertinence to the regulations of the period; the professionalism and awareness of the architects; the character, objectives and comportment of the architectural patrons; and the strength of certain codes and abidance by them.

I can already hear you ask: has Bucharest therefore been postmodern, even if only partially, for more than a century?

If we accept that Postmodernism does not only constitute a historical moment and its conscious product, but also an attitude (in the same way as the "baroque", "classical" and "romantic") and the "natural" result of a sum of factors, then the answer can only be yes.

Is this anything exceptional? By their historical nature, cities aggregate various cultural and artistic interventions. And so, this is a generic current situation, although individual hues can result in considerable qualitative differences. Rare are the cases where particular historical situations have left such a strong imprint that the whole fades in comparison with such pre-eminent periods. Half a millennium ago, the Florentines created in the space of just a few decades an (undoubtedly limited) urban model that continues to fascinate even today.

In order not to be the heirs of such a model (or of that of the Parisian boulevards, or Manhattan, or Brasilia) is it worth pushing ourselves to seek or recreate comparable situations at any cost? No!

Postmodernism - for all its excessive crazes, its great approximations, its theoretical confusion, and the inconsistencies of its architectural experiments - perhaps has the merit of releasing us from certain complexes, of freeing us from a barren "pensée unique".

Architecture has waged a fierce battle to be a "consciousness", whereas what people expect from it above all are "experiences".

Whenever I am in Bucharest I experience the charm of strolls along streets which at every step permit an encounter with good architecture or the discovery of enchanting atmosphere^.7

There are many things to be done, but this is probably the authentic heritage. It is in a highly precarious state. We ought not to allow it to disappear.

The character of Bucharest depends on it!

⁴ Charles Jencks - LE LANGUAGE DE L'ARCHITECTURE POST-MODERNE, Academy Editions, London, 1979, pg. 129, trans. N.L.

⁵ Jane Jacobs - THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES, Ramdom House, 1961

⁶ Serlio, 1584 - BOOK SEVENTH, pg. 168

⁷ Silvia Colfescu - "Câteva străduțe bucureștene: un microcosmos", ARHITECTURA, nr. 2/2011, pg. 43-49