Urbanism against nature. Thoughts on some recent "rehabilitations" of Romanian urban centers

In 2000, on the advice of Șerban Sturdza, I published, under the same title - "The debarring, cutting and soiling of Romania", in two Romanian magazines (Octogon, 1/ 2000, and Focus Vest, of April 20, 2000) a text (let's call it satirical) that he liked, against the various ways in which the country's green areas are being destroyed (without any logic and lacking an easily detectable target). I thought, at the time, that the aggression to which I was referring was a kind of family feud between the Romanian and his brother the cod, with no specific aim, and therefore all the more difficult to understand, control and correct.

I was reminded of the text in question while recently reading an article in Arhitectura, 6/2011, under the heading "Actualitate civis", entitled "Dialogue between the public and the project" and signed by Gál Zoltán Gál. The article presents (the tone is obviously satisfied) how the dialog between professionals (young architects and students) and the local urban community led to the proposal of three ways to "renew" the central square of Târgu Secuiesc, a space where historical value is intertwined with the morpho-urbanistic one, a binomial investigated in an exemplary way two decades ago by a veteran of ^{architectural} history1.

At a general glance, the process of involving young professionals in the redevelopment of a central urban area - the setting up of multidisciplinary working groups, the dialog with the townspeople and the results that are foreshadowed - is a good one, and could be an example for other small (or large) towns. Looking closely at the 3D simulations, however, I was struck by the lack of trees, which could easily be compared with the consistent mass of tall vegetation that I had long known and visible in the aerial photos published on page 12. It could have been a consequence of the style adopted by the modeler, but the text sheds light: the professionals' choice was to suppress the tall vegetation in the square because of the excessive shading, the limits of the square's usability and the difficulty of perception of the whole urban space (p. 12). This, despite the fact that the author recognizes that the view of the inhabitants (i.e. those who will use the space) did not coincide with the professional group's conception: 'The sensitive point for the inhabitants was the approach to vegetation' (p. 12).

Interestingly, the positive landmarks that the article considers (Sibiu, Baia Mare, Unirii Square in Cluj-Napoca, etc.) are achieved by the same superior disregard of the residents' (sometimes many professionals') choices by the designers. I remember the heated discussions in Baia Mare (during the approvals for the rehabilitation of the central square), in Sibiu (concerning all three squares), the resistance of the Catholic priest of "Sf. Mihail" (who was protecting the green area around his church) and the protests of Hungarian youth organizations in Cluj-Napoca (against the mineralization of the central square). An extremely recent and highly publicized example is Alba Iulia (in particular the Custozza Park), where one of the designers of the 'rehabilitation' of the historic city (fortifications and the intra muros area) considered it only natural that his 'opinion and concept' as an architect should take precedence over all other points of view. In particular, in Alba Iulia, of the several thousands of townspeople who signed petitions against the mineralization of the park and of several dozens of experts in landscape design, sociology, urban planning, architecture, history and archaeology who have written or spoken in that direction. Apart from that, their "technical" arguments resembled to the point of identity those of Târgu Secuiesc: unvaluable and unkempt tree species, growing too fast, unharmoniously developed, etc., etc., etc. Trying to draw a conclusion, I have to say that I am disappointed. I had a hope that tends to collapse. The hope that the young professionals from the Secuime (architects are largely educated in Timișoara and are very highly rated) would know how to respect the unity and organic nature of the city-nature relationship as a whole, in all its forms, and would know how to protect it. That is to say, they would know how to analyze an already historical reality (the trees in the square and their relationship with the urban environment) in a complex and correct way, they would not fall into the trap of "deficiencies in the perception of urban space because of trees", they would not believe that a plant is invented by man and only for aesthetic purposes and, above all, they would respect the wishes of users who should not be considered (insultingly, after all) as "nostalgic" or "traditionalists".

Quick, a few arguments for a different approach.

Discussing the perception of urban space (or architecture), the most basic (simple, learned at school) rules conclude that an empty space is inferior (aesthetically) to a "furnished" one, that a progressive perception accumulates much more information than a global one, that trees constitute "dynamic" filters of perception, different according to age and season, and many others.

If we are talking about air quality, shade and properly assessed urban comfort, greenery, and trees in particular, have a fundamental role to play that transcends the simple environmental or aesthetic purpose often pursued by professionals. Finally, a square should not necessarily be a space for "events" (too often forced or subcultural) or only for events (as is the case with the square that is to replace the Custozza Park in Alba Iulia), just as a historic center should not be transformed into a shopping mall.

At the end of the conclusion is an observation: the "architect-demiurge" morbus continues to wreak havoc even in small communities and every generation of architects must pay tribute to it, no matter how much they write or communicate against it. That's all for now (I promise to come back before long with an elaboration of the theme), inviting to decipher, even connotative, the title and, above all, inviting the young confreres of south-eastern Transylvania to a re-evaluation of the relationship between city and nature.

Keep, dear young colleagues, the trees in the square in Târgu Secuiesc! The rest of your otherwise very good ideas will not suffer, on the contrary!

Note

1. I refer to the research of the way of structuring the parcels defining the central square, as a result of some peculiarities of the Szekler urban legislation, allowing the transversal division of the parcel in the process of succession and resulting in a kind of "family alleys" (udvarterek) linking the square to the back streets, a process explained, I believe, for the first time by Gheorghe Sebestyén, in A page in the history of Romanian architecture - Renașterea, Bucharest, 1987, pp. 99-102