Argument on topic: Historical monuments in Romania

1. The list of monuments is debatable.There are many architectural works of great value that are not on the list, but also buildings that, although they represent a bygone era, do not have exceptional qualities but have managed to occupy positions, causing confusion about the quality of architecture. Whose responsibility is it to complete the list up to date, and what is the deadline by which we will no longer just have to hope that certain important, unlisted pieces will not be permanently replaced? Is the listing a responsibility, a commitment of the state, through the relevant ministry, to preserve the architectural heritage, or is it a private, community initiative, arbitrated by the state through its competence?

2. The terms used are questionable. Historic monument? How is it that certain buildings belonging to common programs, because of their value as witnesses of history, become monuments? The terms used by other cultures, such as heritage, patrimony, commemoration (Denk-mal), seem more appropriate to me. Are there historical monuments and non-historical monuments? Architecture cannot escape history just as the category of monuments refers more to something built for the purpose of commemoration rather than to something made monumental by the passage of time and listing.

3. It is not clear for historic monuments what is to be protected, what and to what extent should be preserved or what are the required, recommended or usual ways of intervention.

Listing requires the approval of interventions by committees which are generally not guided by valid theories and do not provide regulations, and are usually perceived as closed circles, not free from conflicts of interest of their members. There is also a general perception of the preferences of these commissions as promoting pastiche or anonymous architecture, generally rejecting contemporary approaches.

4. Protection is perceived rather as a chore, a barrier, which does not produce incentives to conserve, but on the contrary, which is seen in the techniques of ruin and destruction leading to downgrading and replacement for greater real estate efficiency. The mismatch between conservation laws and taxation reinforces this trend. Being the owner of a heritage building should be a privilege and an opportunity, but in Romania this is not the case.

5. The state is not able to set the bar by the way it preserves its own heritage properties, proving once again that it is one of the worst owners through its institutions. How can you create a favorable context for conservation and protection if the most important historical monuments in public ownership are in poor condition? When it comes to religious buildings, the situation is even worse.

6. The state administration in charge of heritage protection does not provide a publicly accessible database showing the state of the heritage, the destruction and new listings, the evolution and quality of conservation, rehabilitation or restoration interventions. The heritage is kept hidden from the point of view of subtle evidence, probably also in order not to reveal the total inefficiency of the system.

7. Restoration skills certification licenses are issued occasionally and not on demand, keeping the field exclusive to a small number of "specialists" who, although they have the market thus assured, cannot cover it. This strikes me as a fundamental error. Preservation should be part of the common activity of any architect with skills guaranteed by a master's degree, covered by a diploma and practiced in an internship, without any special training. The competence of the commissions should be special, which, if they had performance based on a qualified system, remunerated and free from conflicts of interest, would be sufficient to ensure the necessary quality filter for interventions on architectural heritage.

There is much more to be said, but it is all too well captured in the Habitat board game produced by Odaia Creativa, in which demolitionists and restorers compete with each other, a game which, to end on a more cheerful note, all the members of the (CNMASI) commissions should play before they receive their confirmation of mandate.

1. The list of monuments is debatable.There is a large num-ber of architectural works that are not on the list, but also structures which, although representative of past periods, do not possess exceptional qualities but have managed to occupy prominent positions, thereby causing confusion with regard to architectural quality. Who is responsible for keeping the list up to date? Is the list a responsibility and un-dertaking of the state, via the relevant ministry, with a view to preserving the nation's architectural heritage, or is it a pri-vate, community initiative merely arbitrated by the state?

2. The terms are debatable. Historic monument? How is it that certain ordinary buildings become monuments based on the fact that they have witnessed history? The terms heritage and Denkmal seem to me more appropriate than the Romanian patrimoniu. Are there historic and non-historic monuments? Architecture cannot break free of history, the same as the category of the monument sooner refers to something constructed with a view to commemoration rather than something that has become monumental because of the passing of time and the fact of its being listed.

3. It is not clear what has to be conserved in the case of protected historic monuments or to what extent, and nor is it clear what the methods that are laid down, recommended or usual might be. Listing imposes the approval of any alterations by commissions that are generally not guided by valid theories and which put forward regulations that are usually seen as being vicious circles and invariably affected by conflicts of interest on the part of the commissions' members. Likewise, the general perception of the prefe-rences of these commissions is that they promote a pasti-che or nondescript architecture, rejecting, as a rule, any contemporary approaches.

4. Conservation is perceived more as a burden, a barrier, which creates no stimulus to conserve, but rather reveals itself through techniques that ruin and destroy buildings, leading them to be struck from the list of protected monuments in order to make the real estate market more efficient. Being the owner of a heritage building ought to be a privilege and an opportunity, but this cannot be said to be the case in Romania.

5. The state is incapable of raising the bar by the way in which it conserves its own heritage properties, proving once again through its institutions that it is one of the worst property owners. How can one create a context favorable to conservation and protection if the most im-portant publicly owned historical monuments are in such a precarious state? And when it comes to religious buildings, the situation is even worse.

6. The state administration responsible for protecting national heritage does not provide a publicly accessible database to show the current state of listed buildings, newly listed buildings, buildings that have been destroyed, and the evolution and quality of conservation and restoration work. Heritage is passed over in silence when it comes to detailed records, probably in order to show up the complete inefficiency of the system.

7. Licenses to certify competency in restoration work are issued only intermittently and not on demand, thereby maintaining exclusivity in the field for a limited number of "experts" who, although they have a monopoly, cannot meet market demand. This seems to me to be a fundamental error. Conservation ought to be part of the usual activity of every architect, with competency ensured by MA-level education, covered by diplomas, and acquired through work experience, without there being any need for special training. If the performance of these commissions were based on a system of qualifications, if they were properly remunerated, and if there were no conflicts of interests, then it would be sufficient in order to ensure the quality-control filter required by interventions to the architectural heritage.

There is a lot more to say on the subject, but it has already been captured all too well in the parlour game Habitat, created by Odaia Creativă, in which demo-lishers and restorers vie with each other. To conclude on a lighter note, this is a game that all the members of the commissions (CNMASI) ought to play before receiving confirmation of their mandate.