Urbanism against nature II

I promised in the previous article, with the same title, a return to the subject and a development of the theme in question, applied to the Romanian space. Each day brings a new topic which is an illustration of the unfortunate concept noted here: the expulsion of nature from the city, in other words, the ignoring of nature's ability to articulate itself positively in the current urban context. Or, quite simply, contempt, even hatred of vegetation - tall, low, compact, linear, concentrated, dissipated, spontaneous or planted "by others". Obviously, in order to clarify the conceptual resources of this type of process, applied socio-psychological or psychiatric research would be needed, but I am content to observe, on a case-by-case basis, the manner of action and its tangible results and, if I have information, to know the "theory" of those who acted: beneficiaries (administration, owners, users, funders, etc.) and professionals. While the motives of the former are relatively easy to detect and are continually written about, the motives of the professionals are difficult to understand and I think that this would require introspection starting at least from the level of education in the field: "we are not surprised by the commissioner, we are surprised by our fellow designers", remarked Dorin Boilă, in relation to questionable, even harmful interventions in the center of ^Sibiu1.

Some time ago, I was trying to establish a relationship between the city and nature, other than that of mere presence in the 'urban landscape', which, as the investigation progresses, proves to be profound, even structural, over long historical periods. On that occasion I put forward the idea that the traditional, organic city arises and develops according to the same set of rules that underlie cosmic organization or terrestrial nature, and I "invented" the concept of "urban permeability"^2. I was referring to the rules of 'organic growth', but also to the way in which some of the results of 'directed growth' evolved until modern times, which have decisively broken out of the net of these relationships.

What remains of all this complex and dynamic state of affairs? If we can only talk about 'organic growth' in the past tense, or, in the present, we can only evaluate it pejoratively, what remains is the green that is physically present in cities, in the form of parks, squares, street alignments, courtyards and private gardens. However, the latest developments in Romanian cities highlight the massive deforestation of vegetation, the mineralization of urban or private spaces, the disappearance of tree species. The acacia or poplar, for example. It discourages, then, the absence of solid or logical reasons, even simplistic pecuniary ends. Moreover, this process is amplified in spite of sophisticated concepts revolving around the notions of "urban landscape" or the autochthonized "urban ecology", "urban comfort", "sustainable development" and so on.

The subject that I teach at the master's programs in Timisoara and Cluj-Napoca - Urban Rehabilitation - has forced me to go through areas and spaces rehabilitated lately, Romanian and foreign, to analyze them, to make the effort to understand the springs of different processes. What I can say at a first glance is about the sequential pattern detected everywhere in Europe, from Edinburgh to Thessaloniki or from Zaragoza to Krakow, which means a uniform spread of processes, with minimal adaptations to the context. I refer, I repeat, to the rehabilitation of historic centers or squares. But one can also observe minority options, different ways of operating with the same set of models or generating their own models. Is this good? Is it bad? What should we do as "Europeans"? In order to answer, I propose a tracing of the latest Romanian rehabilitations of historic centers, which I invite to discuss in themselves and possibly in relation to various models.

For the above purposes, I start from the premise that there are still remnants of ancestral types of urban organization in the Romanian space: complex, optimal, healthy, sustainable, organizations that are increasingly vulnerable to actions that will diminish their qualities or destroy them. In what follows I attempt to evoke a series I have researched, paying close attention to the treatment of urban or rural greenery in central and/or historic areas. Noting the successes, I set them aside in order to direct the research to the subject at hand. I mention this so as not to leave the impression of a total disaster.

I start again with Târgu Secuiesc, for two reasons. The first is the special impression the town made on me in the early 1980s, so evident and particular in the "systematizing" atmosphere of Romania at that time, that I wrote an article comparing it with a town similar in size and historical values - Râmnicu Sărat. I saw then in Târgu Secuiesc a possible model to be followed by the mayors and, especially, by the professionals who were operating in Râmnic, preparing the destruction of the historic center. The article did not appear, and despite attempts to sensitize "party organs", the center was destroyed. It was too late, the locals had decided otherwise. Over the mountains, in Târgu Secuiesc, the locals decided to maintain and rehabilitate the center.

The second reason is the fact that the program for the modernization of the Central Market in Tâgu Secuiesc is present, in the same form and with the same comments as in "Arhitectura", in the latest issue, 10/2011, of the magazine "Urbanismul". So, nothing new, apart from the group photo showing the protagonists, young and happy. I hope that all that I have noticed will not make them lose the momentum and joy of the initiative, but will make them reassess the context, priorities and concepts. Reading what follows, I am convinced that they will understand where the dangers and pitfalls come from. Baia Mare's medieval central square is one of the first major public space developments since 1989. A city badly affected by "de-industrialization", but located in an area with tourist potential, Baia Mare urgently needed an attractive image compatible with the charm of other European cities with a similar past and heritage. This operation was aimed at such a goal and the results, on our scale, are undoubtedly among the best. The pleasant feeling I had when I first entered the square confirms this.

Only then, remembering how the space had evolved over the last 100 years, how I had perceived it in the 1980s and the heated discussions during the opinions on the fate of the existing greenery in the market, did I ask myself the question of alternatives. In other words: given the dynamic character of the square over the years (agricultural and food market, urban park or a mix of ^both3, visible in the vintage images), the solution of simply segregating the space (parking and planted pedestrian walkway) is questionable, but it is still much better than complete mineralization. From this point of view, the solution is similar to that of Traian Square in Timișoara, recently redeveloped and where, in the mineralized square (correctly using "cubic stone" and elegant details), the greenery is isolated towards the east side, towards the ^Serbian Church4. On the other hand, both solutions leave room for further developments, which is a positive aspect.

Sibiu is a special case. The effort to cope with the position of "European Capital of Culture" has accelerated the whole process: research, conception, design, execution. In addition, Sibiu preserves the most complex ensemble of medieval squares and public spaces in Transylvania and, probably, in this part of Europe. Following the evolution of these spaces (Ringul Mare, Ringul Micul, Piața Huet, Piața Aurarilor, Bd. Bălcescu and adjacent streets) over the last 4-5 decades, I cannot help noticing the use of the same set of details that I have seen in countless places, in similar spaces: in Tournai and Luxembourg and closer to us, in Bratislava, Kosice, Horn, Wiener Neustadt, Bruck an der Mür, Novi Sad, etc. The latter can be said to be part of the same cultural space, and the citations noted are natural, but each of them has had developments and histories with strong particularities, which should not have become adopted sources anyway. Returning to Sibiu, a landmark of the solution could have been the dynamic history of the development of the Ringului Mare. For example, few people remember that, in the 1960s and 1970s, an important area of the square was a park, so that the current concept, operating, it is true, with the perfectly bare surface of the square due to the 1980s, could also negotiate with green space. Following visitors' routes through the square on hot days, you notice the search for shade from the perimeter buildings, the same sheltered areas also sought in winter, because of the wind. Planting some trees in sensitive spots would have done wonders, as it happens in the rest of the Siberian markets and on Bd. ^Bălcescu5.

In Cluj-Napoca the situation is also complex, as the system of the two medieval squares is complemented by a network of major streets flanking or connecting them. Among them, Str. Eroilor, south of the Unirii Square (linking with the system of eastern squares, the Theater and the Orthodox Cathedral) is certainly the most important. Before I took over the chairmanship of the Cluj Monuments Zonal Commission, I knew about the competition for the rehabilitation of Union Square and Heroes' Street and that several stages of the approval process had been carried out. Until one of the details of the project (concerning the development of archaeological excavations in the square) came to the Commission's attention, I had no idea how mineral the square would become and what a tiny space had been left to the green. As I entered the intimacies of the process, I learned of the protests of some of the city's NGOs, the protests of the Catholic priest of the Church of St. Michael, the protests of some of the cultural circles in Cluj, all criticizing the excess of paving at the expense of green and flat surfaces. Some succeeded in bringing about minor tweaks to the solution, others did ^not6. Now, the fact is consummated and we can only compare aerial images of the square before rehabilitation with the present. However, apart from the mineralization of two hectares of public space (the square and the street), car traffic has remained in place, with routes surrounding the central space of the square on all sides and seemingly more parking than before. I find the result again hard to bear for someone wanting to stop in the square. Battered by the sun's rays and suffering from the heat, slipping on the ice and battered by the wind, one will retreat to the surrounding interior spaces, the square remaining a deserted place. The situation is balanced somewhat by the Museum Square's resolution, where the median tree row has been maintained.

Undoubtedly, the worst case is Alba Iulia, which also benefited from some out-of-the-ordinary festival propaganda. Assessing the partial and final results is very difficult, first of all because they are a mixed bag, as there are elements that are well thought out and realized, logical, reasonable and others with disastrous effect. Evaluation is also difficult because the average visitor's perception is captured by certain details that are considered 'prestigious': renovated fortress walls (as in Nuremberg), cobblestones (as in Vienna), changing of the guard (as in London), flags, trumpets, period costumes, carriages, etc. Those who stop in the city for a few hours are fascinated by the scenery; they don't know what it was and have no other reference points. The only people who know are the locals, and they reacted promptly, but to no avail. The same happened with the neutral professionals who were asked for their ^opinion7. "Consulting the public" was and is here, as in other cases, as much a figure of speech in the wind or cleverly manipulated to get what is wanted, and the consultation of the specia- lists has proved to be "selective". There are 'specialists' who are either directly involved in the deal or agree to anything in exchange for benefits (some even scientific!) that seem natural to them, managing to modify their views according to the offer or threats. In Alba Iulia the whole system worked and still works, probably also motivated by the large sums of money at stake. The result is a combination of good quality actions and excesses, to which I am still trying to find the logic. In the series of failures, I would also mention: the massive mineralization of the fortress ditches and the 'rehabilitation of public spaces' inside the fortified city, which, in a landslide-like action, has resulted in the clearance of large swathes of ancient trees, street alignments and Custozza Park, which the project has transformed into an 'Events Market'. I am not questioning the way in which the uncovering and the cursory archaeological research has been carried out in this whole area of at least national importance (which has gone through Roman, Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, etc. phases), but the absurdity of the massive mineralization and the transformation of the park into a market, while to the west of the Citadel there are hectares of real wasteland (between the House of Culture and the western access to the citadel) which should have been the focus of the attention of the city councillors and professionals. Moreover, despite this evidence, there are plans to launch a project to destroy the park in front of the Coronation Cathedral by rebuilding the western bastion, which disappeared when the Cathedral was built.

Without the discussion with the designers of the respective improvements, I would have suspected that obscure forces had advanced the concept, forcing them to conform, but the exchange of opinions has directly and undeniably revealed that the solution is theirs, they consider it natural, optimal, logical, in line with what is happening elsewhere and beating all other points of view. Unfortunately, the 'rehabilitation' in Alba Iulia may serve as a model for others.

Finally, one last "action" with serious consequences for urban green areas is announced in Brasov, where the City Hall has announced its intention to bypass the fortified city to the north via an articulated roadway (not Down" and running on the wooded slope below the White and Black Towers. Last years, in order to build a splendid monumental staircase to access the White Tower, a 15-20 meter wide strip of forest was cleared. At the time, the moral author, who was prominently displayed on the walls of the fortress "restored" with concrete, asphalt, stainless steel pipes and washable paint, was a president of the County Council. I don't remember his name. Returning to the bypass, the correct principle from which it starts (freeing the historic city from an east-west transit traffic flow) is accompanied by a total disregard for the water and the spectacular hillside (combination of rock and tall vegetation) that will be sacrificed for good. Are there no al-ternatives? The countryside is not short of excess. One program that has been "running successfully" for several years is the creation of village parks. Some of them are along rivers that are richly planted, others at the foot of forests, others on the site of wide planted road verges (in the Banat-Arad area, up to 80-100 meters!). Obviously by destroying them. The many "parks" that have been completed or are under construction, of which I have chosen two, bear witness to this: Sâmbăteni de Arad (known for the spectacular "palaces", for which the process was anticipated, having their own parks in the public domain, as if there were no Town Hall) and Dumbrava (near Făget-Timiș), where the landscaping is truly pharaonic, with paved alleys, curbs, children's playgrounds (probably several thousand, in the whole county!), lawns, etc., covering about two kilometers.

In the face of the traditional realities evoked at the beginning, enduring over time (at least until the middle of the 20th century) in the Romanian countryside or even in the urban environment, how can one explain the brutality of the actions of late, visible in both environments and all the more bizarre in the countryside? Even if I have not set out to carry out an investigation that would provide a rigorous answer, I am piqued by the strangeness of the phenomenon. It would be too simple to put it down to illicit gains, augmented by exaggerated propositions, or to dismiss them as merely behavioral distortions due to demographic shifts from village to city and vice versa. It would also be wrong to look for them only in the sphere of adopted models, frequently misunderstood and always poorly applied, or, in the last decade, in the superficiality of the faulty use of the computer, which operates with a limited set of shrubs, and has few trees. Summing up, I believe that these processes are a consequence of the combination of all these, the decisive factor being the "designer's concept", which has often been revealed to me in the most direct and unambiguous way. Our architects (not all of them, but ironically many of those who work in the field), in their position as project managers, ignore greenery as a factor of urban comfort or as an aesthetic factor. But I don't want to be unfair: there are architects or landscape architects who are fighting with beneficiaries who want to cut everything to show their investment, or with town halls that clear hectares of vegetation for obscure purposes or consider themselves owners of the road alignments. Just as there are young architects who know the advantages of discreet landscaping that preserves pleasant, comfortable images. As a point of reference, I use Imre-Kedocs Attila, a student of the Rehabilitation / Restoration Master's Degree at the Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj and of the Transylvania Trust Foundation, whose conclusions in his work "Monasteries and gardens under the Veszprém Fortress" are worth reading. The author wonders about the whole ensemble: '...what will protect against the sun, how will the people sitting on the steel bar benches cool themselves, if no shrubs have been planted? The water from the artificial fountain, which will drain into a geometrically curved ditch leading to the stream?

In such a strong historical context, is a fountain with many eclectic elements still needed to compete with the ruins? Disturbing is both the lack of shrubbery and the excessively large area covered with gravel" and comments, "The romantic brook valley has been transformed into a conformist alleyway EU. It has not preserved the historic and natural spirit of the dwelling, it has introduced artificial elements into nature with less sense and without satisfying the needs of several age groups".

Finally, on the "Margit ruins" (former monastery): "Before the development, the ruins stood among willows and bushes together with the medieval fortress, giving a special accent to the historical character of the area. During the redevelopment, the original vegetation was completely replaced by a geometric landscape."

By chance, I was in Veszprém and, apart from the unfortunate impression I was left with by the rehabilitation of the town's ecclesiastical 'acropolis', I was impressed by the rocky blade through which the acropolis extends to the north. It is a surprisingly natural, spectacular, whip-cracked blade, a combination of rock and tall vegetation, with minimal urban corrective interventions. Now, its north-west area looks like a banal urban garden, with acres of pavements, artificial fountains and flagstone terraces replacing the splendid previous landscape. The pictures bear witness.

Also in central Hungary, north of the Balaton, in the little town of Keszthely, the center (especially the church and pedestrian area) has been admirably landscaped, with archaeo-archaeological salvage, but also with plenty of greenery of all kinds and Sümeg, where the mass of greenery in the center rises sumptuously up to the fortress. These possible patterns are worth seeing and pondering. I conclude by emphasizing that the rehabilitation of Romanian historic urban and central rural Romanian spaces should find, if not its own ideas, properly adapted to the respective environment, at least those external models that negotiate with the whole complex of factors, which define the solution. In this way excesses can be set aside and solutions optimizing the whole group of determinants can be considered. Between them, nature is one of the keys to the problem. In this way of thinking, "urbanism against nature" is the most primitive and senseless way of operating.

^1. D. Boilă, Sibiu, 2007 - Is the cultural capital also the capital of urban regeneration?, "Transsylvania Nostra", 3-4, 2007, pp. 36-45

^2. T. O. Gheorghiu, Structuri cosmiche și repere sociale în istoria orașului - Orașul și natura, in "Locuire și neașezare ", Ed. Paideia, Bucharest, 2002, p. 10-11 "A permeability of the city to the complex of natural or cosmic laws, for the simple reason that these laws are those that confer stability over long intervals of time, while the laws of society relate to certain conjunctures... one can even speak of a certain timelessness of the principles of urban organization."

^3. See the collections of vintage photographs in the websites Fotomaramures.ro, Bogdi99, LAX. Popovici Dan

^4. Description and context of the project and the planning, in Bogdan Demetrescu, Reabilitarea Pieței Traian din Timișoara, "Arhitext", 9-10, 2006, pp. 104-107

^5. Comments, see in Vladimir Grigorov, Revival of the pedestrian area in Sibiu, and Victror Moraru, The development of Huet Square, Sibiu, both in "Arhitext", 9-10, 2006, p. 72-86, respectively p. 88-91, as well as in Steffen Mildener, Projekt "Altstadtsanierung Hermannstadt", Rumänien, "Transsylvania Nostra", 3-4, 2007, p. 15-21, and the whole issue 2, 2007, "Transsylvania Nostra"

^6. On the context and the theme of the competition finally won by "Planwerk Project", see Adrian Iancu, Pedestrian Zone in Cluj, "Arhitext", 9-10, 2006, pp. 92-95, plus the presentation of two other projects; it is significant that nowhere is anything mentioned about the issue of green space

^7. Some of the events of the last two years in Alba Iulia are published by "Observatorul Cetății - Free publication of information and citizen empowerment dedicated to saving Custozza Park", year I, no. 2, where, apart from bitter humor, there are some opinions signed by: dr. arh. Hanna Derer, sociologist Simona Braniște, art historian Dr. Christoph Machat (member of the ICOMOS Committee), Dr. Adrian Andrei Rusu, dr. arh. T. O. Gheorghiu, of the Romanian Association of Landscape Architects - AsoP (signed by landscape engineers Al. Ciobotă and A. Condoroș, president and secretary general of the association) and others