Harlequin City

The archetype, generative and generic, is itself allegorically present in the history of the city, as a perennial source of renewing energy.

In this mood, looking towards Bucharest, what do we see?

We see, first of all, the shepherd Bucur's gentle need to water his sheep. How beautiful the "Bucharest's lakes" sound! You can only see the beautiful wilderness on Bing Maps. Except for Herăstrău Lake and Floreasca Park, we have a swimming pool full of Roma people at Tei-Toboc, Grivco headquarters at Străulești, a sports center without customers at Grivița Lake, a "spontaneous and heteroclite" residue at Fundeni Lake. Two yellows and pearls of tin - a wilderness wonder! The Dâmbovița, once "fresh water", when its banks were shaded by thick willows, is now a navigable, polluted and unregulated navigable channel. A kind of mismatch between potential and possibility brings to mind the harlequin's hilarious fragment.

Then we see history begin to speak: The Old Courtyard, the Old Center, about which much has been written and will still be written. We see how from the history of the Mogo-șoaiei Bridge, of the manor estates and the maidans, a newer history is born, that of the boulevards and the decorated buildings, of the opulent residential buildings. We see the neo-Romanesque flirting with cubist style. We see how Bucharest's bourgeois bourgeoisie knew how to erect prestigious buildings and comfortable residences in a reverential relationship with the city's public space and how, at times, it distills an unmistakable perfume from nooks and crannies and details. In the image of the city, the interwar is the only masterly fragment, a precious and graceful mosaic.

Then we see the history of the socialist élan, which is only now beginning to be written about. We see the uniformizing, domestic commercial melange of the big districts in stark, harlequin contrast with the radio propaganda of the "golden age", with the frustrated festi-vism of the parades.

Then we see the beast of dictatorship rising, devouring as much of the city as it could. First it created the most alienating urbanism - the urbanism of neighborhood avenues flanked by blocks, intersecting in block-flanked gyrations. It has exalted cheap wealth 'up front' and has subverted traditional urban culture 'backwards'.

It is the age of rupture par excellence, of the rough and shabby painting over the mutilated and harassed "old" with the indecent patches of a shapeless novelty. Even then, the harlequin invested with archetypal powers was present. Then disaster. Bucharest lives more from its traumas than from its good history. The unshakeable power of the archetype creates and re-creates the situation that generated it. It seems that the archetype of Bucharest has only recently taken shape in the great de-molitions, since their spirit lives on.

I am not concerned here with the timeliness of the Berzei - Buzești urban operation, which is of the latest topicality and described in detail above. Something else concerns me: the doubling of the north-south diametral, a more than 30-year-old refrain, in the last 20 years (post-Decembrist, that is) has been treated as an electoral campaign project. Despite their structural justification, no one believed in big urban operations when smaller, private and generally speculative ones were proving mealy-mouthed. Now, as if by magic, the political actor with the potential for this realization appears. The simple question is: as an urban planner, you have the chance of a great urban operation. Is this how you do it? In the good tradition of the '80s, which gave the last "systematization sketch" of Bucharest and other unforgettable memories? The quintessential autochthonous urban planning procedure is copy-paste. We narcissistically copy ourselves at our worst. Of course, the traffic demands on the new diametral at the intersection with the extension of the Boulevard Gării de Nord require a roundabout. But how many things were to be solved in the area of this roundabout, besides the obvious traffic problem?

The realizer of the PUZ is of no interest - there are always professional advisors behind an executor. Is this your Lordships' opinion on how to deal with the impact of a major urban intervention with the traditional historical texture of Bucharest, in an area that involves a long list of criteria and requirements?

An oblique route, for economy of mental effort, when a slight inflection of the route of the extension of Bd. Gării de Nord would have allowed a more nuanced relationship with the traditional route of the street, would have allowed the control of the perspective on the new artery, a better organization of the edificable and convenient protection of a monument house.

An exemplary resolution of the frontages in the gyratory, nicely wheel - no perspective openings, no composition, no visual control. More interesting is the composition of the Match Square.

Out of fashion is the "here would be good, for perspective support, an accent of at least 20 levels" heat. Now it's fashionable to be on the scale of the place. But why also boring. Don't tell me that boredom emanates from the synthetic language of urban expression, because I don't believe you.

As far as "quality" architecture to furnish the new urban spaces, the proposed urban matrix, far from being minimalist, is downright poor. Buildable is otova, occupying the whole place with the horror of emptiness, with glues at the foot of the heels that will generate sordid, residual spaces.

Any site analysis, however erudite, takes place on an urban canal superimposed indifferently over the city's meanders. Like Transamazonia through the virgin forest. We hope that the impact study promised post-factum will show us how all the riverside spaces with cultural value have a chance to communicate with the new Berzei-Buzești diametrical.

I am not among the nostalgic. I am confident that it is possible to intervene on any type of historical fabric that has been constituted. On two conditions: professionalism and common sense. With the first part many are doing well, with the second they are doing worse. Many buildings with an excellent architectural presence are ignorant and unsentimental urban behemoths. And I have another suspicion: that the great heritage excitement about the area in question poorly disguises the inability of professionals to create actual values with a broader cultural approach than the traditional "give it well".

In its recent history, Bucharest has bred an urban plebeian race. We see, with regret, how it multiplies without embarrassment, with primitive vigor. In the places and houses that are disappearing, the sensitive Bucharest citizen is looking for a vestige of dignity, even if it is petty-bourgeois, a dignity that is now denied him. Not out of clichés, not out of automatism and routine, Genius loci will give birth to urban spaces that are bearers of culture.

In 2006, a first "seated" version of the northern section of the Brezei - Buzești bypass was submitted for debate. The solution was remarkable for its superficial treatment. Sure, the monuments on the route were beautifully colored (with a funerary black), and the diametral ran innocently over them. No regulatory outline, no alternative solution for the preservation of built heritage. Not even enough to be able to see that rebuilding or rebuilding is preferable.

Someone laughs with relish at everything I have written: the harlequin in his indecent, patchy garb. The all-powerful harlequin. Almighty because he knows that he will return with other opportunities offered by his wooden tongue and concrete brain. From 2006 to 2011, couldn't the problems of the Berzei - Buzești area have been deepened even with a Master's group, as long as the 1980s systematization plan was not copied? Until I get an answer, I go for a walk. I go through Ioanid Park, then through the Icoanei Garden to the Anglica-ne Church square. I enjoy the fountain with its incredible statue, feminine and warlike. I walk slowly along Pictor Verona street, then pass the Athenaeum, towards the statue of Carol I. On the way, I'll ponder why our theory elegantly supports things that are well done only in others.

First of all we see the placid need of Bucur the shepherd looking for a place to water his sheep. What a wonderful expression: "Bucharest's necklace of lakes". You can see the beautiful necklace only on Bing Maps. Apart from Herăstrău Lake and Floreasca Park, we have a lido swarming with lowlife at Tei-Toboc, the Grivco headquarters at Străulești, a deserted sports facility at Grivița Lake, and a "spontaneous and heteroclite" residue at Lake Fundeni. Two gold coins and worthless coppers - what a wonderful necklace! The Dâmbovița, the "sweet water" of olden days, when its banks were shaded by weeping willows, is now a navigable canal without traffic, a polluted and abandoned waterway. The mismatch between the potential and the possible brings to mind the hilarious fragmentariness of the harlequin. Then we see how history begins to speak: the Old Court, the Old Centre, of which so much has been written. We see how from the history of the early days, of the Mogoșoaia Deck and boyar domains, the newer history of the boulevards, ornate buildings and opulent residences is born. We see how the Neo-Romanian style flirts with cubism. We see how the Bucharest bourgeoisie were able to construct prestigious buildings and comfortable residences for themselves in reverent harmony with the city's public spaces and how in nooks and details they distilled an unmistakable perfume. In the image of the city, the inter-war period is the sole masterly fragment, a precious, graceful mosaic.

Then we see the history of socialist élan, whose history is only now beginning to be written. We see the melancholy, uniform drabness of the large housing estates in harlequinesque contrast with the radiant propaganda of the "golden age" and the rudimentary festivity of the parades. Then we see how the monster of the dictatorship grows, devouring as much of the city as it could. Firstly, it created the most alienating urbanism possible: an urbanism of boulevards flanked by housing blocks, intersecting at roundabouts flanked by blocks. It exalted cut-price prosperity "on the face of it" and exiled traditional urban culture "around the back." It is the epoch of rupture par excellence, of shameful patching of the tattered fabric of the old with the indecent plaster of an amorphous new. Back then, the harlequin imbued with archetypal powers was still present. Then came the disaster. Bucharest feeds on its traumas more than its positive history. The unstoppable power of the archetype creates and recreates the situation that generated it. It seems that Bucharest's archetype was configured recently, during the great demolitions, given that their spirit persists.

My present object is not the opportuneness of the Berzei-Buzești operation, which is of the utmost topicality and has been described in detail previously. What I am concerned with is something else: the north-site through route, a more than thirty-year-old refrain, has in the last twenty years (i.e. since the Revolution) been treated as an electoral campaign project. In spite of their structural justification, nobody believed in major urban projects any longer, when smaller, private and generally speculative investments proved handier. But lo and behold, as if by magic, the politician with the potential to achieve it has appeared. Is this the way to solve things? In the tradition of the 1980s, which gave Bucharest its last "systematization plan" and other unforgettable memories? The native way of doing urbanism is the "copy-paste" method. We narcissistically copy all that is worst from our past. Obviously, the exigencies of traffic along the new through route at the intersection with the extension of Gara de Nord Boulevard required a roundabout. But how many other problems were there to solve apart from this roundabout, apart from the obvious problem of traffic? It isn't important who created the Urban Zoning Plan. Behind the executor there are always professional advisers. Is this their opinion with regard to solving the impact of a major urban intervention on the traditional historical fabric of Bucharest, in an area that implies a long list of criteria and exigencies?

A straight-line route, to save mental effort, when a slight flexion in the course of the extension of Gara de Nord Boulevard would have allowed a more nuanced relationship with the traditional course of the street; it would have given control over the perspectives of the proposed new thoroughfare, and would have allowed better organization of the built fabric and protection of historic monuments. An exemplary solution for the frontages in the gyre, a beautiful wheel. There are no openings in the perspectives, no composition, no visual control. Even Piața Chibrit is more interesting. It is no longer fashionable to say "an accent of at least twenty storeys would have been appropriate here to bolster the perspective".

Nowadays it's fashionable to be in scale with the site. But why be boring? Don't tell me that the boredom emanates from the synthetic language of urban expression, because I won't believe you. As far as "quality" architecture to mobilize new urban spaces is concerned, the proposed urban matrix, far from being minimalist, is downright impoverished. The built fabric is uniform, it fills the entire space with a horror vacui, with patched-up blind walls, which will create wretched, residual spaces No matter how eruditely you analyze the site, it runs along an urban channel nonchalantly superimposed upon the innards of the city, like the Trans-Amazonia through virgin forest. We hope that the promised post-factum impact study will present the way in which all the adjacent spaces of cultural value will be able to communicate with the new Berzei-Buzești through route. I'm not one to be nostalgic. I believe that it is possible within any type of historical built fabric to make interventions that are up-to-date and decent. On two conditions: professionalism and common sense. Many people possess the former but lack the latter. Numerous buildings with an excellent architectural presence are ignorant, boorish urban mastodons. I also suspect that the great heritage excitement linked to the area in question poorly conceals on the part of the professionals the incapacity to create up-to-date values, using a cultural approach wider-ranging than the traditional "it looks good". In its recent history, Bucharest engendered a plebeian urban species. We see with regret how it multiplies unabashed, with primitive vigor. In the places and buildings that are on the way out, the sensitive resident of Bucharest seeks a remnant of dignity, even if it is a petit-bourgeois dignity, a dignity that is now denied to him. It is not from clichés, automatic reflexes and routine that the Genius loci will give birth to new culture-bearing urban spaces.

In 2006, an initial, "settled" version of the northern segment of the Berzei-Buzești through route was presented for debate. Of course, the monuments along the route were nicely colored in (using funereal black), and above them innocently passed the through route. There was no alternative solution for conservation of the built heritage, not even enough to make it visible whether it was preferable to move or to reconstruct the buildings.

Someone is chortling at what I have written here: the harlequin in his garish, patched garments. The all-powerful harlequin. All-powerful because he knows he will be back when other opportunities provided by wooden tongue and concrete brain present themselves. From 2006 to 2011, was it really not possible to study the problems of the Berzei-Buzești area more closely, so as not to copy and paste the systematization plan of the 1980s? While I'm waiting for an answer, I'm going to take a walk. I set out through Ioanid Park, and then I cross Icoanei Garden, in the direction of the Anglican Church. I stop to admire the fountain with its incredible, feminine, warrior statue. I quickly cross Pictor Verona Street and then head toward the Athenaeum and the statue of Carol I. On the way, I think about how in Romania theory elegantly supports things well done only elsewhere.