Why we love public space

1. Because it belongs to everyone and to no one, because everyone comments on it and claims it, but it cannot be a commodity for anyone;

2. Because it expresses our freedom as individuals and as a community;

3. Because in public space you feel anonymous, but never alone;

4. Because it imposes social and behavioral rules, i.e. imposes standards of civilization;

5. Because it is at the same time the voice of a community's past, present and future, a permanent legacy that anchors the individual in the cultural history of the space in which he or she lives...

... and there are a thousand other reasons...

Urbanism and contemporary architecture have as their main discourse the way in which public space is organized as the generator of any associated function. We all love it, but do we fully understand its potential! And by this question I do not mean architects, who lately seem to have reached the threshold of resignation, still trying to convince a recalcitrant public, but those who actually make the decisions, without whose signature the wheels cannot turn...

And since we've been going on and on, lately, about public space, let's introduce another topic for discussion: the old, historic fabric of cities... a difficult, oppressive topic, because in our country heritage buildings are decaying mutely, weeping without tears and dying out without anyone to regret them, except a few people hopelessly in love with the past. But let's not be sad and let's think about the present! The heritage does not belong to those who are no more, it belongs to us and it is up to us to bring it back to life, decently, civilized, with respect, without mutilating it, without preparing it for carnival, in garish and trendy colors...

Public space has - in addition to its poetic, activating and energizing role - also a commercial role, because it is essentially a consumer function that manages to make related, positive functions - culture, information, urban promotion - profitable. The historic landscape is a successful 'brand' for any city that knows how to preserve, appreciate and promote it. Consequently, the superimposition of the two concepts is undoubtedly a successful formula and, if other poetic and "politically correct" arguments have not been effective in the past, this one could, in the last resort, convince... Beyond material criteria, no one can deny that we are a suffering, disunited society in search of points of reference, even if we do not realize it. It is the post-revolutionary public space that has suffered the most, being somewhere at the bottom of the list of priorities. It is true that it is not a 'primary need' in the same way as, for example, housing, infrastructure, etc. in urban areas. However, in a society that is still searching for its roots and is far from settled, interaction in the context of the city can become a community glue. Others have consciously undertaken this search and translated it into design.

In search of references, I started reading more about Spanish architecture. They realized, in the aftermath of Franco's dictatorship, that they needed public space as a way of bringing people and events together, as a mediator of communication and exchange, as a dressing. The public space has a reconciliatory nature and they have known how to bet on it, taking a risk that puts them in a particular position in the European context. Our society is going through the same moment of crisis and would benefit from the real, rather than virtual, platform for communication that a city with socializing spaces offers. This is a challenge that could also prove to be a savior for us, because the public space generates the framework for interaction, and its relationship with a historical context anchors it in the past, in the origins and tradition of a community, that civic, community feeling that Romanian post-revolutionary society has lacked.

If we were to compile an 'x-ray' of the post-revolution situation, it would be a collage of good intentions, partial successes, remarkable examples of good practice, but also serious failures. Although Romania still has a long way to go in having a structured vision for the field, there are convincing models that give confidence in the willingness of municipalities and professional communities - architects and urban planners - to coordinate their efforts.

In the last 10 years, the wheels have been set in motion, more in Transylvania and Banat than in Muntenia and Moldova. These two regional categories by which Romanian cities have been generically categorized showed a gap even before the communist period, a gap that was accentuated by the communist period and, with the passage of almost 20 years since then, does not seem to have narrowed very much. One reason could be that cities such as Sibiu and Cluj have been able to import experience and a verified approach, have been able to secure external support and have had the rigor and seriousness of good local administration. It is the reason why Sibiu was European Capital of Culture (with the support of Kӧln and Luxembourg, it must be said!), the reason why Planwerk (the Romanian-German company...) came into being, which came up with external models of good practice, from the large to the small scale of interventions. Because they, i.e. those in charge of the global vision, were the first to understand that the wheel does not have to be reinvented, that taking on good models shortens the "cure" period and that benefiting from the experiences of others does not in any way diminish local specificity.

Thus, studies have been carried out on public spaces, designed at city level and then broken down into projects (more general in Cluj and more specific in Sibiu), which materialized in a PUG in Cluj, i.e. coordinated intentions, then translated into a legislative framework. The good news is that the power of example worked and these studies began to spread, slowly but surely. Almost every major city in Romania has or is in the process of having a PUZ for the historic center. The study of public spaces (squares, pedestrian walkways, trails) should be a common practice of city halls when they apply for public investment projects, so it is desirable that, eventually, this should become a reflex. The lack of such interdisciplinary studies has already demonstrated its shortcomings in the implementation of projects such as Berzei-Buzești. It is a pity because, torn between bureaucratic hassle, the attempt to cut red tape and cut budgets, we are missing essential steps in what should be a well-thought-out and well-founded approach.

A second aspect is that we are looking carefully at historic areas or other urban areas, not necessarily classified as protected, which have the potential to become urban trails. We are talking here about the rehabilitation of fortifications (in 2008, the "Program for the rehabilitation and conversion of the fortified enclosure of the fortress of Brasov" was launched), but also about capitalizing on the relationship with some waterways, be they waterfronts or river courses. In this area, Romania cannot boast much beyond discussions of principle and drawer projects, although other European cities have managed to turn any trickle of water into a memorable itinerary, lined with leisure activities. The civilization of using a stretch of water has so far not been part of the way we build or live in a city, and as a result we have a lot of catching up to do. Turning our faces towards them would be a first step. In the area of one-off projects we have done better. Maybe because it's easier to see the trees and harder to see the forest.... Examples of restoration of buildings on historical sites exist and show good quality architecture, starting with the Luxemburg House and the Brukenthal Palace in Sibiu and going up to small buildings that can be fully contextualized, such as some recent interventions in Brasov. We have the examples of the two bastions, the Croitorilor Tower in Cluj, more conservative, and the Bastionul Postăvarilor in Brasov, more incisively contemporary, two interventions that demonstrate that it is possible... On the other hand, there are almost no examples of contemporary buildings hosting public functions. Quality contemporary architecture in Romania? Of course it exists, in many guises, but almost all of them belong to other programs and not public ones. A foreign member of the graduation committees asked me why there are so many cultural centers in students' projects. So many are being built here! The answer is perhaps precisely frustration that none are being built. Why? Because, if in the private sector, investors have understood the importance of an architecture made according to all the rigors of the profession, in Romania public functions are still not considered profitable and, in conclusion, investments are not going in this direction. Square improvements, in the good architectural sense, i.e. more than a change of paving and furnishing with "little benches", have timidly begun to appear. The Union Square in Cluj would be an example of good practice with the added quality that it was the result of a competition. Brașov's Johannes Honterus Square, though small, will be a contextualist intervention if the project is followed through. Traian Square in Timișoara raises the issue of public-private partnership, which, as far as I know, was a first in Romania at the time. We hope that the University Square project in Bucharest will, in the end, live up to the site's (and the resulting competition's) performance.

To summarize, the diagnosis of our reporting over the last 20 years on the historical fabric from the perspective of public space would go something like this: a coherent approach is being put together, but the process is slow. This is undoubtedly also due to a lack of funds, but the main reason is a prioritization that includes this area only at an extremely superficial stage: the development of a square, a bastion, a car restriction for a street, the emergence of a new parking space. While the rehabilitation of historic fabric was, at one time, a national priority for European countries, for Romania these are still disparate efforts and not a state-wide program.

The stakes are high and the losses are irretrievable if we do not know how to take advantage of this time as a 'time of coagulation', which is necessary for any post-traumatic healing process.

Very little has been done for the public space in Romania, which has long been non-existent - or barely survivable - permanently assaulted by screaming colors, bright advertisements, fences and "don't step on the grass" signs. The passer-by has basically been told for years not to touch, not to stop, not to notice, in other words, to deny the city, to forget it. Today we are discussing this topic intensively, the situation seems to have partially thawed out, the inhabitants seem eager to learn to love what is beyond the door of the block or the fence. But the changes must go beyond image and color, and go deeper, towards a functional resolution of public space. The question is not "what does it look like?". Rather it is: "what makes me stop to notice what it looks like?".

So what do we do from now on? Do we continue to apply the apathetic method, where we don't look right and left, or do we look up to see that things must first be thought about on a larger scale and then broken down into smaller chunks?

A city is a complex machine, a process of gradual accumulation. In conclusion, you must first know where you are going, then carefully construct your steps, and only at the end work out the details.