The Rural Environment, the Times, and the Architect | The Rural Environment, the Times, and the Architect

The rural environment represents about 80% of Romania's territory and about 45% of its population. It contributes 7% to GDP through its activities, of which 5% is due to agriculture. The discrepancy between the indicators (resources/outputs) is obvious to anyone, as is the fact that agriculture has become almost the only occupation in rural areas (which exposes rural inhabitants to the dangers of fluctuations in the agricultural products market).

To what do we owe this?

We know that the past provides resources for future growth/development through accumulated knowledge. The future also provides recognition of the value of the past, simultaneously giving identity to those who use/ transmit knowledge. To willfully ignore the accumulations of the past is to waste knowledge, in fact, resources, it is to start from scratch each time, i.e. to always fall behind. By not valuing inherited knowledge, we are condemned to the fate of Sisyphus, we are condemned to stasis, to underdevelopment.

What is to be done?

The 21st century is shifting the order of needs and priorities, forcing us to realize that there is only one responsible paradigm, and that is a symbiosis with the environment, respect for the community and the judicious use of available resources. All the knowledge accumulated in the rural past simply capitalizes on these timeless principles in a simple and effective way, using only local resources. We believe the time has come to remember all this and to make use of neglected knowledge and resources in a responsible way.

The village must change if it wants to survive.

The rural environment can no longer be synonymous with social welfare if it wants a future.

The "beneficiaries"

Communism and post-communism have succeeded, to a large extent, in erasing the pride of being from the countryside, they have succeeded in destroying the keepers of rural knowledge and consciousness, replacing them with spineless individuals, the axmen of the system or, more recently, of any party in government. Today, Romania's rural environment is impoverished, emptied of a good part of its working population (who have left to work in Western Europe), and squeezed out by anyone who wants to do so. It is a land unprotected by anyone, and those who should be doing it are like "the wolf herding the sheep", squandering resources and destroying the natural environment in the most irresponsible way. At the same time, thankfully, new rural dwellers are slowly making their way in from urban areas. They bring with them a new set of values, paradoxically compatible with ancestral values, now largely forgotten by rural communities. We are talking about educated, worldly young people who find in the countryside an environment conducive to living their lives according to their own values (see downshifting, but not only). At the same time, some of the "sons of the villages" are returning to their home environment - once retired or back from working abroad - to take up productive activity. For them, the urban/foreign environment was just the proof of their success in life, without being able to assimilate them, even if it altered their habits, complemented their education and offered them different opportunities. Thus, in addition to the population left at home and ageing, a new population is making its place, a new population set on great deeds. Thanks to the education they have acquired and a small amount of capital, they know and want to make the most of the opportunities offered by this environment, which have been ignored (at best) or wasted.

We are witnessing the beginning of a paradigm shift. A new identity is about to emerge from the meeting of timelessness with 21st century values. This will provide new approaches to economic/social/cultural activity and perhaps new patterns of living - bringing together traditions and customs preserved in spirit with new forms of civilization provided by the experience gained in the West, access to globalized information/internet, access to renewable energies, use of concepts like blue-economy, open source philosophy, downshifting etc. This can also be greatly enhanced with the help of the LAGs (Local Action Groups), which can become the lever that can switch the rural environment from the "socially assisted" to the "economic-cultural pivot" in Romania. This lever can be better targeted by architects, in order to make more efficient use of local resources that can play a key role in this equation. In this respect, we exemplify just a few areas of activity: the use of local techniques and materials, the preservation of authentic cultural landscape, the repair/ restoration/ conversion of valuable built heritage according to community needs, the implementation of new techniques using local (natural, efficient, renewable) materials in new investments, both in rural and urban areas.

Change is necessary and must also take place at the level of education of the population, in schools, but also outside schools (social, greening, church, holidays, etc.). It must be promoted in direct connection with health (through hygiene), well-being and regaining self-confidence and self-esteem. It must result in the formation of a "I am my own master/ I must take care of myself and my family" type of consciousness and combat "the state must solve/ the state must give me/ the state must take care of me" type of behavior. In this respect, overcoming the inferiority complex between rural and urban dwellers, which has been induced since the 1950s (and is still unconsciously perpetuated today), can also be achieved through education and awareness of the quality of life that the countryside can offer: health, balance, life expectancy, etc.

Meanwhile, architects...?

Architects have the opportunity to participate in this dynamic not just as designers of new objectives, but as active vectors. But to do so, they have to change, learn new things, adapt to the priorities of the 21st century.

Let's start with the reality that we are reluctant to name: architects are not known in rural areas (i.e. in 80% of the territory and by 45% of the population). The word "architecture" is not known here either, even though everyone lives in houses. Why? We have at least three professional organizations of spatial planners in Romania (architects, urban planners, etc.) and about 9000 architects and urban planners. And the results... you see the rural guesthouses built with European funds and other such objectives. On the other hand, there are architects who, when they hear about the rural environment, turn their noses up in disdain or disgust, tributaries of a perception without a future. Other architects tell me: "Well, you're from Transylvania, it's different there...". Maybe, but the poverty, desolation and lack of a consistent vision for the future is (still) felt here too. The important thing is to understand the present needs, but also the considerable resources that can be activated and to begin to articulate them in order to trigger development mechanisms based on symbiosis and regenerability.

LAGs and architects have the chance to be the triggers of these processes which, from a certain point in time, can generate a different perception of the quality of life in rural areas.

What can the architect do for the rural inhabitant?

First of all, he must learn to put himself in their shoes, to listen to them, to speak to them in words they understand. Only then should they respond to their needs, as simply and discreetly as possible, otherwise they will (once again) miss their place in this environment. It must participate in the human-place relationship with simplicity, without any demiurgic tendencies, merely as a catalyst for a symbiotic relationship between man and his place.

Adapting the architect's approach to the everyday reality of rural life could be the first necessity, followed by measurement (unlike hitherto). Everyday architecture, the kind that does not dazzle but gives you a pleasant feeling of 'home', is sought after by the new rural inhabitants (important vectors), along with the desire for authenticity and the need for normality. These, complemented by all that renewable energy technology offers, healthy eating, using natural materials and local techniques, living (as far as possible) off the grid, without making a "statement" out of it.

The rural dweller does not want a rocket for a household, nor a mediate for a shed. He wants to live comfortably with his own people, to house his cattle, to look after his possessions and to store his necessities. It's a balance in which I don't know whether we have the right to intervene or whether we know how to intervene in a happy way. However, the architect is called upon to intervene - by the legislation in force, this is often not a guarantee of the quality of the result nor of the satisfaction of the beneficiary. By multiplying this type of approach on a significant scale (including the PUGs in rural areas - most often purely formal or outdated by the dynamics of village life), I often wonder where the role of the architect in the life of the settlements in question begins and ends.

Conclusion

There are villages that are dying, there are villages that are now being born. There are others that can be reborn if we are willing and know how to take care of them until they can look after themselves again. The people of the village, even if today they have cell phones and second-hand foreign cars, retain a dowry of which they are unaware, but which in critical situations bursts forth and makes its presence felt. The 21st century, with its priorities, brings together globalizing knowledge with pre-existing dowry. It is time we all understood this phenomenon and made... room for it. In proportion.

The rural area takes up approximately 80% of the national territory and is the living space of approximately 45% of Romania's population. It contributes to the GDP with 7%, with 5% coming from agriculture. The discrepancy between the indicators (resources/ results) is obvious for anyone, as well as the fact that agriculture has become almost the exclusive occupation in the rural environment (exposing the inhabitants to the danger fluctuations in the market of agricultural produce).

Who is responsible for this?

We know the past offers resources for growth/ development in the future through accumulated knowledge. Also, the future acknowledges the value of the past, providing in the same time identity to those who use/ transmit the knowledge. To willingly ignore the know-how of the past is to waste knowledge or, more specifically, resources; it means to start from scratch every time and to always lag behind. By choosing not to exploit the inherited knowledge we are condemned to the fate of Sisyphus; we are condemned to remain stuck in the mud and underdeveloped.

What can be done?

The^21st century changes the order of the needs and priorities; it urges us to understand there is only one responsible paradigm that requires a symbiosis with the environment, respect for the community and the rational use of the available resources. All the knowledge gathered in our rural past simply places value on these timeless principles in a simple and efficient manner, using solely local resources. We believe it is time to remember all these and to highlight the neglected resources and knowledge in a responsible manner.

To survive, the village needs to change.

To have a future, the rural environment can no longer be synonymous with social assistance.

"The beneficiaries"

Communism and post-communism have largely succeeded in destroying the people's pride of originating from the countryside, along with the preservers of rural knowledge and conscience, replacing them with spineless individuals - the basest specimens of the system or, more recently, of any ruling party. Nowadays, the rural environment in Romania appears impoverished and empty, with the largest part of its active population (gone to work in Western Europe), and ravaged by whoever is willing to do so. This territory is not protected by anyone, and those who should do the job often act as the "wolf guarding the sheep", wasting the resources and destroying the natural environment in the most irresponsible way. Concurrently, and fortunately, a new kind of rural dwellers is slowly emerging, originating in the urban environment. These are educated young people, who have also traveled the world, and who consider the rural environment the right place to live, according to their own values (see downshifting, inter alia). Simultaneously, some of the "villages' sons" are returning to their original environment - once they retire or return from the work abroad - to start a productive activity. For them, the urban/ foreign milieu simply tested their capacity to succeed in life without managing to integrate them, notwithstanding that it altered their habits, completed their education and provided them with different opportunities. Thus, next to this aged population left at home, a new population has emerged, ready to take over the world. Due to accumulated education and a small capital, it wants and knows how to exploit the opportunities provided by this milieu, opportunities that have been ignored (at best) or wasted.

We witness a shift in paradigm. A new identity is about to be born from the encounter of the timeless with the values of the^21st century. It will provide new approaches in the economic/ social/ cultural activity and, most likely, new patterns of living, merging the customs and habits preserved in the spirit with new forms of civilization provided by the experience accumulated in the West, by the access to globalized information/ the Internet, to renewable energies, and the use of concepts such as blue-economy, open source philosophy, downshifting etc. This reality can be augmented even more with the help of GALs (Groups of Local Action), which can leverage this transition of the rural environment from the "socially assisted" module to the "economic-cultural driver" one in Romania. Architects can better orient this leverage tool to make better use of the local resources, which play an essential part in this equation, in fields such as the use of local techniques and materials, the preservation of the authentic cultural landscape, the repair/ restoration/ conversion of the valuable built-up stock according to the needs of the community, the implementation of new techniques which use the local materials (natural, efficient, renewable) in new investments, both in rural and urban environment.

Change is necessary and needs to affect the education of the population as well: in schools, and outside them (on social actions, greening efforts, in churches, on celebrations etc.) in direct connection with the health care standards (through sanitary education), with prosperity and regaining confidence in one's own forces and self-esteem. It needs to result in the formation of a conscience that states "I am my own master/ I alone take care of myself and my people", and to fight against the belief that "the State will take care of this/ I will receive from the State/ the State must take care of me". In the same line of thought, the rural dwellers must overcome their complexes of inferiority towards the urban dwellers, induced since the 1950s (and unconsciously perpetuated to this day), which can equally be done through education and by growing more aware of the quality of life available in the rural environment: a healthier, more balanced, and longer life etc.

In the meantime, the architects...?

The architects have the chance to be part of this dynamic not only as setters of new goals, but also as active vectors. In order to do this, however, they need to change, to learn new things and to adapt to the priorities of the^21st century.

We start from a reality that we are fearful to spell out: the architect is not known in the rural environment (namely on 80% of the territory and by 45% of the population). Why is that? There are at least three professional organizations of space planners in Romania (architects, urban planners etc.) and approximately 9,000 architects and urbanists. What are the results? The rural pensions built from EU funds and the like. On the other hand, there are architects who pull a wry face in disgust or contempt when they hear of the rural environment, as adepts of a perception without a future. Other architects tell me: "Well, you are from Transylvania, and it is different there...". It might be, but the poverty, the desolation and the lack of any consistent vision for the future is felt here as well. It is important to understand the current needs and the considerable resources which can be activated, and to begin to spell them out, in order to trigger development mechanisms based on symbiosis and renewability.

The GALs and the architects have the chance to kick start the process which, from a certain point onward, can generate a different perception on the quality of life in the rural environment.

What can the architect do for the rural dweller?

First of all, he can learn to put himself in the dweller's shoes, to listen to him, talk to him in words that he can understand. Thereafter, the architect can begin to answer the dweller's needs, as simply and discreetly as possible, otherwise he will miss (again) his destiny in this environment. He needs to take part in the man-place relationship with simplicity, without demiurgic aspirations, and merely as a catalyst of the relationship of symbiosis between the man and his place.

The adjustment of the architect's endeavour to the daily rural reality can be the first step; this could be followed by moderate actions (unlike those taken so far). The new rural dwellers seek precisely this daily architecture, which does not necessarily dazzle, but causes a pleasant feeling of being at "home", as well as authenticity and normality, completed with everything offered by the technology of renewable energies, healthy food, the use of natural materials and local techniques, living (to the extent possible) outside the system, but without making a splash or a "statement" out of it.

The rural dweller does not wish to have a spaceship for a household, nor a multimedia library for a shed. It is a balance in which I do not know whether we have the right to intervene or whether we can intervene wisely. Nevertheless, the architect is called upon to intervene - considering the legislation in force; but more often than not, this does not guarantee a quality outcome, or the beneficiary's satisfaction. If we multiply this kind of actions at a significant scale (including up to the General Urban Plans in the rural environment, generally mere formalities and completely obsolete, considering the village dynamics), I often wonder where does the architect's role start and where does it end, in the life of the settlements at issue.

Conclusion

There are villages which die, and villages which are being born. There are others that can be revived, if we want to revive them and know how to take care of them, until they are able to look after themselves. The villagers, even though they have mobile phones and foreign second-hand cars, are the keepers of a legacy they are not necessarily aware of, which burst out into the open on critical occasions and making its presence felt. Through its priorities, the^21st century reunites globalizing knowledge and the pre-existing legacy. It is high time we all understood the process and made room for it... with moderation.