Union of Romanian Architects (UAR): 1989-2016

Speech delivered at the Symposium dedicated to the 125th anniversary of the Romanian Society of Architects, Bucharest, February 26, 2016

Peter DERER, President UAR (2008-2012)

Preamble

December 1989 saw the end of a special chapter for the UAR (which replaced the old SAR in 1951). In defiance of the proletarian dictatorship, the first post-war generation (made up of the descendants of many leading intellectuals) retained a dose of honorability. Although many architects were affected, directly or indirectly, by the regime's various forms of repression. The same regime that other colleagues supported to the end, out of opportunism or even conviction.

As a professional group with a liberal philosophy that had to be "domesticated", architects were enrolled in large design institutes, with the status of state civil servants. They always had work to do, especially for the large-scale projects commissioned by the communist public administration. They enjoyed a certain sympathy among the population, especially the groups that benefited from housing. The sympathy was diluted, however, when demolition campaigns began (particularly for the new Civic Center in Bucharest), superimposed on great economic constraints.

The new chapter in the profession's existence includes the concern to return to the pre-1951 situation, but without totally renouncing the subsequent legacy. Architects took advantage of the popular movement to return to the status of a liberal profession. However, retaining the UAR name (like the other creative unions) suggests that some of the advantages offered by the totalitarian state were preserved.

Part of Romanian society, the architects' guild has the same features as the whole. From good intentions to obstructionism, from collegiality to gratuitous malice, from honesty to appetite for corruption, from humility to arrogance and so on, "nothing that is human is alien to it". The manifestation of some of these traits becomes more evident in the general process of democratization, in which the architectural profession no longer occupies the privileged place it did a century ago.

The last quarter-century can be divided in several ways. Broadly speaking, there is the period when the UAR was the only professional association, followed by the period when, alongside the UAR, the Order of Architects emerged. The first decade begins with a brief transitional phase that opens two legislatures with wide-ranging activities and important achievements, despite financial problems. Another transition is consummated in the years leading up to the emergence of the OAR, an event that could have been the end of the UAR.

At the beginning of the period of co-existence of the two large organizations, the UAR questions its specific profile. If the OAR should monitor the problems of the profession, the UAR can target its cultural aspects and the social problems of architects. To finance its activities it prepares the material basis adapted to the liberal economy. The end of the quarter-century was devoted to reconsidering the UAR among architects, diversifying relations at home and abroad and PR activities.

Reorientation

The first post-1989 gestures consisted in affirming an attachment to the new state of affairs by detaching from the old administration. There were critical reactions to the architects in the leadership of the former party and state structures, alongside declarations of rapprochement with colleagues who had been forcibly expatriated. The introduction of freedom of movement has allowed exchanges of visits and the return of the UAR to the European and international institutions from which it had been separated during the dictatorship.

Within the UIA, the UAR delegate was included in the UIA's Governing Board and later became Vice-President of the organization. The participation in other professional organizations abroad allowed the exchange of information and experience in their respective fields. An important support was provided by Romanian architects established and recognized abroad (among them Prof. Șerban Cantacuzino (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/language-trails/romanian/notable-romanians-london), from the Royal Fine Arts Commission in the UK).

In the first years marked by turmoil and searching, the interim leadership stimulated the organizational rebuilding of the union. The first legally recognized local associations (a reaction to Bucharest's centralism) were formed in the west of the country. There, the architects, with a few exceptions, were less bound by the policy of socialist reconstruction of Romania. Their colleagues in the east and south, especially in the capital, had credibility problems. Here they even tried to form alternative associations such as SAR, UFAR or to get involved in specialized structures (APUR, UNRMI, etc.).

The new organization implied the modification of the old Statute of the RSR UAR, which included some provisions that seemed outdated. For example, contrary to the previous regulation (election of the President by the Steering Committee), an article was now introduced stating that the election of the President was directly by the National Conference. Interesting provision in the new socio-economic context, when architects were among the first to be privatized (too fast compared to the creation of the middle class, the main commissioner of architectural production).

The new position of the UAR in the field of architecture, building and urbanism was discussed in symposia, such as the one on the occasion of the SAR's centenary in 1991. But also in connection with major thematic exhibitions in the capital and abroad. In the place of the former quinquennial exhibitions, the Bucharest Architecture Biennial series was inaugurated, through which the UAR presented the new productions of its members. Organized in progressively more complex formulas, accompanied by related conferences or on given themes, their juries included important specialists from abroad, who objectified the results. The catalogues of events represent a veritable history of post-1989 architecture.

Publications were another channel of communication. The turbulent development of "Arhitectura", a veritable professional monument, was due as much to the changed financial context as to the competition from other publications in the field, which attracted some of its authors. In the first decade, several editorial teams changed, which explains the thematic, formal and substantive variety. In spite of the lack of continuity, the publication managed to reflect, in part, the upheavals in the profession and its hesitant adaptation to the new socio-economic situation.

The magazine was later joined, and only for a short period, by Simetria Publishing House, where reference works have appeared, enriching the shelves of many libraries. The UAR, the second most important library at the time, continued its existence, taking advantage of the previous accumulations. The inventory taken over from the SAR was supplemented, with funding from the Architectural Fund, by many donations and acquisitions. (The limitation of funds after 1980 meant that some of the many titles of books and periodicals printed at home and abroad were not present in its collections.)

The new leadership of the UAR (installed following the 1992 National Conference) stimulated the public presence of its members by organizing public competitions. There was an intention to move away from competitions of ideas (common before 1989) to competitions that were finalized by buildings. Through the related publicity, the guild could show itself in a different light and advocate an architecture that stood out from previous production. Except that some projects materialized otherwise, missing the original purpose. Most had no finality at all (such as the "Thoughts on the People's House" debate-competition), mirroring the lack of realism of the emotional. The "Bucharest 2000" international architecture competition, launched in 1995, had a notable impact, which could have marked the future of the capital and, by rebound, the work of more than half of Romania's architects.

Turning points

Suggested by architects from Italy and France, the "Bucharest 2000" competition only became possible after an appeal for patronage from the then presidency. The event enjoyed enormous success at home and real interest abroad, in proportion to the funds made available. After 1996, the next administration continued the process by preparing the studies needed to implement the winning project.

Unfortunately, the team that organized the competition failed to push through to the next phase. In 2004, under the same president who had patronized the launch, the idea was abandoned. Thus, at least two strategic objectives, important for the UAR, were missed. The first was aimed at a different philosophy for the development of Bucharest: concentrating vital major investments in the construction-ready area of the new Civic Center (as in Beirut and Berlin). The second concerned the architects' working front: captivated by the monumental architecture of the "Bucharest 2000 Zone", they could have reserved their necessary sensitivity in reinvigorating traditional neighborhoods. "The 'mixing of the jars' has put many in the position of producing inadequate architecture, sanctioned not only by the people of Bucharest. Coincidentally or not, this is the moment when the relevant ministry and any presence of architects in central government management posts disappeared.

Another noteworthy moment was the entry into force of the Law on the organization and practice of the profession of architect in 2001, after a long "gestation" (Law 184/2001). After the experience of the National Register of Architects (RNA), the new normative act brings a different way of regulating the profession, separate from the school. The divorce from the former Institute of Architecture "Ion Mincu" (now the University of Architecture and Urbanism) materialized in the eviction of the UAR headquarters (offices, library, archives) from the educational building. Another effect of the law was, ironically, the parallel existence of two architects' organizations.

The Romanian Order of Architects (OAR), set up immediately by the general assemblies of its future members, set off on the road with the "right of signature" tax, which gave it a secure material base. It took over from the UAR the right to represent the profession vis-à-vis the authorities and within the UIA, and subsequently also took over the right to collect the architectural stamp in tandem. In exchange, it left to the old association some money-consuming components (architecture biennales, the Venice Biennale, the magazine and the library), as well as the rights obtained within the National Alliance of Creators' Unions (ANUC).

Another turning point was the emergence of laws favorable to creators. In the first decade after 1989, the UAR was the only professional organization of architects. In order to assert itself socially and economically, it allied itself with other creative artists' unions. The ANUC, founded in 1995, succeeded in pushing for the need to pass a set of laws that would allow the state to financially support the work and members of the creators' unions.

Thus, through the Law on Cultural Stamps, the UAR (later also the OAR) is empowered to collect the architecture stamp. The fund set up under Law 35/1994 is used only for the material base and its own activities in the cultural and social field. The Architecture Stamp Fund, together with the fund realized from membership fees, constitutes the basis of the current resources of the UAR for its existence and activity.

Another normative act proposed by ANUC concerned the merit allowances: 110 UAR members benefit from them on the basis of the acceptance of a national commission set up within the Romanian Academy. Finally, Law 8/2006 grants compensatory allowances to the state pension (for the period when architects had the status and remuneration of civil servants). With the creation of the OAR (which is not a union of creators), only the UAR and its members benefited from these advantages.

The architects receiving the merit allowance and retirement compensation became members of the UAR again, contributing to changes in the number of members, age structure, gender, occupation, health, leisure time, etc. The result was a different kind of union, which had to adapt its aims and activities, to reconsider its place in society (in the absence of representatives in the political and administrative leadership of the country) alongside the new professional organizations that emerged.

Adaptation to another context

With the emergence of a second organization (OHR), the leadership of the UAR elected at the 2004 National Conference gradually had to come to terms with the new situation. After a financially difficult period, the situation has improved thanks to the return of old members to the organization (due to the effects of Law 8/2006). The fact that about 200 loyal members, constant payers of the membership fee, have forced the payment of arrears to the returnees has saved the budget of the UAR. To this was added the fund resulting from the accumulation of the Architecture Stamp, which gradually increased in the years when the "economy was in difficulties". But where there is money, there are problems.

The vital element, the headquarters (because the UAR had to vacate the premises of the IAIM and failed to recover the former SAR headquarters, losing the lawsuit with the PMB) will be realized by capitalizing, in partnership with a construction trust, the building on Dem. Dobrescu 5, transferred from state property. The spaces for the library, archives, collections, etc. were made available by the PMB on the ground and first floors of the building (with stability problems) at 126 Calea Victoriei, which was fitted out with its own funds.

After lengthy debates, the majority of members of the Senate accepted the use of stamp funds not only for cultural events and social activities, but also for the realization of the material basis for their implementation. As a matter of urgency, after careful analysis, the premises in Bucharest (today's Center for Architectural Culture) were acquired as a first step, which, through expansion, was to take over the library, archives, collections, etc. in Calea Victoriei. (At the beginning of 2012, the necessary permits and funds were in place to launch the competition for the CCA annex).

For the social obligations, the Senate adopted the program of the Houses of Rest and Culture of Architects (COCA) chosen by development regions (the Olari mansion is in Oltenia, the House with blazons in the SE region, the villa in Sinaia in the South region). The aim of the program was to offer UAR members the possibility of recreation outside the big cities, while generating cultural and creative activities (in relation with local communities). The idea was to prevent loneliness and illness through socialization and dynamization.

The COCA project was based on the idea of decentralizing the UAR along the lines of development regions, equivalent to the districts of Bucharest. The formula is viable in some respects, but it was countered with other arguments. Decentralization would not be limited to the organizational level, but also to the economic-financial level, in the hope of reinvigorating on the ground the activities considered specific. If it is accepted that professional issues are rightfully the responsibility of the RAO, these would have been mainly in the cultural and social fields (according to Law 35/1994, which also provides the funds).

In fact, regionalization and the COCA program are but components of another philosophy regarding the UAR. Namely, the renunciation of the assisted mentality and the shift to finding or building (on the basis of current financial reserves) new sources of income to achieve the cultural and social objectives of the association. The branches and members of the UAR would consume in proportion to their own contribution and income realized from membership fees, COCA activities, other sources, etc. managed through structures organized on economic principles (in addition to the old Economic Office, a commercial company - Arhibolta - was established).

In parallel with these debates, cultural and social activities were carried out. The annual organization of selections for cultural projects (monographs, guides, summer schools, symposia, etc.) has been carried out. The attempt to attract as many participants as possible from the counties has not yet yielded results. The support for cultural projects has resulted in many publications (published mainly by Simetria, the former publishing house of the UAR), leaflets with architectural routes, building sites, symposia.

The Timbrul Arhitecturii Fund also supported architectural competitions such as the redevelopment of the University Square in Bucharest or the redevelopment of cultural venues in historical monuments (the former Waterworks in Suceava). It also financed the Bucharest Architecture Biennale (organization, juries, catalogues, exhibition itinerary), as well as the competitions/ concretization (together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture) of the Romanian presence at the Venice Architecture Biennale.

The UAR contributed financially to the organization of documentary trips in the country and abroad: Italy (among others to visit the Venice Biennale), Bulgaria (on the occasion of an architectural exhibition in Balcic), in the Republic of Moldova. As a result of this type of socializing, photo and drawing/watercolour exhibitions were organized in the CCA halls. The traditional pre-1989 cycle of conferences was (partially) resumed in the same rooms.

Despite some changes in the team, the magazine "Arhitectura 1906" continued to appear, endeavoring to regain its readership in the face of real competition. The "UAR Newsletter" reappeared, containing information on the work of the Senate and other general events. A publication that made a name for itself in the world of architects and beyond was the newsletter "Observatorului Urban București", which featured many news items and analyses, especially on the situation of the construction market in the capital, with a focus on issues related to the protection and revitalization of monuments.

Increased attention was paid to the social assistance of architects with health problems. UAR cooperates with the "Regina Maria" network of polyclinics for medical visits and examinations, health records, etc. Criteria and ceilings have been established for the granting of financial assistance in case of need. Efforts were made to organize preventive and socializing activities (meetings, group celebrations, accommodation in resorts, etc.).

Observation

Rethinking the UAR's way of life requires unity and continuity, which are not highly valued among the profession, and obviously not among UAR members. The organizational formula put forward in the last 2 legislatures is not ideal, but it is perfectible. It must be analyzed patiently and competently and, moreover, disseminated at branch level and among members.

This is what the leadership elected in 2012 did. It has bypassed some projects (the library extension, the Olari manor, Arhibolta), but has completed other real estate objectives. These are the Center of Architectural Culture, the Rest and Creative House of Architects in Sinaia and the Complex of Rest and Culture of Architects in Chiojdu/ Buzău. The CCA is already functioning (partially since 2011), the others will become fully operational once the authorizations are granted, on the 125th anniversary of the founding of the SAR and the 65th anniversary of its transformation into the UAR.

The Bucharest and Venice Architecture Biennials were continued (with a progressively wider participation), the necessary sums for cultural projects with third parties were allocated annually and the funds reserved for the UAR's own projects (including "De-a arhitectura") were increased, competitions for young architects were stimulated. A large theoretical event was inaugurated, called (slightly inappropriately in relation to the actual situation) the Congress of Cultural Heritage, with international participation.

The finalization of the projects taken over from the new ones also entailed the detailed registration of the activities of the UAR in the current legislative context and accounting bureaucracy. Issues of territorial organization (the formula of the regional and sectoral branches), management (the relationship between the Senate, the Board of Directors and the President), the relationship between elected representatives and employees, etc. were discussed. For the first time the UAR is headed by a female colleague (architects form the majority of members), just as all the development regions are represented in the Senate, except for members from abroad.

The CCA, Sinaia and Chiojdu (except Olari) construction sites have required a great deal of effort, almost impossible to complete without an administrative apparatus that some consider too large. Its organizational chart was approved, except for the salary scheme correlated to the responsibilities in the job description. The staff of some departments (Architecture magazine, Urban Observatory) has fluctuated, other structures have been set up (own patrimony), which may explain why it was not possible to add to the fund of dues and stamp deposits existing in 2012 any more money than was collected in the last legislature.

The accurate inventory of the current patrimony, the further computerization of the library, the tidying up of the various archives, the furnishing and equipping of the CCA and COCA Sinaia and Chiojdu are just some of the recent activities (in addition to organizing exhibitions, festive meetings, book launches, cultural projects, publishing books, organizing documentary trips, etc.). They are partly mentioned in BIUAR and OUB (unfortunately in dissolution), some in the magazine "Arhitectura 1906", which, despite financial problems, remains an important means of communication of the UAR.

Not the only one. Noticing the absence of information on the organization's activities, the leadership elected in 2012 tried (not without debates and counter-arguments) to make up for it by continuing the BNAB itineraries and widening the pool of participation in the Venice Architecture Biennale. At the same time, some of their components ("Architects Creators of Heritage", "De-a arhitectura") were toured around the country and, where appropriate, exhibited abroad.

On this occasion, the UAR collaborated with the management of the Romanian Cultural Institute, the Bucharest City Hall, the "Ion Mincu" University of Architecture and Urbanism, the Romanian Presidency. Now well known for its activities, UAR was awarded, on the eve of the 125th anniversary of the foundation of its predecessor SAR, with the Order of "Cultural Merit" in the rank of Officer.