Thematic dossier

Church Parcul Domeniilor - Cașin in Bucharest.

Unpublished details of an ecclesiastical architectural competition
from the 1930s

text: Ștefan IONESCU BERECHET

This summer marked the 50th anniversary of the death of my grandfather, Dimitrie Ionescu Berechet (1896-1969), chief architect of the Romanian Patriarchate between 1930-1963 and designer of many landmark monuments in the history of contemporary Romanian art. Biserica Parcul Domeniilor - Cașin și Biserica Sf. Vineri - Nouă din București, Căminul și paraclisul românesc de la Ierusalim, Mausoleul de pe Muntele Mateiaș, Catedralele din Hunedoara și Sf. Gheorghe - Covasna, biserica Mănăstirii Maglavit, Biserica Sf. Împărați din Constanța, Schitul Maicilor din București (restaurare), mobilierul Sălii Sinodale a Reședinței patriarhale, mobilierul Bibliotecii Sf. Synod of the Antim Monastery, the wooden carpets of the Dealu Monastery and St. Elefterie Church in Bucharest, the canopy with the St. Calinic's coat of arms of the Cernica Monastery, the administrative palaces of Câmpulung-Muscel and Hunedoara or the Mărăști Palace (today the George Bacovia Theater) in Bacău are just some of them. A partial inventory of his work indicates an impressive total of some 468 works - including unfinished projects - covering an extremely rich and varied thematic and stylistic register. Of the more than 300 projects of ecclesiastical architecture, 135 are projects for places of worship, of which about 105 have been executed.
During August and September of this year I undertook extensive documentation on the biography and work of the architect Berechet, finalized by a monographic album and a homage exhibition, which began its tour on October 8 at the Patriarchal Palace in Bucharest. In the course of my research I was surprised to discover, in the family archive left over from my grandfather, some unpublished documents relating to the competition held in the interwar period for the design of the church in the new Parcul Domeniilor neighborhood of Bucharest, which I will present in detail in this article.
On June 10, 1936, the Parochial Council of the Parcul Domeniilor Parish launched a restricted competition, on the basis of invitations, for Romanian Christian architects to draw up the plans for the church and the parish house, which were to be built in the new neighborhood, on the vacant land at the intersection of Bd. Mărăști and Bd. Mănăstirea Cașin.
The invitation sent to the architects stated the wish to come up with an "ideal creation" that would take into account "the topography of the site, the urban development of the capital and, above all, the role of this church, a royal foundation".
The main requirements of the program are then set out: 'The church should be sized for about 5-600 people, designed in the spirit and according to the canons of the Christian Orthodox Church. The style, the number of spires and the shape of the church are up to the entrant. The parish house will be built next to the church, which will also include a council chamber, library and chancery."
The competitors were required to submit the following plans: 'situation plan, church plan at 1 cm scale: 1 m, main facade, side facade, rear facade, cross-section and longitudinal section, perspective and a facade detail at 2 cm scale. Plan of the parish house - two facades and cross-section, 1 m scale'.
The deadline for the submission of the projects was July 10, 12.00 noon, and the handing over had to be made either to the parish priest, Dumitru Manta, or to G. Ionescu Brăila, Director General in the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and epitrop in the Parish Council. The projects were to be analyzed within a maximum of seven days after the deadline for submission, by a jury composed of eight members: His Eminence Patriarch Miron, the Mayor of the Capital, two delegates of the Parish Council, the rector of the Academy of Architecture, the dean of the Corps of Architects, the president of the Romanian Society of Architects, the president of the General Society of Engineers in Romania, an architect designated by the competitors. Three prizes will be awarded: first prize, who will be retained, will be responsible for hiring and supervising the work, receiving 4% of the value of the work (estimated at 6,000,000 lei for the red construction), apart from painting, furniture and bells; second prize - 20,000 lei and third prize - 10,000 lei.
The competition was judged on November 17, 1936, and the winner was the project "Troița" by arch. Ion I. Berindey. The project was approved neither by the commissioner nor by the Patriarchate and therefore the Parish Council, with the approval of the Archbishopric of Bucharest, launched a new restricted competition on February 10, 1937, to which the architects Ion I. Berindey, C. Iotzu and D. Ionescu Berechet were invited to participate.

In the invitation sent it is stated that "the sketches of the plans shall be designed in the manner of our churches, historical monuments or of any Orthodox church, recognized as a monument of art, so that a monumental church is created, such as one to be built in the immediate vicinity of the Arc de Triomphe. The sketches will be submitted to the Parish Council, which will submit them to the Holy Archbishop for approval, in accordance with art. 167 of the Regulations for the organization of the B.O.R. and the regulations for the construction of churches". The competitors were to submit a set of 6 plans: "plan par terre, main facade and side facade, section, situation plan and perspective view at a scale of 1 cm: 1 m". The delivery had to be made before March 10, 1937, at the parish chancery, to the priest Dumitru Manta.
At the end of the invitation, it was stated that if "the sketch will correspond to the intended purpose and will be approved by the Holy Archdiocese of Bucharest", the winner of the competition would complete the plan, receiving for the plan, estimate and supervision a fee of 4% of the value of the work, estimated at about 6 million lei, apart from painting, installations and bells. The parish house will be built at the same time as the church, and the winning bidder will execute the plans as soon as the church project is approved.
The annulment of the first competition and the establishment of a new one provoked the vehement protest of the architect Ion I. Berindey, who on February 19, 1937 addressed a letter to the Dean of the Corps of Architects, asking him to intervene with the Parish Council to recognize the result of the previous year's competition. In his plea, architect Berindey points out that "the first prize, according to the conditions and obligations taken by the nominal invitation I had, provided for me the right to be employed as the architect of the work, the decisions of the jury being final and enforceable, according to the very text of the program". He states that he sent a notification to the Parish Council, asking for his rights to be recognized, and claims that the rejection of his winning project was due to the Technical Service of the Patriarchate, which, "out of a desire to substitute itself for the undersigned", "provoked an address from the Patriarchate, proposing to give 5,000 lei in compensation to each competitor or to give the work to a church specialist". Architect Berindey also points out in his complaint that "I had agreed with the Parish Council, at the meeting I attended a few days after the result of the competition, to draw up the final design taking into account the views of the Patriarch". Now being invited to compete again, with two colleagues, Iotzu and Berechet, who, although invited, did not want to take part in the first competition, architect Berindey argues that since they did not compete, they cannot appear today and asks the dean of the Corps of Architects to advise the Parish Council that it has no right to institute a new competition, while advising the aforementioned colleagues that the result of the competition does not give them the right to participate in a sham competition.
The Dean's Office of the Corps of Architects reacted with two addresses sent on the same day, February 19, one to the Domains Park Parish Council and the other to the arch. D. Ionescu Berechet, asking them to comply with the jury's decision of November 17 last year. In the first address, the commissioner was told that "the publication of an architectural competition implies firm commitments to comply with the conditions of the program, both on the part of the authority publishing the competition and on the part of the competitors, to the extent that the Parish would be exposed to paying damages if the architect whose rights were violated did not voluntarily renounce the work. On the other hand, we inform you that the provisions of the Law of the Corps of Architects and the implementing regulations impose certain obligations on the members of the Corps, so that the measure taken by you to issue invitations to a new overlapping and irregular competition, we believe that it will not have any effect, since the invited members are put in delicate situations with respect to their colleague with earned rights, as well as with respect to the provisions of the Regulations of public architectural competitions." At the end of the address it is emphasized that "Mr. Architect Berindey is a distinguished professional of good repute and his experience is a key to your full confidence in him".

Three days later, on February 22, architect D. Ionescu Berechet informs the Parish Council in a letter that "I will follow up on your invitation only after you have first legally settled the dispute, which I had considered closed even before the invitation you sent me. I believe that this matter will be legalized by March 10, the date on which I am due to hand over the project on which I have been working for 10 days". At the same time, architect Berechet replied to the Corps of Architects with a letter in which he clarified his point of view: "I responded to the invitation of February 10, 1937, issued by the Parish Council, making my participation conditional on the parish's obligation to settle the dispute between it and Mr. Arch. Berindey, legalizing the result of the contest. Moreover, Mr. Berindey's project - 4 out of 20 invited - was chosen first by the Honorable Commission of Architects, while the parish - the owner - and the Holy Metropolitan - the tutelary body - did not accept it. I believe that the adjudication cannot be perfected without the owner's assent. To redo this competition on other principles would cancel the competition by right - the project succeeded, not the architect - and I also think that the parish cannot be forced to execute, spending about 1 million, a work that does not suit it or the Holy Metropolitan, who is responsible for this kind of work.
In its meeting on April 16, 1937, the Archbishop's Council of the Economic Section decided that the construction of the church in the Domain Park should be carried out under the supervision and according to the project of the architect. D. Ionescu Berechet, presented at the competition held by the parish on March 10. In an address dated April 26, signed by His Eminence Patriarch Miron himself, the architect Berechet was asked to contact the parish governing bodies to expedite the works, stating that "You will be conditionally invited to the competition, as you have been stopped by an address of the Romanian Architects' Corps, as you inform us, but the Archbishop's Council decision cannot be ignored in your capacity as an architect employed in the service of the Holy Patriarchate. The Dean's intervention in this matter we believe is not justified, as we have also communicated to the Dean in our letter of April 20, 1937, and we believe that he will accept our point of view".
Architect Berechet complied with the patriarchal decision, but was drastically sanctioned by the Corps of Architects, with a two-year suspension from his activity. His Eminence Patriarch Miron intervened personally in the matter, asking the Minister of National Education, Victor Iamandi, in an address sent at the end of 1937, to lift the sanction, and on March 24, 1938, the Minister of National Education overruled the decision of the Disciplinary Council of the Corps of Architects.
From an extensive justificatory memorandum, with the value of a "testament", drawn up by arch. D. Ionescu Berechet in 1961, we learn extremely important details about his conception of the building and decoration of the church in the Domeniilor Park, from which we reproduce some passages at the end of this article. The profound bond between the architect and this emblematic building of the capital and of his career, on which he worked for more than three decades, was sealed forever with his burial in the crypt beneath the altar on July 3, 1969.
"In order to preserve in writing the idea which, from the very beginning, led to the elaboration of this work, allow me to show the guiding thread in the design of this holy place. Right from the moment the work was awarded by competition, with the assent and blessing of Patriarch Miron, we conceived a vast place of prayer that would hold the multitude of the faithful of a new neighborhood, monumental, to stand with dignity alongside the new buildings of the neighborhood, solid, to stand the test of time, and as rich and artistic as possible, to become a work of art and, thanks to its harmony, to be harmoniously integrated without distracting from the urban environment of the city.

The style is an up-to-date monumental adaptation of the predominant elements of the national style, in which completely new elements have been harmoniously combined with traditional ones. Embroidered on the specificity of the Montenegrin churches in trefoiled plan, with vivid memories of oriental-Byzantine influences, its plan with three apses is inscribed in a 25-meter square. The large arches, marked by the interior architecture, logically support the large Pantocrator's spire, the only one visible in the church, passing through a row of semi-domes set high up, also a new element. And as a new element, Byzantine, as in St. Sophia in Constantinople, the visitor can catch at a glance, just as he steps into the church, the icon of the Savior, which dominates the whole ensemble from the Pantocrator's spire. It has succeeded and is the only large church in our country with this feature. The icon of Our Lady enthroned over the Holy Altar and the white lace cross of the temple complete the impression. The corners of the plan, which house the staircase, the paraclete, the proscomidia, and the diaconicon, are marked by four smaller spires, with an architecture akin to the large one which they frame, all contributing to the unified and bold appearance of the whole church.
The four pillars of the Pantocrator that support the spire will be marked in stone. Above them, the stone construction will be continued with four angels with spread wings. They will support the cupolas with the Evangelists, over which, by means of profiles, the steeple will be passed, which will also have ocornettes framing the Apostles. This alternation between stone and pictorial decoration means that interior decoration can easily be done over a long period of time. In Italy there are still churches that have not had their interiors finished for centuries. This alternation also allows the painting to be the work of different artists. Those shown were also originally indicated in the model inside the church.
The richness and originality of the interior will also be enhanced by the colored and white marble, all of local origin, of which the temple and its sides (the patriarchal jewel and the pulpit) and the choir balcony have already been made, and of which the colored wainscoting is to be made, which, surrounding the church up to below the windows like a shimmering belt of marble and mosaic, will unify the temple with the balcony and the interior arcades, giving harmony and unity to the interior. This will create a sumptuous interior, new in material and style, using local elements with Byzantine and Italian reminiscences, creating harmony between the exterior and interior. The lighting of the church will follow the same new and monumental line, being done indirectly, through spotlights masked in the architecture, with total and partial effects of light and shadow.
The façade is a faithful transposition of the plan. Its position and the 12 steps of the entrance porch give it height and make the monument stand out in the square in which it was fortunate enough to be placed.
It was always borne in mind that the church would not be a finished monument in a short time. First quality materials have been used, expensive art work has been done and imitation materials avoided. Monuments of true art are the work of many generations. Variation in detail, color and period form their charm and permanence. When this work is finished, if the theme underlying the original conception is faithfully followed, and the realization of which has been pursued so far, the church will be a chosen monument of actual national art, unified in facade, interior and painting, a present-day quintessence of the churches of old."