Thematic file

A competition from 1936: Piata 8 Iunie

text: Nicolae LASCU

One of the important directions of the Master Plan for the Systematization of Bucharest, approved by Royal Decree in May 1935, was to ensure a main urban circulation network. The extension of the north-south axis towards the south of the city, beyond University Square, up to the present Gh. ^Șincai1 - was one of the priorities. The ^Master Plan's circulation plan2 indicated, summarized on a city-wide scale, that the intersection of this new major axis of the city with Maria Boulevard (extended by Calea Călărașilor) and with the Dâmbovița riverbed (covered from Calea Victoriei to the Șerban Vodă bridge) should be in the area of Unirii Square, where, over time, various other specialized halls had been built, in addition to the Central Halls, and which had become, since the mid-19th century, the most important commercial area of Bucharest. This provision of the Master Plan was linked to another one, which had to do with the food supply system for the population. Under the new organization of this system, wholesale trade was to be concentrated in the new Hale Obor, while retail trade was to be differentiated according to the character of the area, in a hierarchical network throughout the ^city3. For the wholesale trade in vegetables, poultry and fish it was considered that the then central halls in Union Square should be ^demolished4. In the mid-1930s, the market was renamed 8 June Square, signifying the return to the throne of King Charles II. The necessary detailing of this provision, which indicated the formation of one of the city's most representative urban spaces, prompted the municipality to organize a public competition.
It was launched by the City Hall in the first days of December 1935. The competition theme5 specified, first of all, that only Romanian architects, members of the Corps of Architects, could participate, and the deadline was February 15, 1936. The competitors had a great deal of freedom in their proposals, on the land between Carol St., Bibescu-Vodă St., the Palace of Justice, up to the Patriarch's Hill, and the urban space was to be studied from an urban and architectural point of view, in terms of the shape and dimensions of the square, the architecture of the fronts, the perspectives pursued, etc., so that "this square would take on the appearance and scale necessary for the largest square in Bucharest and so that the Patriarch's Hill (with everything on it) would be emphasized"^6.

caption><img src= The competition should be seen in the context of the redefinition of important public spaces in Bucharest: the provisions of the Master Plan for University Square (followed, in 1936, by a competition with the City Hall building as its main object) or Victory Square, followed by Duiliu Marcu's successive proposals, the projects for the configuration of St. Elefterie Square (closely linked to Petre Antonescu's University Citadel project) or the competition for the Royal Palace Square, etc.
It is not known how many architects (or groups of architects) participated in the competition, nor are the results known. From the few published projects, we only know that one of them, by Alexandru Zamphiropol and Alexandru Hempel, was awarded third prize, while the same collective developed two other ^variants7.

Beyond the predominantly aesthetic concerns, in order to provide an appropriate architectural framework for the theme, the difficulty of ensuring (resolving) the flow of traffic is quite obvious, given that the square has three major directions (north-south axis, Bd. Maria - Calea Călărașilor and the Dâmbovița embankment), in addition to the required wide opening towards the Patriarch's Hill. This problem, with sufficiently varied solutions (sometimes with the directions of traffic indicated on the plan), eventually led to the configuration of the proposals. In most cases, the square or rectangular shape of the square is adopted, with a long north-south side, and the organizing axis of the composition is either the north-south boulevard or the Patriarch's Hill, or a combination of axes. The central area of the square is either treated as a single area or - in a few projects - it is subdivided into two spaces separated by a circulation. In all the projects, the central part of the square is suggested to be embellished with statues or groups of statues (perspective heads), fountains, large paved areas, etc.
On the other hand, the known projects express very clearly the quasi-general perspective of the time in relation to ignoring the cultural values of the past. The Dacia Hotel (Manuc's Inn) or the pavilions of the Brâncovenesc Hospital are examples of buildings that are either doomed to disappear or masked behind massive front screens. The theme of the competition, moreover, left the competitors completely free to choose their theme and, in this respect, allowed the tabula rasa principle to be applied.
Without commenting on the architecture considered (with the exception of Zamphiropol and Hempel's projects), it can be said that what is common to these projects is the obvious rhetoric of the solutions, the monumentality of the compositions and the very probable recourse to classicizing architecture. It was, in fact, the concretization of the requirements of the competition theme, emphasized by the competitors from the perspective of the significance of the market name and the general trends of the official architecture of the period.
From the known documents it appears that, in the end, the City Hall ignored the results of the competition organized by itself or, perhaps, did not retain any project as feasible. So in the months that followed the work progressed on the basis of successive projects by the New Works Department. A first project was drawn up in the first part of 1936 by Octav Doicescu's collective, of which only a detailing of a portion of the square, polished by a monumental fountain, is ^known8. After the appointment of Horia Creangă as director of the New Works Department, a new project was drawn up in March 1937 in collaboration with Mihai ^Ricci9. It expresses a very clear urban thinking, but naturally within the monumental style required by the market.
Without being accompanied by any elements that could have defined his intentions more precisely, Horia Creangă's project specifies the location of two public buildings, probably requested by the municipality: the future Opera building (located approximately on the site of the Central Hall until the early 1980s), and on the opposite side, the square is limited by the proposed building to house the Royal Foundations, developed as far as Bibescu Vodă Street.
Begun in the second part of the 4th decade, the transformation of the Unirii Square was completed in the 1980s, as part of the Casa Poporului ensemble.

NOTES

1 The southern part of the axis, from Romei Square (St. Gheorghe Square) to the "Belului reed" - Youth Park and "Gh. Șincai", was approved in 1912; Nicolae Lascu, Bulevardele bucureștene până la Primul Război Mondial, București, Ed. Simetria, 2011, p. 57. In the 1930s the route was slightly corrected, ensuring the perfect linearity of the axis.
2 Bucharest City Hall, Master Plan of Systematization decreed on May 9, 1935, Justifying memorandum and plans, Bucharest, "Bucovina" I. E Torouțiu, f.a., Annex no. 17 - Scheme of the traffic arteries.
3 Master plan for the systematization of Bucharest, decreed on May 9, 1935. Memoriu justificativ e piani, Cap. XI - Aprovizionarea Bucureștiului; București, Tip. "Bucovina" LE. Torouțiu, f.a., p. 57-59.
4 The arguments for the demolition of the central halls were as follows: "They do not have enough room, they are obsolete, impractical, not in keeping with the principles set out above, they cause traffic congestion and an unacceptable source of filth in the city center..."; idem, p. 58.
5 The theme of the competition in Monitorul Communal, no. 48, December 1, 1935, pp. 13-14. Competitors were required to submit the following pieces: a plan, the unfolding of all directions, an eye-level perspective, an aerial perspective, two cross-sections, a detail, and a memoir.
6 Ibid.
7 In the magazine Arhitectura No. 7, November 1936, pages unnumbered, there were published plans of competition projects Nos. 8 and 9, both by Alexandru Zamphiropol and Alexandru Hempel, and in the following issue, No. 8, 1938, p. 26, the plan of another project by the same collective, awarded third prize. In his volume, Evoluția orașului București, Ed. Fundației Arhitext Design, 2011, p. 218-219, Andrei Pănoiu has signaled some projects, with the mention of the authors, in the photographic album "Concursul pentru amenajarea pieței 8 Iunie", in the Romanian Academy Library.
8 Bucharest City Hall Archives, PMB Fund - Technical, file 122/1936, unnumbered files. The file contains, in addition to the detailed plans of the fountain and its perspective, the address of O. Doicescu, in his then capacity as director of the New Works Department, to the members of the Municipal Council, as well as the approval of August 25, 1936 by the Municipal Council.
9 Bucharest City Hall Archives, PMB Fund - Technical, file 143/1937, unnumbered files. The plan signed by Horia Creangă and Mihai Ricci, much simplified, illustrated a short article - Proectul de amenajare al pieței 8 Iunie, "Gazeta municipală", March 21, 1937, p. 5.