The post-war Romanian coastal project: a call for a transregional critical history

In recent times, the critical history of post-war architecture is gradually beginning to break out of the major narrative lines and to branch out and nuance, both through interdisciplinary approaches and the publication of emblematic case studies, as well as all the minor local and/or national histories and the partial and complicated connections between them - connections often limited by language or by barriers of accessibility and/or visibility in the public space.
It is already a fact affirmed in countless recent critical investigations: throughout the communist period, the Romanian architectural theoretical discourse is successfully symbolized by the seaside project, by faithfully materializing to the highest standard the innovative architectural ideas of the post-war era and by its ideal, mythical dimension, a dimension repeatedly invoked from multiple positions and directions by scholars. The reasons and ways in which it absorbed, through various channels of communication, the principles and directions of Western post-war modernism and the demonstration of its synchronous character with the Western world are part of the historiography of socialist architecture, which has already been treated with rigor and finesse by several specialists in the field over the last ^decade1. The consistent series of publications that have appeared over the last two decades indicate, through the overlapping and diversity of the studies, the complexity of the phenomenon and its transnational implications by identifying the various patterns of transfer of cutting-edge professional knowledge across political borders.
By its dimension, this text does not aim at a thorough and critical investigation of the historiography of Romanian post-war littoral architecture, but it wishes to signal, concisely and optimistically, the richness and accuracy of the research already undertaken, highlighting some of the situations that require exchanges of ideas. We also consider it absolutely necessary and urgent to call for the possibility of including this and future research in a cross-regional perspective. This would target the dynamics of interactions across borders, a kind of "trans-urban history", a "non-monographic and non-national-centered type of investigation", because, as Jean-Louis ^Cohen2, in an excellent critical text on post-war historiography, defines it as "[...] one of the most productive possible strategies for rewriting a worn-out master narrative"^3.
Romanian post-war architecture and urbanism are influenced, first and foremost, by the political factor, but also by the ideas of the time, which, despite the Iron Curtain borders, circulate through different channels in both directions. The main political stages correspond to the general stages through which architecture and urbanism pass: the seizure of power and the process of consolidation of the regime up to the early 1950s allow the continuity of interwar architectural culture, characterized by the binomial tradition-modernity; the direct reflection of the hard-line Soviet political line of the Stalinist period imposes the architecture of socialist realism in the first half of the 1950s; the political opening from the late 1950s to the early 1970s is the fertile period of functionalist ^language4; the gradually accentuated totalitarianism after the mid-1970s, specific only to Romania, takes on sterile, closed, nationalist forms. All these stages are faithfully reflected in the spearhead of the seaside project, including considering the sources of influence for its architecture: the legacy of modernism and European leisure architecture from the pre-war period (with its specific effects on the Romanian inter-war seaside); the influence, officially transmitted, on the political line, of ideologically permitted architectural principles, first of all those with official model value from the USSR, but also variations from the satellite countries; the influence of those Western models that had managed to penetrate the Romanian architectural sphere both directly and through the countries of the Soviet Bloc, through official or ^private channels5. The seaside was built in the regime's most prosperous period and is fortunately saved from the doldrums of the 1980s, the moment of the beginning of the decline in the late 1970s having caught it ready-made and thus ^unaffected6.
Although marked, first and foremost, by politics and ideology, the evolution of Romanian architectural culture after the Second World War is also influenced by some of the main economic, social and cultural factors transforming the Western world: new forms of mobility and communication, the restructuring of everyday life and leisure time, the need for holiday time, bureaucratization, rapid urbanization and industrialization, new building materials and techniques (standardization, prefabricated, use of plastics, etc.), awareness of the degradation of the natural environment, etc., all directly linked to the consumer society reflected in mass culture and its values.

As a decisive phenomenon for post-war civilization, the new/new leisure culture becomes ubiquitous, grows and diversifies, leading to new types of human relationships and groups, a new understanding of life and, consequently, new forms of organizing temporary living arrangements and a new attitude towards the public domain. Various research on ^tourism7 concludes that, despite political barriers, new concepts are also present in the countries of the Soviet Bloc. Adapted to this specific context, they influence the forms of tourism and, implicitly, tourism architecture.
Liberalization in the 1960s allowed access to much of Western architectural culture. Until the onset of the political closure in the mid-1970s, architecture and architects also breathe fresh European air, despite the ideologically impregnated atmosphere. France seems to be the most important Western country offering models for architecture and tourism, and especially for the intersection of the two. Architecture d'Aujourd'^hui8, the most important and widespread architectural magazine, is the most widely read foreign magazine among Romanian architects during the ^communist period9. But it is not only the most important and numerous architectural journals accessible over a long period of time that are of ^French origin10 , but also specialized publications dealing with tourism: Tourisme mondial, Vue touristique, Revue de l'Académie Internationale du Tourisme, Le Repertoire de Voyages, La Gazette Officielle du Tourisme, l'Hótellerie, etc. In addition to architectural publications - magazines or ^books11, fresh air also comes from international exhibitions or conferences, as well as from architects' travels abroad.

The political factor subordinates the seaside and uses it. Just as politics and architecture are closely linked in the communist regime, politics and tourism form another pair, and the political-architecture-mass tourism triad has materialized in the seaside project. The political use of international tourism consisted in the control of tourist activities, together with propaganda aimed at foreign visitors: carefully selected places and information were designed to cancel out negative publicity from abroad and to support the virtues of the regime. Domestic tourism is a means of educating citizens in the ideological spirit desired by the party. It is precisely the importance of this powerful propaganda tool - tourism - that has led to increased attention to its most important infrastructure - architecture.
The new Western mentality of leisure time and its precepts also penetrated the circle of Romanian architects, whose public voice was heard especially through Cezar Lăzărescu, who became the national specialist in tourist architecture. He set out both the new Western ideas on tourism and the synthesis of his experiences on the seaside in several articles and specialized volumes, most of which appeared in the late 1960s and early ^1970s12. Analyzing different international tourism models, Lăzărescu outlines the main principles for their proper development and looks for Western models to refer ^to13. The global network of Club Méditeranée, one of the most famous multinational tourist trading corporations, characterized by its isolated extra-urban location, pavilion configuration and "liveliness", is described at length. It seems curious that it should choose one of the most exclusive tourist networks (of the luxury private club type, although it started out as informal and nonconformist villages) of the French models ( Tourism et Travail is the polar opposite). This, however, is indicative, on the one hand, of a climax of changes in Romania's tourist economy (and, by implication, architecture) and, on the other hand, of the sources of ^{architectural} models14.
The relationship between architecture and tourism is the subject of a book by Aurelian ^Trișcu15. Investigating this work, published in 1976, in relation to contemporary Western ideas may prove important, especially for its conclusions and its synthesizing character, since at that time the picture of the Romanian coast was complete. Speaking about the resorts of contemporary tourism, Trișcu also emphasizes, like Lăzărescu a few years earlier, the need to preserve local specificity, a direction already consolidated in Western architectural thinking. The "educational and propaganda" nature of tourism is also emphasized by Trișcu in the conclusions of the volume, highlighting the country's "external affirmation" through tourist architecture: the seaside is seen as a successful Romanian "brand" to be exported at all ^costs16.
Throughout the communist period, the seaside project is present in most public architectural events, at national or international level, thus officially marking both the excellence and extraordinary character of its architecture, but also its synchronicity with the professional orientations in the West and, by reflection, with those of the Soviet Bloc. Among these events, perhaps the most representative are the participation of Romanian architects in the international congresses organized by the International Union of Architects (UIA), of which 1958 and 1972 appear to be the most relevant for the way in which professional practice and its adaptation to the international world trends are reflected in the coastal project.
The 5th Congress of the UIA in Moscow assesses the progress achieved in the 13 years of reconstruction of European cities after World War II. The theme comes in the wake of previous congresses, which had turned architectural thinking towards interweaving the scale of the architectural object (housing in particular) with the urban scale. Moreover, the 4th UIA Congress in The Hague in 1955 had already programmatically and explicitly laid the foundations for peaceful and unified collaboration on a global scale for all architects, regardless of political regime, and this was formally established by the decision of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the USSR in ¹⁹⁵⁶¹⁷. There is no doubt that the UIA Congress in Moscow was also helped by a new speech by Khrushchev on 12 April ¹⁹⁵⁸¹⁸, published in the Soviet press less than three weeks before the ^Congress was due to start19.
The Congress was attended by 1,500 guests from 50 countries, but the fact that contributions had to be presented according to a certain schedule and the very large number of participants did not allow for free discussion. The documentary basis collected at the national level was substantial and dense, and forms, together with the debates and exhibitions that took place from July 20-27, 1958, the basis of the congress resolution. Among the general principles enunciated following the congress were themes already applied in the coastal project: regional systematization; long-term master plans with their inherent phasing; an urban aesthetic that offered both human scale and variety and personalization; industrialization of ^{construction20}.
Symbolically, one year before the Moscow Congress, the Romanian Union of Architects (UAR) organized in 1957 the exhibition "Balneo-climacteric Constructions on the Black Sea Coast". The formal heterogeneity of the projects presented marks the transition to the modernist language, thus emphasizing the symbolic role at national level of the seaside projects in terms of initiating change within the profession and the gradual opening towards ^Western ideas21.
At the 5th Congress of the UIA in Moscow, for the exhibition on "Construction and Reconstruction of Cities 1945-1957", the UAR participates with 18 1 m x 1 m panels in French with systematization studies of the cities of Bucharest, Galati, the Ji Valley region and the Black Sea coast. The systematization plan initiated in 1955 for the central part of the Romanian coast, namely the Năvodari-Tuzla segment, is presented in summary form, illustrating both the work already carried out and that in progress. The scale of the construction site is underlined, both in terms of figures and by highlighting the difficulty of urbanization operations: intervention in wilderness areas, such as the coastal cordon on which Mamaia will be built, as well as the vast infrastructure works along the coast, such as streets, green spaces, cliff reinforcements, beach development, running water, ^sewerage22. For the Eforie-Vasile Roaită-Techirghiol seaside resort, the situation in 1955 and the final result of the development plan underway are given. What is remarkable is the concise and evocative interweaving of the socio-economic scenario with the development at both territorial and architectural level, presented in photographs, drawings and models.
The Congress, a diplomatic success for its time, represents the apex of the active cultural exchanges that had already begun throughout the Soviet bloc towards the end of the ^1950s23 and symbolizes the UIA's efforts to defend apolitical professional solidarity against the political instability of the Cold ^War24. This world event, more than others, marks globally the cultural transformation of professional practice and the definition of the architect's role in society, regardless of political orientation. For example, the influence of the international proceedings of the 1958 congress in legitimizing urban planning on the basis of the theory of ^neighborhood unity is evident25. This way of thinking about the urban form had already been practiced in the West immediately after the war and, reformulated under the term microraion, is rapidly becoming evident in the countries of the ^Soviet sphere26. On the other hand, the cultural arena represented by the Congress became an essential battleground for demonstrating the ideological superiority and internationalist ambitions of the two political ^poles27.
¹⁹⁷²²⁸ is the year in which the Romanian architectural world, relatively synchronized with the West and gaining a temporal distance, massively exhibits its recent achievements, nationally and internationally; the preferred language is again French. Two similar volumes appear in the same year, which are in fact collections of selected projects considered representative of the ^period29. The bilingual volume Arhitectura românească contemporană (Contemporary Romanian Architecture) has as its main objective to present Romanian architecture abroad. In the chapter dedicated to architecture for tourism, the seaside occupies an important place, being presented as a "calling card" of contemporary Romanian architecture.
The 11th UIA World Congress, held from September 25 to 30, 1972 in Varna, Varna, has as its theme "architecture and leisure/leisure". In this context, the example of the Romanian seaside is, of course, ^{illustrative30}, along with its Bulgarian twin, equally acclaimed in the host country of the congress. Similarly to the Romanian situation, the vacation resorts and tourist infrastructure on the shores of the Black Sea were the symbolic, prestigious work of Bulgarian post-war architecture and were proudly presented as such at the same congress. In this sense, the twin journal of Bulgarian Architecture also presents the work of the congress in a special triple ^issue31.
Most of the Romanian architects at the congress had participated in the design of the ^seaside32, and the head of the delegation was Cezar Lăzărescu, president of the UAR and coordinator of most of the projects on the ^seaside33. Each national delegation, including the Romanian one, was asked in advance to prepare a professional survey on ^leisure34. Among the themes of the working ^groups35, the Romanian working group on the industrialization of leisure constructions used examples from the seaside.
By this time, leisure was already a well-established theme, intensively addressed by sociologists, architects and economists from the Western and Eastern blocs, and moreover, one closely linked to ^{environmental} issues36 , a theme that also began to emerge in relation to the seaside project in some articles in Arhitectura. According to Baldellou, a disturbing fact is clear from the reports submitted by the working groups in all the participating countries, communist or not: leisure time emerges as a form of social control - control over leisure time was essential for the effective alienation of workers in the production ^process37.
Another factor that fuels the adjustment of the gap with the West in a completely different way is the establishment, through political channels, of the orientation of coastal projects towards international tourism. While tourism in Romania started out as part of ideologically motivated social measures, it is gradually turning into an economic activity which brings in substantial revenue, especially in foreign currency. This transformation has a direct impact on the way in which and the conditions under which coastal architecture is designed. The international dimension of tourism contributes to giving value and freedom of expression to coastal architecture. A key moment directly linking international tourism and coastal architecture was in 1965, when the "international importance" of this architecture was hailed at the UAR conference, which subsequently raised the level of comfort and quality of the works.

International tourism was first and foremost a way of attracting foreign currency to the country, but it was also a way of transmitting the success of the communist formula abroad. In the early 1960s, with Romania's political opening up, the idea of developing international tourism emerged, based on modernizing and expanding accommodation, training qualified guides and promoting the country abroad. It was in this context that the Carpathian N.T.O. was re-established, in charge of attracting foreign tourists and receiving in its administration a whole infrastructure and logistics for quality ^tourism38. Moreover, the lack of a warm sea in the G.D.D.R., S.D.R., P.P.R., U.P.P.U. and U.S.S.S.R. leads to the establishment of C.A.E.R. agreements^.39 International tourism and foreign policy are a good match, at least in national and international public life, and for the profession they will level the way to the much-dormant Western sources of inspiration. The expansion of tourist movement and the relative political détente of the 1960s are appreciated by U.I.O.O.T.^40, and the Romanian coast was designated as a "point of attraction of European resonance" from 1971 onwards, the year in which the agreement on cooperation in the field of tourism in the Balkan region (Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey) was also concluded, resulting in a series of cultural and ^scientific events41 and the realization of a joint publicity project for the five countries (publicity film, tourist guide in several international languages, etc.In this respect, Semmens ^suggests42 that one of the venues for transnational communication and propagation of ideas and trends in tourism could be the international conferences on tourism geography and ^economics43.

Encouraging a transnational approach, Zuelow states that "the development of tourism in Europe was seldom, if ever, contained within national borders [...] true understanding of the history of tourism requires a look across national boundaries"^44. The transnational perspective is considered by scholars in the field as absolutely necessary for the analysis of tourism promoted by totalitarian ^regimes45: the findings of the studies demonstrate the inevitability of the infiltration of the ideas of Western tourism practices into new ideological concepts: the broad context of tourism engages both democratic and authoritarian governments and imposes trade-offs. The international demonstration of the success and modernity of communist societies, along with the minimization of the grim reality in which the majority of the population lives, is vital for the credibility of these regimes. This legitimization is often left to tourism, which plays the role of a calling card. For this task of representing the progress made by communist society, both to the people and internationally, the seaside is strategically chosen. Developing against the backdrop of the modernization of society and the emergence and consolidation of mass tourism worldwide, the seaside is both a political and an architectural project, representing the convergence of interdependent interests between the political and architectural factors. Architecture is an international showcase for both politics and architects.

The investigation of the fragments of connections and exchanges can continue, but it requires documentation that goes beyond the scope of the present article and that can open up to the construction of a necessary transnational history of the period, in which the coast can still be another kind of spearhead or, rather, a calling card.

NOTES

1 See the articles, papers or doctoral theses published by researchers in the fields of architecture and urbanism and visual arts such as Ana Maria Zahariade, Carmen Popescu, Dana Vais, Magda Cârneci, Magda Predescu, Juliana Maxim, Irina Tulbure, Miruna Stroe, Irina Băncescu, Alex Răuță and many others, as well as the synthetic view and critical interpretation given by the series of chapters on the Romanian coast in Șerban, Alina, Dimou, Kalliopi, Istudor, Sorin (ed.), Vederi încântatoare: Urbanism și arhitectură în turismul românesc de la Marea Neagră in anii '60-'70 / Enchanting Views: Romanian Black Sea Tourism Planning and Architecture of The 1960s and 70s, Pepluspatru Association, Bucharest, 2015, in parallel with the exhibition curated by the above-mentioned editors, held in 2014 at Sala Dalles, MNAC, Bucharest.

2 Quoted (author's translation) from Cohen, Jean-Louis, "The Cold War City: Functionality or Community?", Rethinking Modernity Architecture and Urban Planning of the 20th Century - Between Avant-garde and Tradition, conference published by ICOMOS Germany in cooperation with Berlin Monument Authority, 2019, pp. 36-42.

3 An example of such a 'trans-urban history', indicated by Cohen, belongs to an established scholar of post-war architecture from a transnational perspective, Lukasz Stanek, as editor of Team 10 East; Revisionist Architecture in Real Existing Modernism, published in Oxford in 2014.
4 Which in the literature goes by various names (e.g. "Soviet modernism", "unnamed modernism", "silent modernism", etc.).
5 Băncescu, Irina, "Waterfront issues. Aspecte ale evoluției litoralului românesc în perioada comunistă" (PhD thesis), UAUIM, Bucharest, 2012, p. 261.

6 The halt of the seaside project in 1973 coincides with the interruption of the architectural-urbanistic synchronization, Zahariade, Ana Maria, Arhitectura în proiectul comunist. Romania 1944-1989, Simetria Publishing House, Bucharest, 2011, p. 256.
7 Among many other studies, we can list: Being Elsewhere: Tourism, Consumer Culture, and Identity in Modern Europe and North America, Furlough, Ellen, Baranowski, Shelley (ed.), University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2001; Turizm: The Russian and East European Tourist under Capitalism and Socialism, Gorsuch, A. E., Koenker, D. (ed.), Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 2006; Touring Beyond the Nation: A Transnational Approach to European Tourism History, Zuelow, E. G. Eric (ed.), Ashgate Publishing, London, 2011; Gosseye, Janina, Heynen, Hilde (eds.), Architecture for Leisure in Post-war Europe, Catholic University, Leuven, 2012; Kulić, Vladimir, Mrdulaš, Maroje, Thaler, Wolfgang, Modernism In- Between: The Mediatory Architectures of Socialist Yugoslavia, Jovis Publishing House, Berlin, 2012; Kohlrausch, Martin, Brokers of Modernity: East Central Europe and the Rise of Modernist Architects, 1910-1950, Leuven University Press, Leuven, 2019 etc.
8 Whose editor is Pierre Vago himself, the UIA secretary, through whose efforts it becomes possible to expand the UIA's sphere in the Soviet Bloc, details in Zubovich, Katherine, "Debating "Democracy": The International Union of Architects and the Cold War Politics of Expertise", Room One Thousand, no. 4, 2016, pp. 104-116.

9 Zahariade, Ana Maria, Architecture in the Communist Project. Romania 1944-1989, Simetria Publishing House, Bucharest, 2011, p. 23.

10 For instance, during the communist period, the I.A.I.M. Library had subscriptions to Architecture d'aujourd'hui (1946-1949, 1956-1980, 1982-1986); AMC - Le Moniteur (1984-1988); L'architecture francaise (1946-'47, 1961-1977); Technique et architecture (1946-1949, 1956-1972); Urbanisme (1957-1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984); more details in Tabacu, Gabriela. "On what and how. Architectural Magazines in the School Library (1945-1989)", studies in History and Theory of Architecture, nr. 1, Editura UAUIM, București, 2013, pp. 133-148.
11 The examples given by Trișcu or Lăzărescu in their published books are of the moment, even if they do not cover the full range of examples (Lăzărescu 1971, 1972; Trișcu 1976). In addition, the journal Arhitectura fills the gaps of the 1950s and partly of the 1960s, publishing, in addition to monographic articles on the most important foreign architects of the 1960s, fact sheets on the history of contemporary architecture or the 1970s "Cadran" section.

12 Probleme actuale ale hotelurilor din orașele țării noastre (1968), Construcții hoteliere (1971), Arhitectura românească în imagini, Arhitectura românească contemporană and Arhitectura construcțiilor turistice moderne din România (1972).
13 Lăzărescu, Cezar, Hotel Constructions, Technical Publishing House, Bucharest, 1971, p. 25.
14 Băncescu, Irina, 2012, op. cit., p. 265.
15 Trișcu, Aurelian, Arhitectura, obiectiv și cadru pentru turism, Editura Tehnică, București, 1976.
16 Trișcu 1976, op. cit., p. 169; it is worth noting the very large number of illustrations of the Romanian coast in a general work such as the one discussed, proof of the fact that the coast, already in 1976, had established itself as a fundamental reference for the field of architecture for tourism, but also for architecture in general.
17 'Resolution of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the Activity Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU', Architecture, no. 3, 1956, pp. 2-6.

18 The key themes of this discourse are to be found in the design of the Romanian seaside: prefabricated prestressed reinforced concrete, reduction of metal and wood consumption, lightweight and economical reinforced concrete coverings for public facilities, "reinforced furniture", standardized furniture project-types, finishing of exposed concrete, reduction of the number of project-types, reduction of costs and construction time, etc.
19 Soviet magazine Stroitelnaia gazeta, July 79 / July 2, 1958, quoted in "Speech by Comrade N. S. Khrushchev at the Union Consistory of Builders of the USSR" (excerpts), Arhitectura, No. 8-9, 1958, pp. 7-10.

20 "The Fifth Congress of the U.I.A.", Arhitectura, no. 8-9, 1958, p. 6.

21 Western examples of good practice had already been presented at the UA Plenary in November 1957, and in February 1958 the exhibition Contemporary Architecture in the United States was symbolically opened at the Dalles Hall, commented in Arhitectura RPR, no. 4, 1958, p. 29.

22 'Fifth Congress of the International Union of Architects', Arhitectura, no. 7, 1958, p. 20.

23 E.g. numerous study trips by architects to Western countries, as well as subscriptions to Western specialized journals in libraries, see Tabacu, Gabriela, 'On what and how. Architectural Magazines in the School Library (1945-1989)", Studies in History and Theory of Architecture, no. 1, Editura UAUIM, Bucharest, 2013, pp. 133-148.

24 A detailed description of the international position of the UIA in the late 1950s in Glendinning, Miles, 'Cold-War conciliation: international architectural congresses in the late 1950s and early 1960s', The Journal of Architecture, 21(4), 2009, pp. 630-650.

25 Perry, Clarence, The Neighbourhood Unit, Routledge/Thoemmes, London, 1929, republished 1998, pp. 25-44; for more details on its application in the post-war period in Romania, see Stroe, Miruna, Locuirea între proiect și decizie politica. Romania 1954-1966, Editura Simetria, Bucharest, 2015.
26 Šiupšinskas, Matas, Lankots, Epp, "Collectivist Ideals and Soviet Consumer Spaces: Mikrorayon Commercial Centers in Vilnius, Lithuania and Tallinn, Estonia", in Baldwin Hess, Daniel, Tammaru, Tiit (eds.), Housing Estates in the Baltic Countries. The Legacy of Central Planning in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, The Urban Book Series, Springer Open, 2019, pp. 303-304.

27 Zubovich 2016, op. cit., p. 116.

28 Looking at the Romanian littoral and the literature and public events created around it, 1972 appears as the cut-off point at which we can say that Romanian architecture was still synchronized with the Western world.
29 Lăzărescu, Cezar, Cristea, Gabriel and Lăzărescu, Elena, Arhitectura românească în imagini, Editura Meridiane, București,1972; Lăzărescu, Cezar, Arhitectura românească contemporană. L'architecture roumaine contemporaine, Editura Meridiane, Bucharest, 1972.

30 Trișcu, Aurelian, "Arhitectura și loisirul - Congresul Mondial U.I.A. - Bulgaria 1972", Arhitectura, nr. 6, 1972, pp. 40-42.

31 Arhitektura. UIA XI Kongres 1972, nos. 6-7-8 (special issue), 1972.

32 The Romanian delegation included, in addition to Cezar Lăzărescu, Anca Borgovan, Solari Grimberg, Alexandru Iotzu, Ștefan Radu Ionescu, Eusebie Latiș, Ludovic Staadecker, Aurelian Trișcu, Angela Pavelescu, Ion Teodor, Kemal Ghengiomer; according to Trișcu 1972, op.cit.

33 At the Congress, Cezar Lăzărescu is also voted as a member of the UIA Governing Council.
34 The theme was developed in the following points related to architecture: leisure (Bulgarian delegation); daily leisure (Scandinavian and Japanese delegations); weekly leisure (American and British delegations); annual leisure (French and Soviet delegations); leisure in different geographical regions (Australian, Turkish, Moroccan and Peruvian delegations, as well as Brazilian), according to Baldellou, Miguel Ángel, "Meetings and Architecture: a controversial relation", Arquitectura: Revista del Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Madrid (COAM), no. 306, 1996, pp. 94-109.

35 "Constructions and industrialization" - Tiberiu Ricci, Alexandru Iotzu, Solari Grimberg; "Leisure and urbanization" - Cezar Lăzărescu; "Contribution to the ecological approach to everyday recreation" - Ludwig Staadecker; "Problems of leisure time use" - Anca Borgovan; "Tourism and leisure" - Aurelian Trișcu, etc.

36 The UIA chose this theme for the congress precisely because of the associated ecological challenges, which could no longer be tackled only within national borders, according to Rollová, Veronika, "Escape into Nature. Free Time as a Category of Architectural Thought in the 1960s", Rollová, Veronika, Jirkalová, Karolina (eds.), The Future Is Hidden in the Present / Architecture and Czech Politics in 1945-1989, Vysoka skola umeleckoprumyslova, Prague, 2021, p. 194.

37 According to Baldellou 1996, op. cit.

38 By 1970, 17 tourist offices were opened in 15 capitalist countries, Murgescu, Bogdan, Romania and Europe. Acumularea decalajelor economice (1500-2010), Polirom Publishing House, Bucharest, 2010, p. 376.

39 One of the decisions of the C.A.E.E.R. was that 'Romania should develop its coastline as a warm sea for the entire Soviet bloc, even though the number of sunny days was much lower than on the Dalmatian coast', Rotariu, Ilie, Globalization and Tourism. Cazul României, Continent Publishing House, Sibiu, 2004, p. 272.

40 The International Union of Official Tourist Bodies, which became the World Tourism Organization in 1975; "[...] the abolition of entry formalities and the creation of equipment in tourist resorts in Eastern Europe were among the most important facts that led to the development of world tourism during the 1960s", in Streja, S., "Factorii care determină și contribuie la dezvoltarea turismului", in Barbu, Gheorghe (coord.), Turismul în economia națională. Studii, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1981, p. 88.

41 The year 1979 is the "Balkan tourist year", also celebrated by the organization of an international seminar in Mamaia, details in Barbu, Gheorghe, "Turismul internațional - parte integrantă a relațiilor economice externe", Turismul în economia națională. Studii, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1981, p. 132.

42 Semmens, Kristin, ""Tourism and Autarky are Conceptually Incompatible". International Tourism Conferences in the Third Reich", in Zuelow, E. G. E. (ed.), 2011, op. cit., p. 195.
43 The Second Franco-Romanian Colloquium on Geography (1969), a colloquium on the role of geography in spatial planning, in which Prof. Nicolae Al. Rădulescu participates with the paper "L'aménajement du littoral roumain de la Mer Noire". The colloquium ends with a trip to Moldova and Dobrogea, the visit concluding with " [...] admirer Eforie et les grandioses réalisations touristiques de Mamaia [...]" , in Wolkowitsch, M., "IIe Colloque franco-roumain de Géographie", Méditeranée, vol. 10, nr. 3, 1969, pp. 341-342.

44 Zuelow, E.G. Eric, "The Necessity of Touring Beyond the Nation: An Introduction", Zuelow, E.G. Eric (ed.), 2011, op. cit., pp. 1-18.

45 According to the general conclusions of the chapter "The Politics of Transnational Tourism", Zuelow, E.G. Eric (ed.), 2011, op. cit., pp.184-254.