Miruna Stroe
The level of detail of the strategy, going into economic, social, hygienic and
aesthetic thinking, remains remarkable, no matter the inherent issues of the
project and its subsequent critiques. And, most importantly, it would prove
its importance in the next years, during the communist regime, both by loud
negation and by silent appropriation. Interestingly enough, the only public
mention of a previous planning initiative for Bucharest at the debut of the
communist period is concerned with the systematization regulations that
are part of the Organic Statute, in an article by Titus Evolceanu in Arhitectura
R.P.R., no. 3/1954. Years later, Constantin Jugurică, one of the architects in
“Proiect Bucureşti”^7 tells the story of the “rediscovery” of this plan from some
old newspaper, which he brought back to attention in the late 1970’s. The
surprise was to discover that some of the planning principles were still being
applied, which is a sign that the political leadership had knowledge of the 1935
experience.^8
The socialist reconstruction of BucharestSoon after the change of the political regime, the need for a new directive
plan arose, in order to change the bourgeois traits of the development of the
capital. In 1949 several professional groups set out to elaborate a new plan. It
is important to note that for the first time the urban planners are under the
observation of a superior entity, in charge with the correct political orientation
of the project and the teams working on it. There is also a consulting team,
made of members of the Romanian Workers’ Party. So the professional milieu
is under political surveillance and its actions would never regain their previous
freedom and acknowledgement until the 1989 revolution.
The documents presented to the higher echelons of the party approach urban
problems but these seem annexes to a host of political estimations of previous
developments. The critical views of all cosmopolite ideas as well as the ever-
present examples of soviet experience are the new guiding lines of urban design.
A document from 1951^9 depicting the methods for the next systematization
plan states that the plan must be elaborated under the guidance of the Central
Committee of the Party, carefully observing the experience of Moscow and in
close connection to the economic state plans.
In 1952 the architectural profession officially lost its liberal character and
state owned design institutes were established. The requirement for a new
development plan for the city became official through the government Decision
no. 2448/1952 regarding the general plan for the socialist reconstruction of
Bucharest. It is not surprising that both these important decisions were made
at the same plenary party session. One change in thinking the subsequent
systematization plans is the absence of a detailed building regulation added to
the plan. This is mirroring the fact that all decisions were going to be centralized
and in a situation where private property lacks, regulations regarding individual
buildings were seen as obsolete. In fact, for a long period individual private