Romania's Urban Architectural Heritage: between Neglect and

Revitalization.

Dr. Sergiu NISTOR

Arch. Lecturer in Architectural History and Conservation, University of Architecture and
Urban Studies "Ion Mincu", Bucharest, ROMANIA

The paper tries to offer a perspective of the processes that had happened during the
90s in Romania, in respect to the preservation of the city centres historic properties.
The changes that happened in Romania after the 1989 Revolution were targeted
towards political democratization and economic reform. One should think that in this respect,
the cultural reform has very little to do with the major concerns of a country which faces a
difficult political and economical transition.
I would like first to demonstrate how culture, and especially the preservation of the
cultural heritage, has brought new dimensions to the emerging and developing democracy in
Romania.
Secondly, I will focus on the role of the domestic committment and the international cooperation, as a vector for effective architectural heritage management and for public
involvement in active guardianship and conservation of their urban legacy.
9. Widening democracy through cultural reform
9.1

Between neglect and revitalization

As in any other European country, the preservation of the cultural heritage lies in the
responsibility of the State. Before 1990, this meant that the communist State had
discretionary powers in listing or refusing listing immovable properties, as almost everything
was owned by the state (except churches, that were accepted to belong to the parishes,
even though the religion was a matter of political ban). Reaction to this was, as soon as early
1990, the denunciation of the communist legislation for the protection of cultural heritage
(both for movable and immovable items). The responsibility for the protection of historic
monuments was delegated by the state to the National Commission for Historic Monuments
and Sites, a board of specialists which was empowered to set regulations, to list, to conserve
and to monitor the historic monuments. The National Commission for Historic Monuments
and Sites, although being budgetary coordinated by the Ministry of Culture, retained its
independence as a professional body until mid 1994, when it was engulfed in the Ministrys
departments. Since 1994, scientific issues (proposals for listing included) are the
responsibility of the National Commission for Historic Monuments, a commission of 31
experts in the field of historic preservation, while regulation, conservation work, inspection
and monitoring of historic monuments, are the administrative task of the Ministry of Culture.
In respect to the characteristics of the administrative framework of preservation, one can
outline 4 recent periods: until 1990, 1990-1994 1994-1996 and since 1996. I will call them:
the totalitarian period, the romantic period, the neo-centralised administrative period, and the
de-centralisation period. Every one of these periods has its own characteristics in respect to
the public involvement in historic properties conservation and management.
The totalitarian period (until 1990) was characterised by: highly political influence in
listing, conservation and management, care for historic structures somehow limited at major
architectural achievements, absent public support, and, since 1977, by quasi-absent
scientific involvement (as after 1977 central political institutions monopolised the decision in

the field). The results were some 5,000 listed buildings and just several Transylvanian
medieval intra-muros historic districts designated as conservation areas. The discretionary
attitude of the state towards the protection of the historic monuments was revealed by the
1977-1989 demolitions of churches and historic quarters, to make room for the new socialist
development. Social concern was not an issue in listing and preservation, so neither the
public's nor the specialists protests against historic monuments demolition were taken into
account.
The romantic period (1990-1994) is to be assessed through the evaluation of the social
and political context of the period. As soon as fall 1992, the list of historic monuments grew
to 22,000 items, comprising historic buildings, archaeological sites, sculptures, architectural
reserves (roughly correspondent to the English conservation areas) as well as the sites of
the recently demolished monuments (Table 1). This dramatic increase is due to a sort of
socio-psychological reaction to the disaster the cultural heritage had faced only few years
earlier. Romanian architects, historians, planners or art historians, employees of local
architecture offices or museums, academics in the field, they all contributed to the listing
process, together with important specialist support from abroad, especially from France,
Germany and Hungary. The so recently acquired freedom seemed to the newly re-instated
National Commission for Historic Monuments and Sites as an universal panacea to
everything related to historic monuments preservation. The ownership status of the new
listed monuments was still public (between 1990 and 1994, excepting agricultural land and a
few small industrial facilities, no major privatization affected the real estate). In this process,
the influence of listing upon the public budgets was not assessed nor was public support for
conservation considered a criteria for listing. The largest amount of the new entries in the list
comprised XIXth century civil architecture, meaning mostly dwellings.
The neo-centralised administrative period (1994-1996) had two characteristics: a
centralisation of the decisions related to historic monuments (a shift from the professional
commission to the administrative body of the Ministry of Culture) and a scarcity of the
financial means allocated in respect of the actual conservation needs. Related to listing this
period was confronted with no significant new entries but to several hundreds of requests for
de-listing. This was due to the fact that the Parliament issued the law entitling the tenants of
the nationalized dwellings to apply for buying their flats, except for those inhabiting historic
monuments. In this respect, de-listing the building was a pre-requisite for the tenants
becoming owners of their flats. Political pressures were directed towards the National
Commission for Historic Monuments, local politicians being the bearers of the tenants
applications for de-listing. Some 400 applications were accepted, in many cases the
specialists having to admit that the buildings had been over-estimated during their appraisal
for listing.
In the field of urban planning, a large number of planning applications, together with the
legal provisions demanding every local authority to ellaborate structure and development
plans lead to the need to establish the limits and the contents of the protected and protection
areas. This made the research of such issues a priority [photo 1]. The conservation
perimeters established through structure plans forced both planners and local authorities to
bear attention to the heritage and its protection [photo 2]. One should admit that for the
majority of the local authorities, outlining the historic centre or the protected areas is
especially important for their freedom of decision outside the limits of such areas [photo 3].
In a very peculiar way, this phenomenon somehow displays for the first time a sense of
social-responsiveness of the specialists decision in listing and preservation processes. The
specialist had to confront with the local authorities, with local pressure groups and a
comprehensive study of the local architectural heritage was sometimes his sole partner
[photo 4]. Even though the interest for a wide scale preservation of old buildings is legitimate
for the architectural historian, the conservationsists learned for the first time that the public
support for what is called the public interest in historic monuments conservation is essential
for a sustainable process.
In this respect, the present-day period (the de-centralisation period, 1996-,) tries to rebuild the relationship between central administration and local governments, between

specialists and public, taking in account the legitimate interests of local councils for
sustainable development and the citizens fundamental right to private ownership. Therefore
new laws or amendments related to local administration, planning and cultural heritage
preservation were proposed to or already issued by the Parliament. The project of the law for
the preservation of historic monuments was approved and issued as a Government
1
Ordinance . A new law concerning the local administration was approved recently by the
Parliament, as well as a new law concerning the restitution of the nationalized properties. All
these three acts allow a much wider participation of the public in the processes related to
historic preservation, planning and decision making, allowing a larger access to ownership of
historic proprieties.
10. The Typology of the Historic Centers of Romania 2
The main features of the historic centers built heritage are related to their economical,
political, cultural or social background, to their different birth or historic evolution, or to the
specific traditions of urban or land management. The cultural stamp of the Hungarian and
Austrian domination in Transylvania, compared to the Balcanic cultural roots for the other 2
historic regions (Vallachia and Moldavia) leads to a regional specificity for the historic centers
of Vallachia (southern part of Romania), Moldavia (North-Eastern part of Romania) or
Transylvania (North-Western part of Romania).
Vallachian and Moldavian historic centers are the built remnants of settlements of
special political or commercial status. Being either a princely residence (Bucharest - [photo
5], Targoviste, Campulung, Radauti, Siret, Suceava, Iasi), bishop or metropolitan chairs
(Ramnicu Valcea, Buzau) or merely market towns (Craiova, Botosani or Pitesti) they
developed into urban settlements from fabrics profoundly market by the balcanic specific. In
such cases, excepting the parish churches or the very rare cases in which some areas of
housing with gardens and courtyards are still to be seen, the historic centers are outlined by
the remaining archaeological remains of XVI-XVIII cellars or by the historic urban fabric and
buildings of mid XIXth century. Fortifications are rarely the limits of these historic quarters as
in Vallachia fortifications were banned by the Ottoman Empire (Targoviste is the sole case of
walled city in Vallachia, Suceava - [photo 6], or Piatra Neamt in Moldavia - still display their
citadels). In this cases, the private ownership of historic buildings is composed largely of
XIXth century one family merchant houses.
The historic nuclei of the majority of Transylvanian towns, either developed from roman
settlements (Cluj Napoca, Orastie, Alba Iulia) or of medieval origin (Brasov, Sibiu, Bistrita,
Timisoara, Oradea), still display something of their walled city specific. In respect to the
present day outlining of their historic city centers, the concern is, contrarily to the situation of
the extra-carpathic towns, not to restrain their historic conservation area and the emphasis
for preservation to the ancient limits of their fortifications, as various valuable developments
had happened in those cases (industrial faubourgs were added to the medieval or XVIIth
century city, etc.). Nevertheless, outstanding architectural heritage like the citadel of Arad
3
4
[photo 7] and Alba Iulia [photo 8], the historic centre of Sibiu and Oradea , were the targets
of specific rehabilitation or revitalization programmes, more or less successful.

10.1

The Typology of the Architectural Heritage of the Historic Centres

GO 228/2000 concerning the preservation of historic monuments, published in the Official Journal
(Monitorul Oficial) 616/30 November 2000
2

Quotations from the author's "Complex Operations of Rehabilitation of the Urban Architectural
Heritage", Phd thesis, University of Architecture and Urban Studies "Ion Mincu", Bucharest, 1999
3

To be presented further on in the paper (n.a.)

A slide presentation will follow (n.a.)

Largely, the historic centres are marked by the presence of outstanding historic
buildings like cathedrals (Bistrita, Cluj-Napoca - [photo 9], Brasov, etc.), town halls (Brasov ),
citadels housing princely or bishop residences (Sighisoara, Suceava, Targoviste). In some
cases, the architectural heritage of the historic centers defines a landmark route, preserving
the historic urban fabric, inside the major urban one. In some cases a single, outstanding
monument (Brasov - the Black Church, Bistrita - the Lutheran Church) dominates the historic
core.
Historic centers like those of Sibiu, Sighisoara, Piatra Neamt, Botosani, Alba Iulia or
Bucharest display another form of architectural heritage: the urban group of buildings,
cohesive with public areas like streets, largos or squares. In these cases, we deal with
ensembles of religious buildings (The Metropolitan ensemble of Bucharest, The Bishopry
ensemble of Oradea, etc.), administrative buildings (The Town Hall Plaza of Targu Mures), or
civil commercial and residential buildings (The 3 squares ensemble of Sibiu - [photo 10], the
Main Square of Medias, The High Street of Botosani or the Lipscani Street area of Bucharest
- [photo 11], etc).
Nevertheless, the so-called minor heritage, gathering dwellings, small commerce areas
or workshops, form the bulk of the architectural heritage of the historic centres of Romania.
As, excepting churches, the central or local authorities are often the owner or the
administrator of the major monuments, the minor heritage of the city centres is somehow the
neglected component of the built heritage. This is not due to its rather minor cultural
importance, but to the fact that its ownership status is scattered between many private
owners, very often with little economic potential. Until now the state didnt pay much interest
to the support of restoration or renovation work for such patrimony, even though it forms a
large part of the urban landscape.
The social-economical relevance of the minor architectural heritage lies in its capacity of
housing a large number of the historic quarter inhabitants. This peculiar heritage establishes
the main features of the social life of the historic centre. What should be perhaps added to
this is the fact that, wherever socialist development trauma didn't happen on large scale, the
urban historic areas retained their urban pattern, as one of their valuables of either regional
or national interest.
10.2

Urban historic property management

The new law on Historic Monuments Preservation emphasizes upon the link between
monuments and owners or local communities much more than the former regulations did.
This is materialized in defining more precisely the relevance (national and local) of the listed
buildings1, in improving the responsibility of local administration in listing and preservation.
Owners and the public as well are entitled to participate in the listing process, as they can
make proposals for listing, proposals that have to be taken into account by the county
services of the Ministry of Culture2. On the other hand, the owner of a building proposed to
be listed or rejected for listing is entitled to appeal against the decision3. Provisions entitling
the owner to receive scientific, technical, material and financial support for the conservation
and restoration of his monument, bring the public deeper and more effectively into the
process of both listing and preserving historic monuments. This involvement will be
strengthened throughout the de-centralization of the procedures related to listing and historic
preservation, so that owners and public will be able to get information and support from the
local services of the Ministry of Culture and, as well, from the special departments instated in
the local councils. The central authorities in historic preservation (The Ministry of Culture and
the National Commission for Historic Monuments) will retain their role in approving the listing
according to the documents and proposals made by the local services, delegating the

GO 228/2000, Section 8, par. (1), (3)

GO 228/2000, Section 13, par. (1), a) and e)

GO 228/2000, Section 15

responsibility of inspection, monitoring and provision of support to the de-centralized services

and to the local councils1.
These concepts were included also in some adjacent regulation already approved, such
as the Governmental Ordinance and Governmental Decision issuing the possibility of
granting public funds to private owners for the restoration and enhancement of their listed
buildings.

10.3

Social and economic issues in urban historic districts

From the social and economic point of view, romanian historic districts are facing
several phenomenon and are bearing the following characteristics:
1. The Social Dimension of Historic Centres
The main demographical features of the historic centers of Romania are:
-

The number of inhabitants of the historic quarters increased recently

The inhabitants of the historic districts are rarely the former owners or the native
population of these areas.

Due to these characteristics, the effects upon the built cultural heritage are:
-

An increasingly demographical pressure causing speculative pressure, overuse and

brutal alterations;

A lack of identification of the population with its patrimony causing a

misunderstanding of the cultural values of the heritage and a lack of civic initiative;

An alienate relationship between the inhabitants and their amenities causing a lack
of maintenance and local government commitment to the preservation and
enhancement of the architectural heritage.
2. The Economic Life of the Historic Centers

The relevant economic context of the historic centers lies in the trends of the economic
activities, in the trends of the employment and in the evolution of economical mechanisms.
Now days these trends are:
a) Trends of the economic activities :
2

The diminishing of the industrial activities ;

A relative growth of the high technology activities;

A growth of the international trade together with a consistent change in its

structure;

The development of the retail commerce;

A certain growth of SME;

A relative growth of tertiary activities in spite of the industrial ones.

b) Trends in employment :

A growth of the unemployment rate with regional climaxes ;

The system of listing process and responsibilities, as well as the system of inspection, monitoring
and granting support is presented in the Schemes 1 and 2.
2

The GNP decreased constantly between 1990 and 1999, to a limit of some 60% of the 1989 value.

An increasingly number of employees in tertiary the sector;

More qualified employees;

A growth of the leisure time for certain segments of population;

An increasingly number of locals employed in crafts and self-employment.

3. Development of the market

A real estate market still in development

The privatization of the building industry and the withdrawal of the public
authorities from the real estate market.

4. Some Characteristics of the Real Estate Market

The general features of the real estate market in Romania are the immaturity, the lack of
balance between supply and demand (the demand overlaps strongly the supply) and a lack
of reliable information.
The effects of this situation are:

a large gap between the quality of the commodity and the claimed selling price,

a lack of elasticity of the supply and, last but not least,

a lack of coherence of the public authorities in their actions on the real estate
(social housing) market,

The urban historic areas display following characteristics:

A certain part of the building stock is exempted from the real estate market
(dwellings nationalized being listed as historic monuments);

An exaggerate selling price for buildings which have been several times acquired
and re-sold;

Certain buildings are bought at the price of the development land underneath,
than let to decay for demolishing permit.

This leads to the following effects upon the protection of ancient building in historic
districts and the historic environment of the historic centers:

Having few buildings (for social housing or retail) in their administration, the local
authorities cant compete the speculative trend of the market,

In lack of public funding, the local authorities cant cope with the need for
maintenance or refurbishment or renovation work it has to carry for their own
proprieties,

Some of the buildings of architectural merit of the historic centers are left in
decay for demolition and redevelopment purposes,

An important stock of dwellings are housing poor tenants who can not afford
restoration work or are not interested to maintain properly their tenancies.

Nnational figures display an average of 10%, but there are regions were the unemployment reaches
35% and towns were the majority of the population lives on welfare.

Several general remarks should be highlighted:

Several negative trends in the economic field are superposing in historic centers,
leading to a maximization of their nuisances (economic recession, important
unemployment rate, speculative pressure).

An unbalanced development of different economic activities (the private housing

industry or the retail) and of their mechanisms of regulation (the real estate
1
market or the commerce regulations) .

The case studies presented below are to be considered and evaluated in the context of
that background.
10.4

Active involvement in rehabilitation. Case studies.

10.4.1 A succesful story: The Sibiu Programme.

The initiative for a comprehensive programme of rehabilitation of the historic centre of
Sibiu (Hermannstadt, as the saxon settlers named it) came into being in early 1998, when an
2
international colloquy, held under the aegis of UNESCO, focused on the city's heritage . The
participants were able to evaluate the specific and the authenticity of the cultural heritage of
the City of Sibiu and of its surroundings. They agreed that, due to its inter-cultural roots, its
inter-ethnic and inter-religious tradition of dialogue, the cultural heritage of Sibiu represents
an essential contribution to the cultural diversity of Europe.
The contributions of the representatives of UNESCO and the Council of Europe, those
of the national boards and organisations from abroad having responsibilities in the field,
emphasised upon the fact that the cultural heritage of Sibiu is indeed world-wide regarded as
a place of cultural confluences, as a site where peace and civic values are prominent, and
therefore there is a strong European and international commitment for their preservation.
The debates identified the main problems the heritage of Sibiu is confronted with,
especially those which are threatening Sibius architectural heritage. Above everything, it was
highlighted the need for updating the legal framework for historic buildings preservation and
the legal provisions for their ownership, as essential prerequisites for a comprehensive
historic centre rehabilitation programme.
The proceedings identified the various threats of the cultural heritage of Sibiu, from the
neglect of owners and administrators, to the lack of full operational and coherent planning
provisions, from a alienation between various layers of the residents and their environment
and heritage to the spreading of kitsch, illegal or unsustainable development, from the very
poor financial resources for conservation to the lack of specialised craftsmanship.
It was emphasised also that Sibiu and its architectural heritage are threaten by the traffic
- [photo 8], especially the heavy through - traffic, and in this respect, the participants
suggested the need for an urgent study about the relationship between the city and its
surrounding, in order to set up a traffic proposal for the historic city.
The participants proposed that, in order to offer grounds for action, the Sibiu colloquy
has to have as sequels several highly specialised meetings in:
1. defining the vision of the rehabilitation of the cultural and natural heritage of
Sibiu, in order to provide new horizons of hope and confidence in its destiny,
authenticity and diversity;
2. legal and social issues directly related to the rehabilitation of the historic city;
3. economic issues related to the rehabilitation of the historic city;
1

Just recently, for example, new small bed and breakfast facilities were developing in several historic
city centers, especially along European routes.
2

The colloquy's full title: Sibiu/Hermannstadt, European Confluences. Sibiu / Romania, May 1998,
under the aegis of UNESCO & the Council of Europe.

4. intervention priorities; integration of international support into a comprehensive

conservation programme for sustainable development;
5. strategic co-ordination of the rehabilitation of the historic city; the international
promotion of the city and its surroundings and for their rehabilitation programme.
As a direct follow-up of the colloquy's conclusions, the Government approved an
ordinance establishing the rehabilitation of the area as a matter of national interest, and
1
extending this concern to a wide hinterland around Sibiu .
Several initiatives were since then focused in that area coming either from governmental
agencies, (Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Culture), such as:

elaborating the technical specifications for the erection of some 200 social
houses

elaborating the technical specifications for the Sibiu by-pass

restoration of several historic buildings of special interest or being in a critical

state - [photo 12].

Particularly, the Ministry of Culture developed a programme of raising the awareness

2
upon the importance of the cultural heritage of Sibiu, its opportunities and threats . This
succeeded in getting the support of the locals for their active involvement in preserving and
enhancing their heritage, and eventually, in gathering different international contributions for
3
the programme . The City Council allocated a comparative large amount of funds for
infrastructure improvement in the city centre and elaborated the town's Urban General
Development Plan.
International contributions to the programme consisted in:

Establishing a cultural trail throughout the historic city centre (Luxemburg/Council of

4
Europe contribution - [photo 13]),

Restoration of one of the XVIIIth century landmarks of the city and its transformation
5
as a cultural centre (Luxemburg contribution [photo 14]),

Elaborating a study of the city's and region's potential for sustainable development
6
(Flemish contribution ) , and

The urban rehabilitation programme lead and financed by the German Development
7
Agency (GTZ) .

10.4.2 The GTZ Urban Rehabilitation Programme for Sibiu.

The GTZ team worked closely with the staff assigned to the Sibiu Programme by the
Ministry of Culture, first of all in

GO 5/1999

A video tape with the documentary "Sibiu/Hermannstadt", Director Dumitru BUDRALA, was
produced by the MoC and performed on national and international TV networks, and displayed at
international events.
3

The launching in Sibiu of the Campaign of the Council of Europe "Europe, a Common Heritage" (12
September 1999) was a formal recognition of the succesf of the campaign to introduce Sibiu as a
European heritage project.
4
Council of Europe Institut of Coultural Routes, Luxemburg, with the support of dr. Hermann FABINI,
arch, Sibiu
5
Both projects supported heavily by the Service des Sites et Monuments Nationaux, Georges
CALTEUX, Director
6
Sibiu/Hermannstadt - Romania, Towards a Sustainable Rehabilitation and Development Plan for The
Historic City, study report, Groep Planning, Bruges, January 2001
7
GTZ Project 95.4808.2.-026.00, co-ordinated by Arch. Steffen Mildner, Leipzig, FRG

Gathering all relevant data upon actors and their involvement in activities targeting
1
the rehabilitation of the Sibiu historic city centre , and

Planning actions, assesing objectives, structuring priorities and evaluating progress

through 4 workshops that have put together local and central authorities, with experts
and businesses located in the area, in the so/called "orientation phase"

A workshop specifically dedicated to the issues to be tackled was organized in August

1999, with the participation of the different actors involved in the rehabilitation of the city
centre. The result was a scheme describing the complex problems of the city centre and a
precise distribution of tasks between the local, the central, or the regional authorities, as well
as expected contributions to be brought by NGO's, international contributors, or local
economic agents.
As a component of the orientation phase, a comprehensive social study concerning the
inhabitants of the city centre and the state of their dwellings was accomplished with the help
of the German experts. The study showed that important changes did happen lately in the
perception of the historic centre. Even though many inhabitants complain about the state and
the equipment of their homes located in the city centre, they are (85%) willing to improve
their living condition rather than to move.
After interviewing some 750 households living in the historic district of Sibiu, the results
were2:
State of dwellings and sociological profile of the inhabitants of the Sibiu city
centre:
Structure of the ownership:

Ownership status and the state of the

buildings

Owneroccupied

60%

Tenants of the - Town Hall

25%

Unrenovated

50%

- Church

6%

Partially renovated

39%

- Private owners

7%

Fully renovated

11%

- Others

2%

State of the building stock

Completely renovated

9%

Partially renovated

37%

Partially renovated

37%

Church

Owneroccupied

Town Hall
Unrenovated

63%

Partially renovated

31%

Fully renovated

6%

Density (persons/room)
1 person dwelling

0,67

Unrenovated

45%

2 persons/dwelling

1,12

Partially renovated

50%

3 persons/dwelling

1,79

Fully renovated

5%

4 persons/dwelling

2,27

5 persons/dwelling

2,65

Private owners
Unrenovated

45%

Partially renovated

50%

Size of dwellings

As from the Report on the GTZ Mission for the preparation of the orientation phase, July 1999

As December 1999

Fully renovated

5%

Others

Up to 30 sq.

11%

30 60 sq.

40%

Unrenovated

64%

60 90 sq.

30%

Partially renovated

14%

More than 90 sq.

19%

Fully renovated

21%

Structure of building stock in respect to

the occupiers income
Gr.A-Very low income (min. income)

State of the building stock in respect to

the occupiers income
Renovated

292 housing units

Gr. B- 44%

Gr.B-Low income (up to average inc.)

260 housing units

Gr. A- 43%
Gr. C- 13%

Partially renovated

Gr.C-Medium income (average inc. +)

Gr. A- 51%
Gr. B- 38%
Gr. C- 10%

186 housing units

Unrenovated

Gr. A- 64%
Gr. B- 31%
Gr. C- 5%

Number of persons/dwelling

Double use for bedroom (745 units)

1 person

22%

Livingroom / bedroom

446 units

2 persons

29%

Kitchen / bedroom

52 units

3 persons

20%

Other / bedroom

15 units

4 persons

17%

5 and + persons

12%

Common use of sanitary facilities

30% of dwellings have external toilets, 57%
of which are of common use
8% of dwellings have external kitchen, 27%
of which are of common use
7% of dwellings have external bath, 36% of
which are of common use
Occupational structure of the
inhabitants
Self-employed

1%

Unemployed

8%

Workers

16%

Students

19%

Clerks

24%

Retired

32%

Demographical structure of the historic

center

Improvements to the dwelling in the

past 10 years

0-9 years old

9%

Repaint the interior

41%

10-19 years old

14%

Roof repair

16%

20-29 years old

13%

Exterior re-plastering

10%

30-39 years old

14%

Water supply and sewerage

8%

40-49 years old

14%

Bathroom renovation

7%

50-59 years old

10%

Flooring

5%

60-69 years old

13%

Windows and door repair

4%

70-79 years old

10%

Other

9%

80+ years old

2%

Demographical structure of the city

Repairwork initiated by

0-9 years old

14%

The owner

50%

10-19 years old

18%

The owner-occupier

21%

20-29 years old

15%

The tenant

29%

30-39 years old

18%

40-49 years old

13%

50-59 years old

10%

Done by himself

35%

60-69 years old

8%

Commissioned to a firm

65%

70-79 years old

3%

80+ years old

1%

Desire for moving out

Repairwork initiated by the owner

Willingness to do improvements to the

dwelling
Repainting

25%

Roof repair

20%

Yes

15%

Plastering

11%

No

85%

Water supply and sewerage

7%

Insulation

7%

Security systems

6%

Motivation for moving out

More comfort

30%

Windows and doors

6%

Larger dwelling

30%

Flooring

5%

Sound construction

25%

Bathroom renovation

3%

Cheaper housing

8%

Garden renovation

3%

Other

7%

Other

7%

Effective help for improvement work

received from:
Places to move out

Family

15%

Historic quarter locations

58%

Friends

11%

Outside historic quarter

25%

Neighborhood associations

9%

Within city limits

3%

In the countryside

1%

Other places

12%

Lack of comfort motivated by

Dampness

35%

Unsatisfactory sanitation

34%

Lack of room space

6%

Other

25%

The conclusions of the orientation phase were contained in a Charter for the
Rehabilitation of the Historic Center, a document drawn together with the local experts, the
representatives of local and central authorities, and submitted to the approval of the
Committee Sibiu 2000, a co-ordination board established by the GO 5/1999. The Charter
was also meant to be a guideline for further planning and building approvals, until the new
building regulation for the city centre will be enforced. The newly elected Mayor (June 2000)
endorsed the principles of the Charter and promised his support for implementing it.
10.4.3 The Charter for The Rehabilitation of The Historic Centre
The Charter was initiated in March 2000, as a document leading to a strategic approach
in the city's centre rehabilitation. After having considered the opinions and the expertise of
conservationists, architects and art historians, local planning and local heritage protection
authorities, local representatives of trades, businesses and development agency, elaborated
in close co-operation with the Flemish planning group "Groep Planning" and with the support
of the Romanian Ministry of Culture, the Charter was the subject of a workshop (3rd and 4th of
April 2000) that gathered also the important local stakeholders, as the representatives of the
Evangelic Church, one of the important landowners in the city. It was also a subject of media
debate. The principles of the Charter were presented at an international colloquy on historic
preservation in Transilvania on the 27th of April 2000, in the presence of HRH The Prince of
Wales. Most of all, the Charter established a platform of consensus between the candidates
at the mayorship of the city in the local elections of June 2000.
Following the conclusions of the 1998 Sibiu International Colloquy, the Charter asses
that the ultimate purpose of the rehabilitation is to preserve the liveability of the heritage and
to convert it into a base for sustainable development.
Several basic principles were set up for the rehabilitation programme, structured as
follows:
1. Conservation of the townscape through:

Consolidation of the endangered structures

Retaining the traditional roof landscape

Maintenance of the facades

Employing traditional methods and original material in repairwork

Revitalization of the inner courtyards

2. Improving the residential use of the City Centre through:

Reducing the density and improving the living conditions

Build an advisory and support system for a careful, gradual and cost saving
approach in rehabilitating the dwellings

Sustain a broader demographic and social range

3. Retail trade improvement through

Extension of the commercial streets

A supportive programme to increase quality and specialisation of the commercial

premises

Restrictive permissions for new trade areas outside the centre

4. Revival and reinforcement of local traditional services and professions through

Support to traditional arts and crafts

Stimulate vertical mix of functions around public spaces and commercial streets

5. Build a sustainable cultural tourism trough

A tourism concept, an information centre and a tourist industry union

Improvement of the touristic facilities

6. Infrastructural renovation having as main objectives:

To open up new financial sources for investment

To impose charges related to use

To identify and avoid leaks in the water and sewerage system

To implement a respectful system of services into the historic buildings

7. Traffic Management targeted to reduce traffic in the City Centre through:

Keeping the centre clear of through traffic

More pedestrian areas

New parking lots at the limits of the city centre

Better public transport

8. Public spaces and urban green should be enhanced by:

Developing a green concept for the city

Improving the potential of the main squares

Reopening of historic passageways

Developing a green belt along the former fortification.

The follow-up consisted in establishing a sequence of steps and mechanisms the private
owner has to follow in order to get advice and planning approval from the City Hall (who
organized a specific planning department to deal with the issues of the historic centre) and
financial and technical support from the GTZ program.
10.4.4 The Consultation and Grant for Restoration Programme
The implementation phase consists firstly in developing local professional and
administrative capacities, initiating and managing rehabilitation actions in the city centre, as
well as maintaining momentum for such initiatives. This was thought to be obtained
throughout medium size interventions in partnership with the local and central authorities
(infrastructure repair, tourism development, demonstrative projects at major landmarks of the
City [photo 15]).
Also, it comprised a system of consultation and grant for restoration programme:

technical and economical expertise to owners or tenants willing to do repairwork

at faades, roof, masonry or to do equipment improvement work at bathrooms,
install heating systems or internal refurbishment,

financial contribution (Rehabilitation Grant) for works improving the living

conditions, in respect to the conservation principles,

financial contribution (Conservation Grant) for repairwork to historic gateways

and porches.

Both owners and tenants are eligibile for receving such grants, their amount being up to
50% of the total cost but no more than 500 Million Lei (18,000 USD).
In 2001, 10 demonstrative projects of dwelling rehabilitation will be financed, as well as
25 conservation work at historic gateways or porches. Up to now, owners and tenants came
to seek advice and financial support, and a programme of short up-grading courses in
building conservation techniques is underway.
10.4.5 A political failure: The revitalization of Bucharest's City historic centre
10.4.5.1

Lipscania, the core of historic Bucharest

The Lipscania is the area were formerly the city of Bucharest was founded. It gatherers
on a 1,25 sqkm area the archaeological remnants of neolithical and bronze settlements
underneath a historic built up area which was mainly erected mid and late XIXth century,
after the great fire of 1849 [photo 16]. Among merchant houses, retail premises, small pubs
and restaurants and bank headoffices, three churches from mid XVIth up to early XVIIIth
century and the remains of the Princely Court [photo 17] mark the place were Bucharest
became the capital of vallachia and next the modern Romania.
The population of the area counts for 4,500 people (1,445 families) living in 1,380
apartments [photo 18].
1

The area still retains its commercial traditional status , togather with a new financial
2
district feature, both stimulated by the central position in the city [photo 19].
10.4.5.2

Initiatives in revitalization

Even though several restoration work were carried out during the 70s, the area was
doomed by the socialist regime. Not suprinsingly, immediately after 1990, several appeals for
the rehabilitation of the area were made by architects, conservationists, historians and
archaeologists.
A mission of technical assistance was assigned by the British know-how fund in 1993,
seizing the potential for revitalization and suggesting some immediate and medium term
measures to be taken.
In 1995, a foundation was established by the local banks, togather with the National
Bank and the municipality, in order to raise funds and implement conservation and
revitalization measures. A comprehensive study about the characteristics and the potential of

Some 2,000 people earn their lives in the area, besides the financial institutions.

A study performed in 1996 showed that the City Council administrated then built up areas in
Lipscania as follows:

Foodstuff
retail

Restaurants,
snack-bars,
pubs

Retail

Culture

Banks

Services

Dwellings

1232 mp

16.825 mp

41.622 mp

13.616 mp

3.350 mp

47.181 mp

268.318 mp

GO 129/1998

the site was carried out and handed-out to the City Hall. In the same period, a study for the
local development plan and a study for the traffic improvemenrt were started.
In early 1996, a mission of the City Council performed a study tour in Great Britain, in
order to find out the practical means and the results of inner city revitalization programmes,
targeted to the issues displayed by the Lipscania.
In the same period, a PHARE Application was drafted for the establiushment of a local
Regeneration Agency.
10.4.5.3

Political neglect and consequences

The local conflicts of interest inside the City Council, the local election campaign (MayJune 1996) and next the general elections (October/November same year) made a halt in the
process of establishing and implementing a strategy of regeneration for the area. A
1
Governmental Ordinance issued to establish 2 agencies for the area , one for the
development of the modern city centre, the other for the conservation of the historic city
centre, never had any consequences, until January 2001 when it was aborted. Neither today,
the political disputes between the local and the central government allow at east a fresh start
for the regeneration of the area [photo 20].
10.4.5.4

The protection of the architectural heritage of the area

The area is protected as an "Urban Architectural Reserve Area" (similar to a

Conservation Area or Secteur Sauvegarde). Besides this, there are 10 ensembles, 93
buildings being listed, out of which 56 having the status of architectural monument. Even
though in such areas building permits should normally have the approval of the Ministry of
Culture and the Ministry of Public Works, the lack of interest of the municipality leads to
various disregard to the respect and care for historic properties and public spaces [photo 21].
10.4.6 Local pride initiatives: Arad, Alba-Iulia and Oradea
All three cases have something in common: the ambition to promote the city by
enhancing his major landmark: the Citadel of Arad or the one of Alba Iulia, the main
commercial street of Oradea.
Arad is the beneficiary of a large XVIIIth century citadel of Vauban style, which is to be
converted from military use to an academic and trade/commercial one [photo 22].
Alba Iulia started a programme of marketing the city with the label of its XVIIIth century
baroque fortress and the opportunity of Year 2000 [photo 23].
As for Oradea, the Art Nouveau main commercial street is to be the pride and the
symbol of its regeneration as an European town [Oradea.ppt.].
10.4.7 The rehabilitation of the local urban heritage as a lifevest for communities
In many cases, the urban settlements which had a prosperous economic past
degenerated today in unemployment and decay. Some of the local authorities confronted to
this situation had thought that architectural heritage rehabilitation might bring a new hope
and a fresh start for their communities.
There is the case of Targu Jiu with its famous Endless Column by Brancusi, Sulina
recalling its role as the place where the headoffices of the European Danube Commission
were or Iasi, as the cultural capital of the Moldavian region and one of the major Orthodox
pilgrimage centres.
Ts interesting to notice that out of 260 towns in the country 167 posess architectural
2
heritage significant enough to be considered of national interest .

Table 2, chart 1

Annex 1
1. Urban historic center conservation areas in Romania
1. Alba Iulia

28. Deva

55. Ramnicu Sarat

2. Abrud

29. Drobeta -Turnu Severin

56. Rasnov

3. Aiud

30. Fagaras

57. Reghin

4. Anina

31. Falticeni

58. Resita

5. Arad

32. Fieni

59. Roman

6. Bistrita

33. Gherla

60. Rupea

7. Blaj

34. Giurgiu

61. Sacele

8. Botosani

35. Harsova

62. Satu Mare

9. Brad

36. Hateg

63. Sebes

10. Braila

37. Husi

64. Sfantu Gheorghe

11. Brasov

38. Iasi

65. Sibiu

12. Bucuresti

39. Ineu

66. Sighisoara

13. Busteni

40. Lipova

67. Sinaia

14. Buzau

41. Medgidia

68. Slatina

15. Buzias

42. Medias

69. Suceava

16. Campulung Muscel

43. Nadlac

70. Sulina

17. Caracal

44. Odorheiu Secuiesc

71. Targoviste

18. Caransebes

45. Oradea

72. Targu Jiu

19. Cernavoda

46. Orastie

73. Targu Mures

20. Cisnadie

47. Oravita

74. Targu Neamt

21. Cluj-Napoca

48. Pancota

75. Targu Secuiesc

22. Codlea

49. Pecica

76. Timisoara

23. Colibasi

50. Piatra Neamt

77. Tulcea

24. Comarnic

51. Pitesti

78. Turda

25. Constanta

52. Ploiesti

79. Vaslui

26. Craiova

53. Pucioasa

80. Vatra Dornei

27. Curtea de Arges

54. Radauti

81. Zarnesti

Annex 2
List of laws, ordinances or by-laws having relevance with the preservation of the urban
architectural heritage (1990-1999)
Title and date of enforcement
Decree 187/1990
Acceptance of the Convention on the
Preservation of the Cultural and Natural
Heritage, adopted by the UNESCO
Law 50/1991
Concerning Building Permits and Housing
Law 18/1991
Agricultural Land
Law 69/1991
Local Public Authorities
Government Ordinance GO 27/1992
Concerning Provisional Regulations in
Respect to the Preservation of the Cultural
Heritage (Approved through Law 11/1994)
Law 33/1994
Compulsory Purchase
Government Ordinance GO 68/1994
Concerning the Preservation of the Cultural
Heritage (Approved through Law 41/1995)
Law 27/1994
Local Taxes
Law 112/1995
Concerning the Legal Status of
Nationalized Dwellings
Government Ordinance GO 24/1997
Regarding supplementary provisions for the
protection of the cultural heritage (modifying
L41/1995), approved by Law 56/1998
Law for the ratification of the Council of
Europe Convention (revised) on the
protection of Archaeological Heritage (La
Valetta) L 150/1997
Law L 157/1997 for the ratification of the
Council of Europe Convention for the
Protection of the Architectural Heritage of
Europe (Granada Convention)
Governmental Ordinance 43/2000
concerning the preservation of
archaeological heritage and issueing
archaeological priority research areas

Regulation of
Participation of Romania at the UNESCO World
Heritage Convention
Authorization of constructions, including work at
historic monuments and approval of work in
conservation or protection areas
Public ownership of the land underneath historic
monuments
General duties of local authorities in respect of
the preservation of the natural and cultural
environment
Establishing the regulations concerning the
outlining of the protection zones of the historic
monuments and issuing the compulsory
planning approval for developments in protection
areas
Allows the State or the Counties to consider
compulsory purchase for the protection of built
cultural heritage
Issuing Architectural and Urban Reservations as
complex historic areas; establishing the tasks of
the National Commission on Historic
Monuments (NCHM) and of the Ministry of
Culture (MoC)
Exempts the owners of historic monuments from
taxes on buildings and land underneath,
providing that the historic monument is not used
for commercial purposes.
Exempts the nationalized dwellings - historic
monuments from being acquired by their tenants
Defining operations of enhancement of the built
cultural heritage, co-financing of restoration work
and announcing the possibility to finance works
of conservation at privately owned historic
monuments
Implementing the European standards of
protection of the archaeological heritage into
Romanian legislation.
Implementing the European standards of
protection of the architectural heritage into
Romanian legislation.
Set-up a comprehensive system of preservation
for the archaeological heritage from areas of
archaeological potential and from the urban
development areas, establishing the tasks of the
relevant scientifical and administrative bodies
involved, complying with the provisions of the
CoE Convention of La Valetta (1992)

Governmental Ordinance 47/2000

concerning provisions for the special care
for the Romania's UNESCO World Heritage
Sites

L5/2000 approving the IIIrd part of the

National Plan for the Teritorial
Development, establishing the protected
areas of national cultural interest
Governmental Ordinance 228/2000
concerning the preservation of the historic
monuments
Government Decision GD 525/1996
General Urban Plan (Urban Structural Plan)
Regulations

Establishing the principles for the co/operation

between the local and central authorities in the
preservation and the enhancement of the World
Heritage in Romania. Seting up a system of
monitoring and preservation responsabilities
jointly assumed by the MoC and MoPublic
Works with the County Councils. Allowing the
local authorities to contribute with local budgets
support for the care and the maintenance of
buildings inside the WH site's limits
Seting up a list of some 600 architectural
monuments generating protected areas of
national interest and establishing the procedures
for the outlining of such areas.
Up-dating the GO 68/1994 (to be transformed in
law in near future)
Regulate the contents and the prescriptions of
the General Urban Plan (Urban Structural Plan)
in towns containing historic conservation areas.

Table 1: Historic monuments, entries in the list by categories (1999)

Archaeological
structures
3,957

Listed buildings

Memorials

Art monuments

14,899

291

1,468

Conservation
areas
404

Table 2: Urban architectural heritage generating protected areas of national interest

Type of architectural heritage
Citadels
Princely Courts
Fortified churches
Castles, palaces and halls
Urban ensembles
Churces and monasteries
Industrial heritage
Antique and byzantine fortifications
Civil buildings
Antique settlements

Urban settlements
13
7
1
4
20
78
8
19
70
5

180

167

160
140
120
100

78

70

80
60
40
20

20

13

19
8

5
Towns with protected areas of natl.
interest

Antique settlements

Antique fortifications

Industrial heritage

Churches, monasteries

Ensembles

Civil architecture

Castles, palaces

Fortified churches

Princely courts

Citadels

Scheme 1: The listing process

Proposals

Documentation

Individuals
Local auth.
NGO's
Experts
MoC

MoC
Experts
NGO's

Appraisal

MoC County
Department
for Cultural
Heritage

National
Commission
for Historic
Monuments

Advice/Appeal

Appeal
Owner,
Administrator

Decision

MoC Ministerial Order

Official Gazette

Scheme 2: Inspection, monitoring and support granting system

Class A Monuments (of national or

international importance)

Inspection:

Class B monuments (of regional or

local importance)

Inspection:

The Directorate for Historic

Monuments (DHM)

The County Department for

Cultural Heritage (CDCH)

Monitoring:

Monitoring:

MoC County Departments for

Cultural Heritage

MoC County Departments for

Cultural Heritage

MoPW County Inspectorates

MoPW County Inspectorates

Works approval:

Works approval:

NCHM, CDCH

CDCH

Financial support:

MoC

Financial support:

MoC, Local Authorities